Transcripts For CSPAN3 1973 20240706

Welcome to the National Press club. I covered as a very young reporter, a baby good evening. Welcome to the National Press club. I covered watergate as a very young reporter, a baby reporter, they just let me come in diapers. I covered from the hearings to the trials. I am especially elated to be here this evening i went like to welcome cspan and the cspan audience. This is being filmed for cspans American History tv. Our program tonight marks the 50th anniversary of the saturday night massacre that ultimately led to president nixons resignation in the scandal. It was a significant event in the nations political history to say the least. The National Press club played an Important Role on it, special prosecutor cox, who i would later be lucky enough to become friends with held his News Conference here on the afternoon of october 20th, right in the clubs ballroom. It was at that Historic Press conference that he insisted that president nixon turn over the tapes. We will see a clip later, i think we had seen it when we wrote this without it would be later but it was firstperiod this is wonderful irony. The club held its first Fourth Estate awards ceremony honoring the lifetime achievements of preeminent journalist walter cronkite. As the iconic cbs anchor was delivering his remarks, word began to spread throughout the ballroom that nixon had fired archie cox and his attorney general Eliot Richardson had resigned it it seemed as if, i do remember this, the whole system of laws in the United States was hanging by a thread, the only thing worse is what we saw in 2020 on january 6. People at that time began running in and out of the ballroom, walter carr on kite halted his remarks. The abrupt firing of the special prosecutor turned out to be the biggest story of modern political times and it led to the unraveling of the nixon presidency area forever changing the american presidency as we know it today. Tonights moderator, whom you will hear from in a while, ken gormley wrote the biography of archie cox. It is a gripping account if you have not read it president warmly is an awardwinning author, presentational squat scholar, residential historian and lots of other things. I think originally i was supposed introduce him, since he has been up here, the person i guess im supposed introduce is the man that we missed terribly youre going to do that . Okay, he could do that. This is called fly by the seat of your payouts. Here is the maestro, ken gormley. Thank you very much, nd Jill Winebanks has now made it into the hall. One thing we learned is that things happen to thank you very much, nina had jill wind banks has not made it into the hall. Strange things happen to prosecutors this time of year and washington. She was delayed a little bit. It is my honor to be a part of this event and i would like to welcome everyone gathered for this historic occasion including the viewers watching this program on cspan is history tv. A special welcome to extinguish guests, alums general Michael Hayden and his wife janine, u. S. Senator mark warner and his wife lisa. August and krista lucio, retired congressman mike doyle and so many others tonight. My thanks to the National Press for hosting us and my special thanks to nina. Truly one of washingtons most respected journalist for kicking off this program as we seek to preserve an important piece of American History. As nina said, it was my privilege to watch the but write the biography of Archibald Cox, he was one of the great leaders of the 20th century. He served as president john f. Kennedys solicitor general, he argued many of the civil rights cases in the 1960s and the Supreme Court and then found himself drafted into the unpleasant job of serving as Watergate Special prosecutor. One of the wonderful things about working on the cox biography is having the ability to interview the incredible cast of prominent individuals who worked with cox, not just in watergate but throughout his career. One of those people was a young thirtysomething lawyer at the time working on the it branch of the watergate investigation who went on to be a lifelong colleague and friend of professor cox is at Harvard Law School and remained close to archie until his death in 1992 age of 92 in 2004. Along the way he built his own illustrious career in academia and Public Service ultimately being appointed by president bill clinton to the u. S. Supreme court in 1994 where he served with distinction as associate justice until his retirement in 2022. I have to say his office in the Supreme Court is a little more spacious and less susceptible to bugging that his office on k street was. His he works tirelessly to advance the system of laws and justice. It is my great honor to introduce you a Great American jurist, scholar, and public servant, Justice Stephen breyer , retired justice of the United States Supreme Court. It, the nicest thing about that film, everybody looked great at thank you. It is nice to see so many of you that i recognize. The nicest thing about that film, everyone looked great. I am your fourth introducer. I had a minor role in working for archie. One of the four things we had to do was look up, remember deidre beard, she wrote a memo, the president of the Republican Party told me our noble commitment was to give them space in the hotel with the Republican National convention went a long way to getting our antitrust case called off. Archie and the others wanted me to start and prepare the groundwork for davis and joe conley who came later. I had a minor role. From my point, it is not what i contributed, it is what i learned. I did learn quite a bit. I will give you a few examples why did Eliot Richardson quit . One reason, it was not just a moral judgment, he also told the senate he wouldnt. He wouldnt quit in the circumstances. I thought, pretty good. In those days i wonder if that would still be true. You make a promise to the senate that is making a promise to the American People. I am sure that was in his mind. It is not just quitting, he was a professional politician. That was the end of his career and he knew that was going to happen and he thought, i promised it, i said i would do it, i will do it that is an attitude that i think would help a lot among the younger. They want to see how to behave, there is. Archie was a man of the most integrity that he ever met. That was true. How did he communicate that integrity to the staff . I think the words he used and showed us , you know what you doing this job . You do your job. He said i was not appointed to this in order to chase the president out of office. I was appointed to this to do an investigation, and thats what im going to do i will do an investigation, and thats what he did. That speech that produced those hundreds of telegrams, he made that clear. The way he put it was very new england. He said sometimes when i see was going on i think i have grown too big for my britches. Is and that new england . Thats what he wanted to stay away from. He is an investigator. Where it really turned up was, i happen to be there a day or so later when he was fired. Eliot richardson had promised the senate. He was the one who was fired. Bork had not promised the senate. He was not breaking a promise but archie said to the staff, i know everybody is excited, roughly, he did not say these words, i know you think everyone should quit, dont. You are here to do a job, do it stay here and do your job and thats what they did. We know the result. The third thing i learned, which i try to communicate to the students in front of me, this document here, this document that Alexander Hamilton and the others were so frightened would not work, they were going to hang in the smithsonian, they actually did not have the smithsonian, but they thought if we could not make this work it will not work. Had we get it to work . You worked and everybody for a few weeks and a bit longer, not so bad. Free press. Freespeech. It actually helped. Dont tell anyone i admitted that. It actually helped. You go and see the grand jury, it worked. It helped. All of these procedures that you have to go through in the criminal process, i learned a lot from people who knew about the process. Those things tend to show, subpoenas, a judge, all of those things tended to show that the words in this document meant something. They were not just there to hang in a museum. I remember phil and i stayed at ella burlings house and we drove in together. We said, after archie subpoenaed the documents, we set, suppose i believe it. Suppose what president nixon does remember the judge said turn over the documents. Turned them over. He could appeal. Suppose he did not appeal . Suppose what he did instead of appealing was just say, sending his lawyer over, im very sorry, judge, you are one of many judges in the United States and i respect your opinion and your orders but i cannot turn it over. Suppose he had not turned it over, what do we do then . How can he appeal . Years later i was sitting with charlie right, who is a very good procedure professor and nixons lawyer i said why did he do that . He said we couldnt, we thought of it, maybe hes thought charlie thought of it, but he said we couldnt, undermine the system. It would undermine the rule of law in the United States. I thought, i hope that is a true story, even there on the other side there was some thought this country lives under a constitution and this constitution is important to maintaining 334 Million People under a rule of law. Now it is my job to transmit some the things that i learned in large part here to the Younger Generation and i end by saying my friends, what should we do now . You are the ones who have to decide that it is your country and they like that because they are looking for something. They want to participate. Here we are. Thats what i have learned in my introduction is finished and now you have people involved. F distinguished guests today. First to my immediate left, Richard Benveniste served as thank you so much Justice Breyer. We do have an esteemed panel of guests today at first to my immediate left, richard, served as chief of the watergate breakin task force. Richard also served as assistant u. S. Attorney for the Southern District of new york special outside counsel for Government