Essentially, Watergate involved a group of burglars that were a part of the Nixon Re-election campaign breaking into the Watergate Hotel, attempting to wire tap phones and steal secret documents, presumably in the hopes that they would find incriminating evidence on his campaign opponent.
Nobody is entirely sure if Nixon was actually involved with or knew of the burglars who infiltrated the hotel; however his actions after the fact were fairly incriminating as he moved to fire suspicious staff members and to ward off potential investigations by the FBI. He also attempted to keep people quiet using bribes in the form of money and gifts.
President Ford did go ahead and pardon Nixon for his crimes, but when you consider the U.S. Constitution and how the country expects integrity from its leadership, I do believe Nixon's eventual resignation was warranted. Solely on the demerit of Watergate alone, and not counting his other fiascoes that we've only discovered more recently, he still committed political sabotage. In a sense, it is treasonous by the Constitution's definition that "acts of sedition against the Government" is treason.
He not only engaged in treason against his opponent if he WAS involved directly with the burglars -- indirectly, he would have been going against our government's very processes without any reason. The only time the Constitution gives us leeway to plot against our own government (or by effect it's processes) is if the government is being unfairly turned against the people. This makes the very idea of Nixon's actions a technical form of treason, and he could have gotten far worse than he had, considering if the public impeached him he may have also been criminally charged and possibly executed for treason.
Content will be erased after question is completed.