Had nobody at the Washington Post taken any notice, he might well have got away with it. Yet his misdeeds during the 1972 Presidential campaign were highlighted and investigated to the point where resignation was his only option.
There have been countless other examples of journalism taking on the (at best) incompetent and (at worst) corrupt.
Sport is no different to the field of politics - it happens there as well and has been exposed by reporters who would not - and could not - take 'no' for an answer.
David Walsh took down Lance Armstrong over doping when it seemed the then-renown cyclist was 'untouchable'.
Ditto Andrew Jennings when years of tireless investigation paid off when Sepp Blatter's corrupt reign at Fifa came to an end that saw another 'untouchable' figure in the form of Herr Blatter be flung out of football in disgrace.
So, when someone from The Offshore Game website - which is part of the Tax Justice Network - releases a report lifting the lid on the Scottish Football Association's inept handling of the Rangers tax case, you'd expect something like this to be followed-up and pursued by the rest of the media.
Normally, as the Armstrong and Fifa cases highlighted above have shown, this is the case. Accountability gains a louder voice with the pressure caused by the volume forcing an investigation to take place - with the occasional head rolling in the process.
Yet so far....... radio silence has hit the airwaves. It's the sequel to 4'33" that John Cage never wrote.
First things first though, before we continue, as it is important that the below should be read first.
The Offshore Game's report in short can be read here.
The Offshore Game's report in full can be read here.
Not very pleasant reading if you are connected with the SFA - after all, it's pretty damning stuff on the shoddy manner in which they handled this affair.
Some highlights from the report are as follows:
Not to mention the SFA. Should his role been more open to scrutiny? Why were his statements not challenged? Was his long-service as a Rangers employee taken into account against his statements?
Why wasn't more investigation done by the SFA to verify Rangers' 'argument' that they had not 'broken' any Uefa rules on tax money owed?
Did the SFA and/or Rangers fully disclose all information surrounding this issue to Uefa themselves? If so, why did Uefa not act? If not, why was this information withheld from Uefa.
As the report highlights, had Rangers not lost to Malmo in the Champion's League qualifying stage, they would have stood to cash in on the riches that the group stages bring - something that would have aided them in keeping them afloat given the financial predicament they were in.
In light of this revelation, have the SFA sought to atone for their oversight in terms of financial compensation for those who missed out? Namely Celtic and Motherwell.
Celtic, having been pipped to the 2010/11 league title, would have stepped into Rangers' Champion's League slot had the SFA enforced Uefa's rule.
While there is no guarantee that Celtic would have negotiated the qualifying round, the fact that the opportunity was denied to them by this 'oversight' potentially cost the Parkhead side a chance of reaping in Champion's League cash.
Celtic had beaten Motherwell in the 2010/11 Scottish Cup final.
Before a change in the SFA's rules in 2014, if a club that had already qualified for the top European competition (the Champion's League) won the Scottish Cup, the spot offered to the second tier European competition for Scottish Cup winners, the Europa League, would instead go to the runners-up.
Had today's rules applied back then (runner-up of Scottish Cup not getting a sniff of European football full stop), then Kilmarnock, who finished fifth in the league in 2010/11 would have been eligible.
However, under the rules back then, Motherwell were the team that were Scottish Cup runners-up that season.
And had Rangers been properly excluded for not fulfilling Uefa's tax criteria, they would have been playing in Europe the following season.
Instead they were denied this by the SFA's 'oversight'.
Has suitable financial recompense for this 'error' been made available by the SFA to both Motherwell and Celtic for opportunities in Europe that were wrongly denied to them for, at best, an 'error'?
Would the same 'oversight' likely to have been applied to the likes of Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs, Dundee United etc as well? Or was this a one-off?
Regardless, do the SFA accept that they were responsible for allowing this 'oversight' to go through which could have benefited one club had they made it into the Champion's League group stage proper?
The report comments of affairs not connected with the ongoing criminal case. Let's be very clear on that.
The rest of the extract is self-explanatory. Will those at the SFA present in their positions at the time of this affair be resigning their posts? Will there also be an independent inquiry into those events and who will chair it?
One add-on that is not mentioned in the report was when Campbell Ogilvie left Rangers to take up a position as Operations Manager at Hearts.
Not long after his appointment, the then-owner of Hearts, Vladimir Romanov, launched a series of missives on the club website towards Rangers with allegations of 'cheating'.
In light of that, did Campbell Ogilvie disclose information about the EBT scheme to Hearts? As Mr Romanov is currently in hiding in Russia on charges brought against him by the courts in Lithuania, only Mr Ogilvie, for now, is able to make himself available for comment on that question - much as it would be insightful to get Mr Romanov's answers on this and other (unrelated) matters surrounding his tenure at Hearts.
Also, why did Campbell Ogilvie not relinquish his 3505 shares in Rangers upon taking up his post at Hearts?
Why did he wait three years, and a promotion by Hearts to the role of Chief-Executive, to jettison them (to his Karolina)?
When the EBT affair came to light, did Regan thoroughly quiz Ogilvie on his role and how much he knew? If not, why not? Why wasn't Ogilvie suspended from his duties until completion of an SFA investigation?
Who had the deciding role in rubber-stamping Rangers' application to play in European Competition ahead of season 2011/12? Regan or Ogilvie? Who presided over the application without scrutiny of whether or not they had broken Uefa's tax rule?
Was Scotland's European co-efficient (the fact that it was dropping) a factor in allowing Rangers to compete in Europe even though they were not entitled to?
Given that this was a serious oversight and that Rangers were allowed to play in Europe despite being in breach of Uefa's tax rule (thus denying two other clubs, Celtic and Motherwell, the level of European competition that they were entitled to), will Regan and Ogilvie be relinquishing their current posts at the SFA given this happened on their watch?
If they are not resigning their positions, why not? Won't their continued presence undermine what's left of the SFA's credibility given the incompetence highlighted in this affair?
However, it seems, judging by the silence, that accountability is not being demanded and that the SFA, might just get away with it.
Which does appear to be very peculiar. A report has been released suggesting levels of incompetence within the Scottish game's ruling body yet not a peep from those in the fourth estate with pens that are supposed to be mightier than any sword.
Because so far, at the time of writing, the other clubs in Scotland do not seem to be approaching this matter with the same vigour that they did when the SFA tried to gerrymander the new Rangers club into the top divisions back in 2012.
Surely it is in the clubs' own interests to pursue the SFA to ensure that the ruling body governs the game both efficiently and fairly?
Even more important for the fourth estate to shine its investigative light on the SFA on this very serious matter?
After all, close scrutiny and the demand for accountability was centred on the SFA with radar-like precision over a plane not being made available for the Scotland team to fly back home from Georgia last year.
Richard Nixon back on the 70s would no doubt have been wishing those at The Washington Post back in the 1970s were focussing on aeroplanes instead of his mismanagement.
Perhaps Hampden, not the Oval Office, was best suited for him.
Ask the likes of Regan and Ogilvie.