Operations acted as minority chief counsel of the Senate Whitewater committee and served on the bipartisan 9 11 commission. In recent years you have seen him as a legal analyst for cnn along with george frampton, he is the coauthor of the classic, stonewall, the real story of the watergate prosecution. Please welcome Richard Benjamin estee. Next is Jill Winebanks was the only female assistant Watergate Special executor. She later served as general counsel to the u. S. Army under president jimmy carter as solicitor general and Deputy Attorney general of illinois and as executive Vice President and ceo of the American Bar Association and and other positions of public trust. Today she is an analyst with msnbc and cohost of the very popular podcast sistersinlaw. She is also author of the acclaimed book watergate girl. Jill was a big help to me in organizing this program. Please welcome Jill Winebanks. [ applause ] next, a man who is familiar to all of you, bob woodward is associate editor of the Washington Post where he has worked since 1971. An iconic figure in american journalism, he has shared two Pulitzer Prizes first for coverage of the watergate scandal with Carl Bernstein and second as the lead reporter for coverage of the 9 11 terrorist attacks. He has written or coauthored dozens of awardwinning books including the classic all the president s men, and the final days, both related to watergate. Most recently, the trump tapes, and externally work a political nonfiction. Ladies and gentlemen, mr. Bob woodward. [ applause ] next, another familiar face, leslie stahl is among americas most respected and expressed broadcast journalist during her 30 year career as a 60 minutes correspondent. Leslie has received 13 emmy awards. She served as cbs News White House correspondent from 1972 to 1991. As a Young Journalist she cut her teeth on the watergate story. Please welcome the and comparable leslie stahl. [ applause ] finally jt smith served in the Central Intelligence agency before becoming executive assistant to Elliott Richardson , first when richardson served as secretary of hew, and then secretary of defense and finally may 1973 when richardson was named attorney general by president nixon. In later years jt served as general counsel of the Commerce Department and deputy special representative of the u. S. At the un conference. Please welcome jt smith, and all of our distinguished panelist. Audience may not havn alive during watergate or intentionally i am going to start with you, bob, for the benefit of members of the audience who may not have been alive during watergate or intentionally suppressed it, can you give us a brief snapshot of the watergate scandal which forms the backdrop of what we will be discussing tonight. No. Okay the next question. Senator irvin, who did the investigation, really the Gold Standard of the investigation of watergate was asked in his final report, what was watergate . His answer was, it was a successful attempt to subvert the process of nominating and electing a president. Irvin also asked the larger and more important question, why watergate . His answer was relevant, not only to nixon but recent events. His answer was why watergate and lust for political power . I think in many ways that is what watergate was and i will not conceal this, this is what donald trump was also. We will hopefully get to any comparisons toward the end of the program. Leslie, let me ask you because you were a broadcast journalist new at the time. If we can, can we watch a brief video clip of you and action from a recent cbs special on watergate . I came along in april 1972. Brandnew, i had just started. Washington bureau cbs was huge. Most of the reporters were out covering candidates. It was a subversion of our democracy. People have to know whether or not the president is a crook. I am not a crook. He said he was not a crook, but that was the point he was a crook. What were the men after at watergate . Who sent them . How are they paid . What is making republicans nervous is it is beginning to look as though some of the president s Reelection Committee may know the answers. You pretty much look the same. What do you recall in terms of the seriousness of the watergate investigation at that time in 1973 . One of the first things i remember, it was very early on after the breakin, bob woodward said do not let them ever take the story away from you. He knew from the beginning this was going right to the top, almost in the courtroom. Bob and i were in the courtroom when the original burglars were arraigned and they had 100 bills with consecutive numbers and funny passports, and you said this is big, right away. I was just trying to get a date. That part did not work out for you, bob. Oh, yes, it did. I think we will save that for the sequel what i remember and it haunts me. That is, how the republicans stood by him, nixon, and formed a little Protection Unit around him, almost up until the saturday night massacre. That is when the republican phalanx, they tried to protect him and they began to crumble. Everything does lead to this moment in terms of that presidency. The other thing i remember is at various times we really did think that he was committing a coup ditat. We thought he was going to send the military in and there was fear that he was going to destroy the democracy. We will get to that in a little bit. I do want to give everyone a little context. Archibald cox gets the call from Elliott Richardson asking him to serve as Watergate Special prosecutor in may of that year. Cox has just served as a de facto president of harvard during the very difficult student riots of the vietnam era he was exhausted he was getting ready to head to his farm in maine and Elliott Richardson called, he was coxes former student. He was named attorney general but his confirmation was dependent upon hiring a neutral special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this scandal that leslie was talking about. Archie hesitated and set he told phyllis he was going to be by everyone if he took the job but then he said i will do it who better to do this job than a law professor who is not going anywhere in public life anyway. He told elliott yes, they spent hours on the phone. Archie said that they wrote on cocktail napkins they were on the front coast the rules on how this Prosecution Office was set up. So richard, you joined the special prosecution you are a young lawyer. What was it that attracted you to taking on this job with cox and the investigation. I was head of the official corruption section and i had prosecuted the Administrative Assistant to the democratic speaker of the house and this was an area of potential significance we did not know at the time whether the allegations that john dean who was looking for immunity was going to be born out. It was a he said, she said, john dean was under tremendous pressure to give an account of what occurred and i watched from new york as an assistant u. S. Attorney like Many Americans and i was skeptical. Here is this one guy he is only a few years older than me how could nixon have revealed all this information that dean was talking about to this young guy and was the embellishing in order to get a better deal from the prosecutors who held his life in such jeopardy. This is something that i would really love to do. I think it would be a great opportunity and i will drop everything that i have in new york and come down to washington and shine on. The white house was very skeptical of cox. They viewed him with suspicion. They worked with the Kennedy Administration and nixon later said if Elliott Richardson wanted to pick the worst possible person it was Archibald Cox because he was partisan. You worked alongside him. Was archie partisan . He was the first person that nixon could have wanted for that job. He would ask from time to time why are you doing this . He said this is what prosecutors do. He was not a prosecutor. This is a routine thing that we do. He would come back and say, is it fair . We would have to reinvent the wheel and justify what we were doing and it was a great experience to do that. These were things that we were taught as prosecutors by our elders in the office, more senior people. Cox was always, always totally ethical and totally fair about the way he had conducted himself nixon could not have asked for a more upright and learned individual to conduct the investigation into the staff. Later on after he fired archie cox and we got Leon Jaworski. Leon jaworski was a different cat altogether. He was very experienced and practical man who built a great law firm. He had great experience as a prosecutor going back to nuremberg. He was slick. He was not like archie in that way and he was worldly. I say that leon could shake hands with the man while he removed his vital organs with a dull knife. We will get to leon in a little bit. Archie was not that way. Archie was exactly what you saw. It was mr. Smith comes to washington. It is ironic that one of the first big steps he took was to try to shut down the Senate Watergate hearings because he thought the pretrial publicity would destroy the integrity of the investigation. It did not work. He was shutdown. He ended up being angry at everyone. It was not his best move. Jill, let me ask you, when you joined the team, as i mentioned when i introduced you, you were really the only female on the Watergate Special prosecution force, but one of the only females who was a prominent prosecutor of this stature really in the United States at that time. It was a very rare thing. What was it like at that time to be joining this team . What were you primarily working on . At the time that i joined, about 4 of all lawyers in the United States were female. Almost none of that 4 were trial lawyers. I encountered a lot of sexism in the press. Headlines would read, my name and it was say what i was wearing and court before it talked about what i said. There were a lot of examples of that sort of thing. I have to say that jim neal and richard were very welcoming and i never felt they treated me differently. One of my first experiences, my first day in the office and i joined within a week of actually being hired, we were interviewing, it was george frampton, jim neal and myself interviewing jeb mcgruder, who was the second most important witness. George frampton said, would anyone my coffee . Both of them turned to me and said i will take my black. Jim neal said, not very smart, insulting the person who is now responsible for negotiating your plea deal. They learned a very quick lesson. I really did feel, i dont know what richard really thought, i did feel accepted and treated equally. When i felt that richard was taking too much of a lead i called him out into the hallway and said, i am taking the next witness, this was during the tapes hearing, and then we will share equally. He demure and the next witness called was rosemary woods. We will talk about her. Me switch to the attorney generals office. Jt, you were truly Elliott Richardsons righthand aid. Telus the dynamic on how cox and richardson interacted and what kind of pressure were they under from the white house. I was not his most senior aide but i was his most senior aide who is still alive to participate. He trusted you, jt. Cox and richardson were a natural neutral admiration society. They both clerked, they were one of the few to rank with Justice Breyer. They both had gone to harvard, archie was elliots professor. When elliot was coming off his courtship he was offered a job in the state department by dean. Elliot gave it a serious look. He went to his professor archie cox and said, what do you think . Should i do this. Cox advised him if you go to work in washington, it is good to have come from someplace. On archies advice elliot did not take the job with atchinson. Then they end up in this crucible years later. I got to witness them treat each other with the utmost cordial respect and admiration. Richardson was under immense pressure from nixon and haig to put a damper on cox. Richardson always respected coxes jurisdiction and he always respected to what cox told him as to why the special prosecution staff was doing what it was doing. It really was a remarkable and very fortunate relationship. It is interesting. As richard said, archie had no prosecutorial experience, but it was the basic integrity of the man that formed the basis of trust between them. Early on, cox suspects, very early on, that there might be tapes. Nixons assistant attorney general of the doj, henry peterson, had told cox that nixon insist that he he was innocent and blurted out, you can listen to the tape and that always stuck in archies mind. Bob, in the book the final days, a fabulous account of this time. , you told the story inside the white house of how nixon tried to deceive his own lawyers on the subjects of the tapes, what can you tell us about that . First of all, nixons main lawyer was fred brassard. On the final days we did 17 interviews with him. A really full unraveling of his relationship with nixon and nixon would like to him he felt very much that nixon was the most transparent liar. I think you have to ask the question, what is driving nixon . Obviously covering up, but if you allow me to go to the day that nixon resigned. Famously agreements filled the farewell address and at one moment he turns to the cameras, nixon says always remember others may hate you but those who hate you dont win unless you hate them and then you destroy yourself. We now know, from the tapes, but we knew from evidence that was available at that time that nixon was a hater. In the end, if you want to simplify it, hate was that poison that destroyed him. Archibald cox was a symbol of everything nixon hated. Part of that was harvard and the independence and the association with richardson. As we know from what has come out, nixon was just spun up and vibrating about these were the people who were investigating me and he could not accept that, could not not tolerate it in any way. So that hate was driving him into a series of additional actions. The final one for cox is firing. And in one of the interviews i did with donald trump, trump insisted, he said oh, i would never do that, what nixon did. That was so stupid to fire his investigator. And it was. And he threw all the necessary gasoline and flammable material on the fire by doing it. Just be my as you said, cox was exactly what he hated. Archie was unfazed, and methodically looking. He remembered the comment about the tapes. So he and his team pressed the white house, and this was a really a strategic decision, for logs that corresponded to meetings and telephone calls on specific rates when key white house aides would be meeting with nixon. They zeroed in on that, and after much stalling, the white house finally relented, turned them over, and that turned out to be a key moment. Especially after Alexander Butterfield bombshell revelation during testimony at the Senate Watergate hearings that there was an elaborate white house taping system. So leslie, you are in the hearing room when butterfield testified to that. What was the scene like in the room, what was the reaction of you and other journalists to that revelation . Steve i first off, you have to understand that everybody who is anybody wanted to come and see that room. So there were movie stars, there were officials that would come just to sit in the room and witness this extraordinary event that was going on. It was internationally famous. The day that Alexander Butterfield released this information, it was such a shock. It was so and expect. No reporters that were even imagined that there would be this kind of evidence. We had been locked in that investigative environment for weeks, months, and all of a sudden we realized the evidence is there. We are going to find out. We are actually going to get to the bottom of this. And i think that everything nixon did in terms of archie cox and Elliot Richardson was because he knew what was on the tapes and he simply could not let anybody hear them. He did everything he could, he erased 18 minutes, god knows what was on that. And the motivation, it was not only out of hate, bob, but i just think he was saving his own skin. Its been if i may, i mean, in the nixon material and so forth , you see lots of evidence from nixon that he thought the tapes would vindicate him. In a very large, continuous way. And of course, this was the illusion that he was living under. And that is what, like hague and buzhardt, the lawyer, who realized when they dealt with him that nixon had construct did a cocoon of lies around himself that he largely seemed to believe. Steve i think you are right, except when he actually got the subpoena, i think he started to listen to the tapes we actually selected. The first tape on her subpoena was the one that ended up with the 18. 5 minute gap. And he mustve listen to it and went this is really bad, i actually am caught doing something that is criminal. And i think that is when he hardened his position on stonewalling and refusing to turn them over. But he did deeply believe in the rule of law. Because three days after the saturday night massacre, he reversed course and said okay, ill give them to you. And then had trial errors by saying oh, except for two. Then a week later, except for a third. In my let me stick with, so, using those laws that i mentioned he identifies, he and his team, nine specific tape recordings that would correspond to those key dates. The senate, meanwhile, subpoenas hundreds of tapes and gets all the press. And i know some of us thought he had been outsmarted. And archie said to me, he would tell all of you, i guess all we do is keep chopping wood. That was one of his favorite little phrases. But richard, what was the plan, and this relates to something Justice Breyer said. If they refuse to accept the subpoena. And cox worried a lot about that. Why did they refuse to accept the subpoena . You have asked a question that we dont know the answer to. Of what would happen. But we were going to be surgical in our approach, with rifle shots based on the information that we had obtained through our investigation, who met with whom, when, and then we made a judgment about whether the conversation likely involved watergate, given the timing of the conversation, who was present, and so forth. So that instead of a blunderbuss, give us everything , we had nine specific identifiable conversations we were after. And each of them, as it turned out, involved watergate. And some of them were explosive. The march 21 conversation, being a cancer on the presidency was one of them. The one which became the smoking gun tape came later. But the one which was erased, we had a very illustrious panel of scientists who were appointed after consultation with both the prosecution and nixons defenders. Who examined the tapes, and they concluded that between five and seven deliberate erasures had been made in this tape, which occurred just upon the return of the white house of nixon and others who had been in california and in florida. And now they got together right after the watergate burglars had been arrested. And clearly, they hadnt they had a discussion about watergate and what to do. I think it is inescapable that this tape was among the most incriminating that nixon had in his early possession. So, we will talk more about those tapes, but at this point, you have subpoenaed the nine tapes. Many scholars at this time, you have to understand, thought that the Nixon White House would win the executive privilege argument. There were many articles written about that at the time. So when the judge handsdown his historic 23 page opinion on august 30th, directing the white house to turn over those tapes, that was a stunning loss. So jill, talk about the critical importance of the judges opinion. I have it behind me, i was just reading it again today. Just incredible at that time. It was. And we actually believed, and we were right, because as richard said, we carefully selected nine conversations, we knew who the participants were, we need the timing. And we believe that we can establish that all were within the crime fraud exception and that we would succeed in getting them. And of course, as he said, we were right. Every single one of those had something incriminating in it. So when the judge agreed with us, we felt we were justified, but we also expected a much longer process of opposition and stonewalling then we got. So you have asked that question, we dont know the answer as to why he did not burn the tapes, why he did not refuse, continue to reviews, and why he suddenly reversed course and said okay, i will give them to you. That is unanswerable right now. We know the reason why he reversed course. He reversed the course because there was a furious reaction from the american public, from the congress. Lets hold off until we get at that moment. Because we are going to see the press conference there. But part of, yeah, sure. Right from the very beginning, he began pressing for the higherups, right from the burglars who were sent off to prison. He kept pushing, pushing. And he was chastising the prosecutor because he did not think he was pushing hard enough and asking the right questions. And the judge took over the questioning. Now, that was the first trial i had ever covered. I could not believe what i was saying. I did not know the judges could just take over the prosecutors role, but the judge throughout, did not begin, he was the unraveling because he kept pushing. He was a republican. And his opinion, and this was a key moment when he hands down this opinion. Because he says that he alone will review the tapes in camera. He would allow her redaction of any National Security information, and the team wasnt really happy with that. And in the meantime, Elliot Richardson is telling the white house and cox to work it out. They are trying to resolve this impasse, and during that time, elliot told me that he went to meet with nixon and nixon lashed out at him and said that cox was off the reservation. Elliot said to him, archie cox would rather cut off his right arm then do anything improper. He said nixon just scowled at him across the table. But jt. Youre right, but cox first made us submit a letter to the white house, which we thought was a big waste of time. But he thought it was the proper thing to do before he would let us subpoena the tapes. He wrote a letter of request, which of course, was denied as we thought it would be, which then enabled us to do the subpoena. That is part of archies ethical nature, his integrity, his respect for the law, his respect for the presidency. All of his character played and how this resolved itself. Yeah, now, jt, at this time there is another crisis brewing. And that has to do with Vice President spiro agnew who it comes out was accepting bribes in little white envelopes. You are heavily involved in that. How did your office, how did elliots office try to deal with that so it did not blow up and derail the watergate investigation . I dont remember that being a concern. The watergate investigation was well in hand with cox and his staff. And the agnew investigation was being run by the u. S. Attorney in baltimore in post consultation with elliot. And elliot had direct responsibility for the agnew investigation. He really tried to divest himself of responsibility for the cox nixon investigation. But the two overlapped in practical ways. The first time the u. S. Attorney in baltimore was in richardsons Office Briefing him on the third of july about the depth and the scope of the case emerging against agnew, who is a heartbeat away from nixon, elliot kept being called out of the meeting by hague who wanted to beat up on him because there was a news article that said cox was investigating expenditures at san clemente. The richardson was under pressure from two directions. But the pressure from the white house regarding nixon and cox did not really divert him from spending most of his energies during the period of august and september of 73 on the agnew matter. Okay, and bob, so agnew abruptly pleads and resigns. And at the same time, court of appeals handsdown a major victory to cox. They give nixon just five days to turn over the watergate tapes. So we have already heard a little discussion of this, but why do you think nixon didnt just destroy the tapes . Again, there was the solution , and i think it that point, no one else had really listened to them, and finally buzhardt did listen to the first tape, and the whole case is in that tape. Because nixon regularly in the discussion says oh, yeah, pay the burglars, get silence, lets give them clemency. When jaworski later listen to it, when he was special prosecutor, its over. Thats it. So what is going on here, you know . Because people are deceased, i talked to him quite frequently, and his law clerk. He was asking these questions, not out of the blue, if i may say this. He had the newspaper subscription. Well, i mean, a judge is not going to do that, and the issue was, the issue we wrote about in the Washington Post about the role of higherups, aldermen, john dean, and these names were in the paper. At this point, there is a trial going on, the first watergate trial. And silbert, the u. S. Attorney, is putting on a case. He later said well, we are going to get the burglars and who supervise them and then we will move up. Well, his view was wait a minute. You are part of concealing this. Well, that was the reason why a special prosecutor was needed at the end of the day. The public perception, and certainly the judges perception was that the truth wasnt coming out. And of course, henry peterson, who was the chief of the Criminal Division of boston, the prosecutors, the original prosecutors was following nixon and his staffs injunction to hold the line at the original watergate burglaries. And that is what came through at the original trial. But with all modesty, he was a pretty savvy guy. He did not need a weatherman to tell him which way the wind was blowing. He needed only his common sense as a trial lawyer himself to see that the whole story was far from being developed in the original trial. And so, because of him, more than anyone else, because he did rings that no other judge in that courthouse at that time wouldve done. To get to the truth. He wasnt the worlds greatest legal scholar, but he was determined, despite the political pressures from his own Political Party, to see that the truth came out. He hated being lied to, and he was in a position to do something about it. Yeah, so there is a real sense of jeopardy now. A five day deadline, and archie , as you know, was really struggling with this, to the point that he considered a secret plan where he might agree to just get a neutral third party to listen to the tapes. He proposed jay lee rankin, a former solicitor general. But the actual tapes would be preserved. That was shut down by the white house. But then came the infamous compromise. So bob, richard, do you want to say a little about what that plan was . Was really quite nefarious. More nefarious than you might think. Because at the time, the senator was hard of hearing. He had just been mugged at his capitol hill residence, and the tapes, exactly, he was supposed to listen while reading transcripts prepared by the white house. Summaries of transcripts. Well, i wouldnt trusted anything they wrote. And it is very easy to hear what you are reading, even though it isnt what it says. You need to listen. And those tapes were hard to hear. They are not like modern technology, they were implanted microphones and desks, and if nixon put down a cup of coffee or put his feet up on the desk, there was a huge bang. If the band was playing outside, you could hear that. So it was hard to hear them. But the most important thing is, we would never have been given the tapes under that proposal. And the summaries are not evidence. His interpretation of the summaries would not have been admissible. The only way that we could use them as evidence was we had to get them and have them available to be introduced in evidence. So it was a ridiculous thing that had to be refused. And archie struggled. He struggled and struggled, and we watched him struggling to find a way not to be in direct confrontation with the president of the United States. To find a way in which a three individual panel could be appointed, where there was some way to give something to the other side while getting Something Back that was useful in a process, as a reasonable lawyer would do to negotiate through a difficult confrontation. Now, what sealed the deal for nixon was at the end of the day, through charlie right, he made a demand on cox that in addition to accepting stennis reading transcripts, cox had to promise that he would never subpoena another tape, would not subpoena another document from nixon, from the white house. As a condition of moving forward. And at the end of the day, that was totally right, but cox did struggle with it. And i interviewed senator stenniss dr. , who told me that he was, he had been shot in this burglary attempt and was on heavy doses of coding at the time. Did not want to do this, but he felt he couldnt say no. But cox really did agonize over this. And as all of this is coming to bear, and we are going to show a little video from john dean. Just as all of this is reaching a crescendo, john dean agrees to cut a plea deal with coxs team. John wasnt able to join us from the west coast tonight, but we have a little video of him from a previous event we did together. So here is john dean explaining why he and his lawyer, charles shaffer, decided to cut a deal with coxs team and why he feared this was a dangerous move for him. Ken, the reason why he thought it was really going to be a challenge to testify against nixon, it is because the president of the United States not only have a lot of supporters, he has lots of ways to get the truth out. So when i did break rank, i wasnt sure how that was going to unfold. One thing i had on my side was the truth. When i went before the senate and testified before the senate, the reason i had mentioned, i put this in after it already prepared my statement at the very end. I slipped in the fact that i thought in one or more conversations he might have taped me. Turns out that was probably the most important shortterm testimony i had to add to resolve the problem. I didnt learn of it immediately, what happened is sam dash call me on july 14th, a saturday. I was in melbourne, florida after having testified for almost a week, and i was in the Witness Protection Program at the time. They were hiding me in a home in melbourne, florida. Not a likely place i wouldve gone. Anyway, sam says you have to come back to washington. I said what for . I havent even talk to my lawyer. He said i havent talk to your lawyer either, you just have to get back up here. I said what for . He said i cant tell you. But i need to meet with you tomorrow and im sure the marshals can get you back up, which they did. So, a little bit early in the afternoon, sam shows up with jim hamilton in my home, and he confronts me with the fact that he has learned that butterfield has revealed the fact that there is a taping system and once my reaction to it. Clearly he is worried that his key witness is going to be somehow discredited by the actual testimony, even though, in fact, i had put in there i thought i was recorded. Anyway, it turned out i had a very favorable reaction. Jim hamilton was there to watch me, he saw the smile come across my face, and i will repeat the words in the mixed company of your audience that i have in the use of the moment, but they were a good sign for me that this might help sort the whole thing out. After months of discussion with the staff, my lawyer and i talked about it and i decided to plead. I knew the government needed my testimony. Charlie and i knew we could put them into a tailspin if i did not plead. It would take years. In fact, charlie, to this day, believes i had oliver norths case long before oliver north even knew he would need a case. Charlie said the fight will take years to resolve. But that wasnt going to solve the problem. I had come to have faith in cox and the whole team. So on the 18th of october i went into court knowing through my lawyer that there were troubles. But coxs job was in jeopardy. You know, i thought it would be impossible for nixon to abolish this whole office and put it back into the department of justice. And i did feel a little leverage if i went back to the department of justice, given those were the terms i had pled under. Anyway, i went into court with cox on the 18th, formally, this is something that had been determined beforehand, to plead. And two days later, of course, he has his famous press conference where he refuses to exceed nixons request for the tapes. To answer your last query, i did not think nixon was going to prevail in the long run. I thought the truth was going to catch them, and indeed, it did. As it turned out, the saturday night massacre proved to be part of the reason that he felt when he did. Because he misplayed it, misjudged it, and Archibald Cox really decided to pull the record on at least the congressional thinking on how they deal with it. So the crisis is reaching a crescendo, and that is when cox decided he needed to hold a press conference to explain directly to the American People why he could not accept the compromise that richard was talking about. Where he would never have access to the tapes and the truth could never be determined. He has an emotional meeting with the staff, and just hold himself up in his room to prepare for that. He was worried, he did not know where it would go. And when i wrote this segment of the book, it was really, it kind of captured everything for me. Because archie said he rarely allowed himself to look afraid or rattled in front of his staff, but at this point, he was. And john barker is here, the lonely walk to this building at the National Press club that saturday, i wrote this paragraph. All of a sudden, too much seemed to be expected of him. One of the reasons he had loved and revered his job as solicitor general was that he had heard that office called the conscience of government. Now, however, it seemed that his staff in washington newspapers and Democratic Senators and too many others expected him to stand up and represent the conscience of the entire American People. How could anyone man or woman serve as the conscience of a nation . They couldnt, at least not any mortal that cox had ever met. The only hope, cox thought vaguely to himself as he placed one shoe in front of another, was to somehow arouse the conscience that already existed in each citizen, awake in a collective sense of principle that had been lost in the city of grand marble edifices. If that happened, maybe the holding machinery of government that was built to represent them would eventually respond. But how did one do this . Cox had no idea. The walk to the National Press club seemed to last an eternity. I dont know how i ever got there, cox said. It was only with my wifes help. So, lets watch now that historic scene from the press conference 50 years ago. This is a special report from cbs news in washington. Here is cbs news correspondent nelson benson. This is the National Press club in washington were special watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox is holding a News Conference in a few moments to discuss the president s action of last night on the watergate tapes. The white house announcing that rather than appealing to the Supreme Court, an Appeals Court ordered to turn the tape over to cox, it would provide a summary of tapes both to cox and the watergate committee. With mississippi senator john stennis having unlimited access to the tapes themselves, senator stennis selected by the white house to verify the completeness and the accuracy of the summaries. Special prosecutor cox interpreted that as a president ial refusal to obey the decrees of the court that would require him to violate the solemn pledge that he made to the senate and the country when he took office as a special prosecutor. He said last night that he would have more to say a little bit later on, and in this setting today at the National Press club, Archibald Cox will have more to say. We see mr. Cox coming in to the National Press Club Ballroom now with misses cox, and we will watch and listen. I read in one of the newspapers this morning the headline, cox defiant. I do want to say that i dont feel defiant. In fact, i told my wife this morning that i hate a fight. Some things i feel very deeply about art steak, and i hope that i can explain and defend them steadfastly. Im not looking for a confrontation. Ive worried a good deal throughout my life about problems of imposing too much strain across our constitutional institutions. I am certainly not out to get the president of the United States. I am even worried, to put it in colloquial terms, that im getting too big for my britches. What i see as principal could be vanity. I hope not. In the end, i decided that i had to try to stick by what i thought was right. Mr. Cox, you would see what we call a nonviable position right now. Are you going to wait for the president to dismiss you . I am going to go about my duties on the terms in which i assume them. After that press conference, Elliot Richardson called it chief of staff general Alexander Haig and said he needed to meet with the president. It was at that meeting that nixon dangled a promise that richardson might be on the National Ticket in 1976 if he carried out the order to get rid of cox. Richardson pushed back and refused to do that. And called archie afterward and told him, heres whats going to happen. Youre going to get a letter dismissing you, im going to resign. So archie settled in in the lintel rented cottage that he and phyllis were staying at in virginia to wait for the messenger to come. The letter came and archie dictated a single sentence to jim doyle, his press secretary, that said simply, whether ours will continue to be a government of laws and not of men is not for congress, and ultimately the American People. We have another little clip, lets just show, here is the interruption video on cbs, the cbs interruption announcing this bombshell news that cox was fired. President nixon has discharged Archibald Cox as Watergate Special prosecutor and has abolished the special Prosecution Office. As a result of prosecutor cox being discharge, attorney general Elliot Richardson has resigned his post as attorney general. When Deputy Attorney general refused to carry out orders from the president , he was discharged as Deputy Attorney general. The acting attorney general now will be solicitor general bork, who informed special prosecutor cox that he had been discharged. All this happened after a day in which special prosecutor cox had said that he could not carry out the provisions of a new position that the president took on the watergate tapes, which prosecutor cox was trying to get for the watergate grand jury, and which the Senate Watergate committee was trying to get for its hearings. Repeating, Deputy Attorney general has been discharged by the president. The president , attorney general Elliot Richardson has resigned , all of this following the discharge of Watergate Special prosecutor Archibald Cox. This is Nelson Benton at the white house. This has been a bulletin from cbs news. We see the breathless reporting there, what did the scene look like inside the office of the Watergate Special prosecution that night . It mustve been surreal. Was there real fear that the fbi was going to totally shut down the operation . As close to a coup detat that we had ever seen. And until january 6th, the worst thing, i think, that happened with the use of force, paramilitary organization, the fbi coming in by force to our office to seal the office. We had our own security, it was shirts and skins there for a while. We had the fbi, including and jay leno, who had been working for us that day, telling us that now the executive had set us down and we could not see or remove our files. And they were in control, and whatever the rule of law was, the reason opinions of the district court, and the court of appeals for the d. C. Circuit. The president was using force to overturn the law. As set down by the judges who were there to administer the law. And the special prosecutor who had been appointed to do the job of investigating who was behind watergate. So there was a great deal of emotion in our office. People were flocking to the office. I was there, i was having dinner and i had the television on. I was tuned to nbc and saw carl stern emotional on the white house lawn as the others were. You saw Nelson Benton. These reporters could not keep it, keep calm about this. This was so shocking, that the president had now swept the chessboard of all the players who were there to regulate, to investigate. As though in a Little League game, some parents on one side had picked up and ejected the umpire, taken the equipment away from the opposing team. It was devastating to us. But there we were. We werent fired. In all of this melee, they hadnt fired us. So we actually reconvened the next day. And before that, i forgot to mention, but jill, you are prepared for this. You have been stashing away some of these documents, hadnt you . Yeah, thats an important point. We werent sure what was going to happen. And all of the members of the trial team had started to take copies, no originals, but copies of key documents home with us every night. And i had a big box of documents in my attic. And shortly after this, my home was burglarized, but they did not get those documents. We all had them just in case. And we had thought about what will we do . Because of course, it wouldve been illegal to reveal grand jury testimony or anything else we had. We all felt that we had to do it. And that if we had to use it, we were willing to take the consequences. But i also want to add that i had a slightly different experience with the saturday night massacre. Because right after the press conference, i said to my team i cant go to the wedding in new york. I cant leave. And everybody said its a saturday in washington, what could possibly happen . Go. And before we talk about the next day, too, i just want to ask leslie, because i think your late husband, erin latham, was inside the white house when all this went down. Actually, i looked back, and it was the day nixon resigned. Not that day. But he did write an article about the saturday night massacre. And he had did a lot of reporting on jt and Elliot Richardson. These men, these men acted with such extraordinary integrity. To go up against a president is brave. Its brave. Just tell a little about what was going on between Archibald Cox and richardson and what he was telling you . Well, i will take the opportunity to correct something that was said in the film clip that opened the session. Richardson on friday night, we heard from haig that the president was going to sign a letter directing cox to either accept the stennis compromise and agree not to seek any more material, or else. And richardson said archie, im reading you this letter, but im not delivering it. And so, that is, to me, a useful correction, however minor. And secondly, as an illustration of the level at which the two men operated with each other, educated, sophisticated, respectful. When archie was on his way to the press conference, richardson got him on the phone and read to him in ancient greek and english. And the inscription on the photograph that learner hand had given elliot, quoting from the iliad. We dont have too many men or women in Public Service now who can quote ancient greek from the iliad. But i thought that was enduring. But it was important to cox, richardson basically said i am going to stick behind you, and i am going to follow what i promise, what Justice Breyer talked about what he promised the senate, as well. So richard, the next morning, whats going on in the offices . Well, that evening i get a call from john dean, because now i am in charge of the care and feeding of john dean, who has just pleaded guilty. And whats going on . The attorney general has gone, the deputy is gone, archie is gone. What happens . I said thats a good question, john. Let me get back to you. And we subsequently met that next afternoon, but in the morning, we all got together. Not our office, because the fbi was there. But at Stephens Brothers house that he was housesitting, a rather grand house in georgetown. But we didnt meet inside the house, because we were afraid that someone had been followed and that we were being bugged. We were out on the lawn. In a circle, sort of like you might see on a campus having a seminar. And we were talking about what to do. There were some people who were talking about well, we should resign in protest. I said why would we do a thing like that . No one knows, we havent been fired. Why would we resign . What we need to do is to do our job. And that is exactly what we did. And very soon after, the judge called a grand jury into his courtroom to assure the grand jury that whatever was going on with special prosecutor and the president , the grand jury was going to continue its work under his supervision as chief judge. And we showed up, we were invited, kind of, and we sat there in the courtroom. The judge turned to us and as i recall, he had at least acknowledge that we were there to advise the grand jury. We were still lawyers in the justice department. So it was kind of an ad hoc meeting, never before experienced, i think, in our history of what the judge was doing to preserve the integrity of the investigation as it continued. Really amazing. And bob, the public reaction has always been described as a firestorm of public protest. And it was, indeed, over 50,000 telegrams and letters to congress protesting the firing of cox and richardson being forced to resign. How is it you spent so much time on the subject with your books, how is it that nixon miscalculated so badly . I think it was hate. Im going to go back to that. But also, the illusion that they will, the tapes will protect me. But im going to ask rick and jill a question, which i think pulses throughout all of this. Despite nixon, he is the president , his heavy handedness. Didnt both of you, who are strategic thinkers, think maybe nixon has handed you a win, that this is not a loss . He is not incapacitated you in any way, and i think as we now know in the whole history, nixon did hand you all a win. He did. Especially because of the difference between cox and jaworski. Jaworski was a trial lawyer. At the time the office was being set up, no one couldve done a better job of organizing us and hiring staff then cox. And of giving us the mortal fortitude to do our job. When it came down to fighting dirty in court, Leon Jaworski was a better edition. Rick, you are always looking for what is the third or fourth bounce here. Yeah, on the second bounce i thought well, what if there is nothing on these tapes . What if this is just nixons way of getting rid of cox. The constitutional terms, and getting rid of cox, because he didnt like what we were doing. And yet, at the end of the day, when he did his 180 and turned over the tapes there would be nothing there. Well, of course, that wasnt the case. Far from it. But i dont think we thought that we were getting some kind of a win out of this at the time, bob. I think what we thought was look, we have to keep fighting to get these tapes. The tapes are the best evidence of what was actually said, and the tapes are the only thing that could be admissible in a court of law. So we will fight to get them. The public reaction and the reaction of congress, even within, at least in part, nixons own Political Party was spectacular and terrific. As to what nixon had done. And as a result of that, i think it is so scared nixon politically, this enormous reaction. You know, the public views their common sense, heres the attorney general gone, not just the special prosecutor, but the Deputy Attorney general. All of this up evil in washington, why . What was nixon hiding . Why did he do this . And they had great common sense about it. And at the end of the day, nixons saturday night massacre turned into a self immolation. It was the beginning of the end. It was probably the last piece of the watergate coverup. And its the beginning of the end because Leon Jaworski does take over. The plan is thwarted, to put it back under the department of justice which was the original plan. Leon jaworski comes in and subpoenas 64 tapes that have the smoking guns in them, and it goes to the u. S. Supreme court on an expedited basis and leads to the unanimous decision in u. S. First nixon, one of the historic decisions in the history of the Supreme Court where the chief justice writes, in essence, the words of people now recite so often, that no person, not even the president , is above the law. It is still one of the most important decisions in our history. It absolutely is. There are courses taught just on that one case. But i do want to say, i did not share ricks view that it mightve been that there was nothing on the tapes. I really believed that we had carefully selected conversations, many with john dean, that he had said this is what i said. Including the cancer on the presidency. And i believe that we would find them. I didnt expect to see some erased and some not exist, but i did think that we would get evidence that would be admissible and would prove crimes by the president of the United States. I want to finish the segment and save a little time to talk about comparisons today. But bob, i just want to finish this little segment by asking you, your classic book, the final days written with Carl Bernstein talks about this really jarring time in American History. But how did the system end up working here . Well, again, because nixon was driving and he was the decisionmaker, and i mean, this goes into the complicated issue of what was watergate . And if i may add a footnote here about Elliot Richardson, it may be jt is aware of this, but elliot , when he resigned, and he was the hero of the moment. Remember, everyone was talking about elliot is going to run for president. , including nixon. Some of you, and im sure you were involved in this, jt, of elliot should write a book. Right . There was an agent named swifty lazzaro, who was contacted to write elliots book. , and elliot in his way, which you are very familiar with he said i want to write a book about the structure of government and democracy, and swift said to him, elliot, you write the book. Let me sell it. Which he did, and swifty was out there saying the inside story, you wont believe the material that elliot has. Its hard to find much of anything out there. At least that is perhaps a positive thing that we are not reminded too much of the bad side. But the system did end up working. And ken, i just wanted to add to what bob was saying. You know, i remember thinking it is always about public opinion. And the democracy worked in that sense, because the public finally turned against him. It is hard to turn against someone you vote for. And the public really did stay with nixon. There is a sense that republicans turned on him early. No. The public, and the republicans stood by him. The public. And it just collapsed. He had no protection. He had lied to them. He had lied to them, boldface, in person. And they had gone out and done nixons bidding by repeating the lies that nixon had told them about his lack of knowledge, lack of involvement, when in fact, the tapes showed exactly the opposite. And the case study of that is george bush senior, who was head of the Republican National committee and traveled the country talking about innocent Richard Nixon. And when that all collapsed, that was the lisbon earthquake for him. He never, quite frankly, that duty as Republican National Committee Chairman at that time was the most difficult job in america. Because he did it, and then the truth came out and he was just thats the key point, though. Facts matter then. And democrats and republicans had a bipartisan agreement on the facts. There were only three networks, they all have the same facts. And that is what took him down, was the facts were accepted in a way that to date is simply not there. And thats a Perfect Place to end the segment, because i want to reserve a couple of minutes at the end to compare today. But first, its a perfect time to ask Justice Melissa hart, who is Archibald Coxs granddaughter and is now on the colorado Supreme Court, to offer a few reflections on behalf of the cox family. Justice hart is formerly a professor at the university of Colorado Law School where she directed the Byron White Center for the study of american constitutional law. We are so happy to have her today. Justice melissa hart. So, im going to commit what i think may be the cardinal sin of any public speaker, which is im not going to say that i thought i was going to say. But that is because i have been really inspired by a couple of things tonight. So, as president gormley mentioned, i am Archibald Coxs randolph. I had the privilege of living with my grandparents for many, many summers when i was growing up. And their house, their farm was sort of a second home to me. They were my favorite people. So i got to talk to grandpa a lot about his experiences, and i was a very passionate young feminist. I remembered in, im going to say the mid80s, maybe, talking to him about that. I think he was a little disconcerted by the term feminist, but he talked about you, jill, all the time. And i dont remember your name, i didnt remember your name, but as we were sitting here tonight and you are introduced i thought oh, my gosh, i know all about jill. Because he would talk about having one woman on the team and how important it was to be sure that her voice was equally heard, and talked about how problematic it was that there was only one woman on the team. So i am just so excited to get to meet you. I had to just derail my remarks to say that, because it made my night. What i was going to say, also, during those conversations grandpa talked about Elliot Richardson all the time. Everything we heard here tonight about the closeness of their working relationship never paled in his life and retirement. Elliot richardson was one of the people he very clearly admired above all other people. Other than his wife. Who was the person he admired above all other people. It is just lovely to be in a room with all of you. What i do want to say, sort of as a way to transition to this last part of the conversation, is i have spent the past 23 years, i have been on the colorado Supreme Court for six years but i still teach as an adjunct at the university of colorado. What i teach is legal ethics. So, for 22 years now on the first day of the fall semester at the law school i explained to the law students that the reason they are required to take a legal ethics class in law school is because of watergate. Because before watergate there was no requirement to take a legal ethics class. Im not even sure they existed. But they certainly were not required. And because lawyers played such a pivotal role in watergate, you heard joe manchin the crime fraud exception, that is a way to pierce the privilege. Because they were helping people behave in dishonest ways. Because of that, the American Bar Association said we need to have everyone whos going to come out and become a lawyer learn about their ethical responsibilities to the profession and to the public. And that we serve something more than just our clients. So that is why we have legal ethics. Sadly, it hasnt totally worked. And i think that is a little bit of what this last part of the conversation is going to be about. But it is just a small way that watergate has shaped literally the lives of every lawyer in this room and in the United States, that this is something we hold up as important, as essential. Thank you again so much for being here, and thank you all for everything youve done. I will get out of the way. Hist0 years ago and. Present day events in the country. Many commentators have to draw before we close, i know we are running a little over, but i wanted to spend just a few minutes talking about the connection between these Historic Events 50 years ago, at a present day events in the country. Many commentators have tried to draw comparisons, parallels, between watergate and the current criminal charges against former president donald trump. So, all of you are the experts, you have lived through both of these things. Ea can you just say a little bit about how you would compare the seriousness of the alleged Crimes Involving nixon, and those today involving trump . How would those the stack up against each other . Does anyone want to offer a thought . Well, my view is that as bad as nixon was, and there are many things well beyond the watergate coverup that support the notion that he was full of hate, full of very unpleasant g things that made their way into the oval office and the way he governed. If he had survived watergate, if he had served out his term, perhaps if he hadnt burned the tapes, i believe that he would have been gravely wounded, but would have survived as president of the United States. I do not believe that Richard Nixon posed an existential threat to our democracy. I cannot say that about donald trump. W and the other thing that i draw from the comparison between then and now and i just wrote an oped piece for the boston globe that appeared last week was talking about the fact that we are a government of laws, but we are also dependent on the individuals who execute those laws. So, in watergate, the Extraordinary People who came forward to do above and beyond what their jobs on paper and the expectations required, like judge soroka, like archie cox, like Elliot Richardson, like peter rodino and sam ervin, and january 6th, i have comparison to make between the role of Elliot Richardson who put aside his political ambitions, and they were many he was a star, a rising star, in the Republican Party, and putting aside nixons attempted bribery to put him on the next ticket, he had a Bright Future in national politics. When he did the right thing, he put nation above Political Party and political interest. And as a result of that, he did not have a National Future as a politician. On january 6th, the same can be said of Vice President mike pence. Who, despite four years of kowtowing to the president and not dissenting to with any of the things that a normal person would be provoked by, in the actions of the president of the United States, when President Trump threatened, controlled, pressured, promised, and ultimately turned a mob against pens, hence did the right thing. He said, i will not violate my constitutional oath and file your instructions to delay, or disrupt the Electoral College wrote vote obligation that i have. And pence, to his great headed credit in chris street, refuse to get in the limousine that the secret service had waiting p for him as the crowd chanted, t rampaging through the capital, hang mike pence. Hang mike pence. Spurred on by the president of the United States. He refused to get in that limousine and said, i need to stay here. You may think it wise to drive me out of the capital for matters of security, so i am not getting in the car. I am staying here to do my constitutional duty. And i draw a parallel between Elliot Richardson and mike pence on that day. And as we see mike pence, in my view, has no National Political future. But, he has done the right thing. We were a pence away from chaos if he had followed the injunctions of President Trump. Bob, you have a unique perspective. The trump tapes are masterful, they are both audio and bulk form, just extensive interviews with a sitting president , almost all of them. So, you have a view into his mind, unlike most people in the country, from all of those conversations. But, you also had that view into Richard Nixons mind. What comparisons, what differences, what you see there . Well, it is a lot. If you go back to George Washingtons farewell address in 17 whenever it was 1987 and in that farewell address, george washington, believe it or not, said, unprincipled men will hold this office of the presidency, and he laid out his worry and when the nixon case came and went, i kind of thought, okay, thats we done with that. And the truth is, it is not the case. You know, all of the trump material, and what he said, and what he is doing now, i think there is an optimistic part in all of this. We are waiting for that part. Yes, yeah, okay. A couple of months ago in the new yorker, there was a talk of the town piece done by a harvard law professor who said that the actions and words of trump came close to breaking our democracy. And when i read that, i called david remnick, who is the editor, and i said, why are you running that . And he said, well, there is a feeling that our democracy is broken, and step back from that. Our democracy was actually proven strong because what happened . Trump left the white house. He did not have to be carried out. A man named joe biden became president , and is carrying out the office of the presidency, and the rules and laws of our democracy. Our democracy is fine. And what has happened, having done the work on nixon and trump, focusing on trump, i think trump has bamboozled all of us, myself included. By conducting this campaign, to say, well, the election of 2020 was stolen from him, and people say so often, well, this is false. The problem with that formulation is, it is too weak. There is no evidence i spent a couple of years of my life, well, is there any evidence that the election was stolen . And if you get, as bob costa av and i did for the book we did, peril, get Rudy Giulianis memos on all of his claims and i mean, there are so many extravagant ones that are unsupported. If you go into it, one of a giulianis memos says on election day of 2020, 246,000 246,000 people were in local jail, state jail, federal jail, voted. Now, you remember reading this story about the big jailbreak in wisconsin on election day in 2020 . There was none there were the best costa and i could tell, and we walked that road, no one who was in jail voted. In fact, if you look hard at it, at that time on election day, there were only 46,000 people incarcerated in wisconsin, and t giuliani is there is zero evidence. And i think in the media and the public, we need to step back from this. Trump has found a way, and he often finds a way, when you think it is impossible, to entertain this discussion that somehow the election was stolen from him. People i have i remember going to midland, texas, last year and talking to people. This is the oil capital of texas, both bushes lived there. Asking 25 people who are questioning me, i said, let me ask you a question and these people are all white, roughly 55 to 105, and i said, how many of you raise your hand, 25 people raise your hand if you think the election was stolen from donald trump . How many would you think would raise their hand . 25 . Zero. Zero im just like interesting. What . You dont believe it . And they said, no, we dont believe it. I said, how many of you are going to support and vote for trump in 2024, raise your hand . 25. 25. So, im telling you, i have been on enough travels and enough the people who believe in trump dont believe his big argument. Its gone and i think we kind of just have to find a way of disentangling us, politically, legally, emotionally, from what he is presenting. Because what he is presenting is a fraud, is unsupported, and i i mean, imagine this. The last year of his presidency, my wife, elson and i, the deal was that he could call at any time, for a year. So, we are sitting at home, the phone would ring. This is one of our daughters . Is it a friend . Is it a robo call . Or, is it donald trump . And it would often be donald trump. To call, and i could prepare a question i mean, you have looked through this and listened to it. It is extraordinary. He had no idea about the coronavirus, his responsibility. He was warned, it took me months to find out exactly how he was warned. And it is i guess there is not a crime in the book all of you, lawyers that if a president knows the pandemic is coming and has irrefutable evidence of that, is it his responsibility to do something, and Say Something . But, he didnt. He covered it up for six months. Total and the last conversation i had with him, i said, President Trump, things are pretty bad. This is july of 2020. He said, what do you mean . I said, the coronavirus. He said, what do you mean . It is under control. Under control . President trump, at this point, 140,000 people had died from the virus. The virus, which he knew was coming, and he kept saying, oh, it will go away, it will blow away. I asked, what is your plan . He said, oh, dont worry. If i put out a plan now, no one would remember. And i said, well, what about executing it . He said, no, no one would remember. I will put out the plan in 106 days. And i was baffled, and i looked at the calendar, and that was election day. It was all about him and the election. So, i want to sorry just one last question well, we have to refute bob. We have to we must refute bob, because you are very optimistic, you know . The system worked. To me, all of our institutions now has been discredited. The press, congress, the court. Donald trump did this, and it isnt over, the story isnt finished, we are in the middle of it. And i, personally, i despair, and i do not feel that the fact that he isnt president is enough, because he has torn the fabric. And we are struggling, we are struggling as a country. But, see, it is how you look at the same fax. Facts, you just said the magic word, because that is where we differ. Back in watergate, facts mattered. Now, they dont. And i have to say, the 25 people you spoke to are not at all like any trumper i have spoken to, who actually believes that the election was stolen, who actually believes democrats had machines that flipped votes, and suitcases of votes that came out from under the table, and they actually believe it, and they have fox news to spread the word. He has truth social what a silly name for his so, he spreads this word, people believe it, and they act on it. So, if you watch Television Interviews of the trump supporters, they all believe this. They actually, actually believe it. I have a College Sorority sister who has two masters to freezesh degrees who actuall believes there were machines flipping votes, but i dont despair, lesley. I dont. I think that this next election is when i will despair, if the outcome is not what i think it should be. Then, i will despair about democracy ending. And it is something that i think we all need to address, and that getting out the vote is crucial. Yeah, i want to just get one word in. Sure. I can be versus sink. I think in retrospect, Richard Nixon looks like one of natures nobleman, compared to trump. Well, there, you have it. But, i do want to go back on that note of optimism, jill. Dont forget archie is one sentence statement, at the time he was fired, that it is t ultimately to the American People to decide. And so far, bob, the system has held in remarkable ways. Whether that will be true on ty the other end of the election of 2024, we will see. Archie was an eternal optimist. I tend to be the same. But, i think it is important to remember it takes human beings standing up with a sense of integrity, following their moral compasses, to withstand the incredible pressures that are unleashed in their different ways. All of these people on stage have to do that, when crises like the saturday night co massacre engulf us as a nation. And they do engulf us, periodically, throughout American History. And in the case of watergate, those people included archie c cox, and it was truly one of the great privileges of my career to write his biography as a young law professor. Th besides his granddaughter, who you met, Justice Melissa hart, we are honored to have with us, archies daughter, felix cox, Melissa Harts mother, who lived through these events, and help their parents and or the enormous stress of these events, including the saturday night massacre. And they emerged, in many ways, as National Symbols of strength and dignity. Ladies and jonathan, could we please recognize an amazing person, and laura, in her own right, felix cox . If you could please stand. Come on, stand up for us. Also, allie richardsons son, henry, a professor of philosophy at georgetown, is here with us with his wife, mary, his brother, michael. Henry was one of my law School Classmates at harvard. He was just starting, i think, as an undergrad at harvard when his father was in the midst of these events. So, can we please ask henry, harry, and Michael Richardson to stand, so we can recognize them . We have many members of the Watergate Special prosecution for steam tonight here besides the two on our stage. They are in town to hold a 50th reunion of their own this weekend. These are Public Servants who devoted their lives at a critical time, and many of them, most of them, at a very young age, to upholding the rule of law. They were young, and this was a risky assignment. Many of them, i think, ended up doing enormous good even after that. But, the nation is proud of their efforts and in this case, owes them a grade of data to. Can i ask all of the members of the Watergate Special prosecution force, in any capacity, to please stand and be recognized . I see many of them here. And finally, before we close this historical retrospect, i would like to ask Justice Breyer to add a few concluding thoughts. Ol Justice Breyer . Not thoughts. One suggestion. And one word. S, the suggestion is like this before we get into the political discussion i, you know, i usually save that for joanna. But, before the very interesting very interesting, you made a film of this, right . It is two years, seven months, and two weeks, approximately from today. It is the 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence. Okay . And 11 years after that, the 250th of this document, the constitution. Take what you have done. E yet, some people spend their time on facebook, building these screens that nobody should watch, let alone our grandchildren, and tell them to turn that into something real, and then we put that into every classroom in the United States and we say, hey, in this document, there is something about the separation of powers. You want to see how it works . Look at the film. All right . In this document, there is something about the rule of law. You want to see if it works . Look at the film. In this document, there is something about democracy, and that the people control. You know . They do. Are you doubting it . Hey, look at the film. And when you finish looking at the film, remember, you are now in their position. At least to the letter writers and so forth. Remember that, and do it, and pay attention. Okay . Not in like a mean way, like i said. Just bring them along. Bring them along. Like i said, of course it will work. And what is the one word i wanted to say . Thank you. So, thank you, Justice Breyer, justice heart, and all of our remarkable panelists. Could we get a round of applause for this Extraordinary Group . Thank you, thank you, all, for joining us for this truly remarkable historical retrospect. I told the panel, i am not volunteering to organize the 100th anniversary of the saturday night massacre, but it was an honor to be a part of this one to help preserve through that film, Justice Breyer, this important piece of American History. Have a wonderful evening, for those of you in the hall. You are cordially invited to join us for a reception with the panelists in the lounge. We moved right across the hallway to the main lobby. Thank you, have a wonderful evening. If you are enjoying American History tv, then sign up for our newsletters