[applause] all the people who were here some 60 years ago know that is the case. too much civility is absent today. consider the level of vitriol in the political discourse that exists in government today, and even in the halls of congress. i cannot emphasize enough the importance of the relationship between him and the vice chairman. welcome to tennessee. [laughter] [applause] they made a pact in the beginning that this would be a nonpartisan hearing. the sole purpose of which was to uncover the truth. it is hard to imagine this happening today, because it required level heads and plain old-fashioned civility. they proved a congressional committee devoid of malice and political bias could fulfill its function of informing the public and then propose legislation that would prevent this egregious scandal from ever happening again. they knew only a well-functioning separation of powers could ensure democracy and our great country for generations. today we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the water great -- of the watergate break-in. which newspapers called i think a minor event. about that size in the washington post. and in my mind, the pivotal linchpin of solving what was a national tragedy was the committee's discovery of a secret taping system, installed and president nixon's white house and other presidential offices. these tapes proved john dean, who testified before the committee for days, had been laboriously for days, revealing that nixon and his leadership team were deeply involved in a massive cover-up designed to conceal the entire watergate affair. a chain of events that included the commission of crimes. did we learn a lesson? i three or not -- i fear not. the investigation found huge sums of unaccountable campaign money erode democracy. today we have the same problem. citizens united decision, in my mind one of the were supreme court rulings in our history, opened the floodgates for corruption. just as with watergate, today's electoral process is awash in unlimited and shameful amounts of money. democracy will survive. as senator durbin said, it is "the last best hope of mankind." in my view, democracy will prevail, because it must. thank you. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, i want to call up here the folks that made this possible. they are called sponsors. and they are people that gave up their human earthly wealth to make sure that you had a good time. if you would come up one at a time, the assistant counsel sitting here. [applause] john elmore. investigator. [applause] mike carpenter. investigator. [applause] come on up here. michael hirschman. deputy chief investigator. [applause] stephen leopold. the renowned canadian. and how did he get on there? investigator. [applause] i will never know how he got on. but somehow he snuck past. oh, he was one of those. ok. lacy, investigator. [applause] jim stewart. investigator. [applause] assistant chief counsel jim hamilton. [applause] he was a neighbor from south carolina. i will started to say south america. [laughter] south carolina will be fine. [applause] gordon friedman. gordon has been so -- [applause] gordon has helped keep this thing together for so many years. we had a 20th watergate reunion in here. i remember smoking away on cigarettes, and running, jean and carl -- every time i saw her, she was running in high heels faster than i could run. gordon has been working on a watergate website called watergate.org, he's worked with the 45th and has been instrumental in the 50th. is there anything more you need to tell us about how to get a hold of you? >> watergate.org. go there, because what happens here tonight is wonderful, but is what we do after tonight, to keep our eyes open and our voices in the public sphere about these issues. because they are not going to go away with the current situation. something we have to face. -- it's something we have to face. [applause] >> thank you. ok. let me just repeat that. what happens here tonight is important. what is really important is what happens afterwards. so we have to really be vigilant going forward. there are some loopholes in the constitution and in our judicial system. and really it's up to the public to be responsible at the end to be responsible and have a voice. watergate.org, we are going to start a little nonprofit to keep the lights on. thank you. [applause] >> rachel and judy dash. please stand up and let us say hello to you. [applause] their father. sam dash was the real star of the show. he and i worked very hard together. he never quit to eat. i don't know when he ate. he was a fantastic chief counsel. there couldn't have been anybody better put there. [laughter] i will also say that we thank amy wright. her company has helped us with this. -- helped us put this on. [applause] her company is named newton street publications. and cheryl mattingly, my executor -- my executive assistant. [applause] yeah. oh, is sissy baker here? [applause] that is mr. baker's daughter. oh my god! i loved your father. [applause] one time, sissy, i was running for governor, and he called me and said, i will come up for you or against you, whatever will help. he did -- is joy here? bob woodward is somewhere hiding. or did he leave? there's my friend, bob woodward. bob. [applause] i won't bother him to come up here -- but i've got to tell you guys what to do for a change, come on up here. come here, bob. [applause] all right. you boys are added. three minutes. [laughter] >> we were not expecting to speak. i will just say the following -- this was a triumph for democracy, what occurred in this room. [applause] and every aspect of this country's great culture was involved. the press, the legislative branch, the judiciary, both parties, the supreme court, and it worked. and i think, if that were to be the legacy of watergate, this would be a moment of greatness that we lack today. thank you. [applause] >> i agree. [applause] >> i remember, after carl and i had done our stories in the washington post, and most people did not believe them -- they thought it was inconceivable. and i got a call from the senator's office that said, come on up, i want to talk. so we went into his office. and he said, we are going to investigate watergate. mike mansfield had selected him, to do it. and he said, gee, would like to have your sources -- we would like to have your sources. [laughter] and i said, gee, we are not going to give them to you. [laughter] because i think that would break down the barrier between the government and a free press. and he said, i understand, but we are going to do it anyway, and literally what he said -- maybe we will find out what mcgruder did. [laughter] he kept the bar really low. and then he conducted what is the gold standard of congressional investigations. nixon miscalculated, as many of you recall. nixon said, i'm going to invoke executive privilege and not let them testify. then nixon, in one of his many delusions, thought, if i let them testify, they will help me. and of course, they came up and tore nixon apart. and then this led to the discovery of the tapes. and of course, irvin, i'm sorry to go over three minutes -- [laughter] ok. the great thing other than the investigation that senator irvin did is his final report. which is 4000, 5000 pages. and in it, he asks the question, what was watergate? and he answered it. and he said, watergate was an attempt to subvert and destroy the process of selecting presidential candidates and a president. exactly. then he goes through this -- you know, he never evaded the tough questions. he said, why watergate? why did this happen? and his answer, it is the end of his report -- the lust for power. thank you. [applause] >> great. perfect. [cheering and applause] >> well, i mentioned a good friend of mine, the dean of the campbell law school -- dean rich leonard. i said, you need to go to washington. he said, ok. there is. dean rich leonard of the campbell university law school and former federal judge. [applause] and now, ladies and gentlemen, the program i think you will quite like. i will make certain quivering moments if you start going over, richard. i will -- [laughter] he might just give me the finger. [laughter] jill weinbanks is on the next panel. jill, you need to come on up here. [applause] and to get off. in fact -- and take it off. in fact, i want to tell you about this lady. i think she explains complex legal issues better than anyone i've seen on tv. jill, come up, please come and convene your table. you have with you my friend richard b., the deputy chief prosecutor of the special prosecution team and jim hamilton, who handled one of the issues of the three-prompt watergate investigation, a long time plan. -- three-pronged water gate investigation, a longtime plan. how are we going to handle that, amy? [indiscernible] >> and i want to call up also my congresswoman, deborah ross, from the second congressional district in north carolina, she is a brilliant lady. [applause] and that x panel will be -- and the next panel will be jean boyd. he will tell you how he discovered the tapes. jill, you are the boss here. [indiscernible] >> hi, everyone. i know you all want to be mingling. so we are going to keep our program tight. but i am very happy to be here. can you all see, or should we move chairs? it's ok? good. we are going to talk about what watergate was all about. from both the senate point of the. -- point of view. and i'm sorry the former congresswoman is not here. i will speak in part for her. i've got to be friends with her. i will say some of the things i think she would've said. then we will try to finish up quickly. so with us we have richard, who to me will always be rick, he's going to retaliate by calling me jillybean. and of course, mr. hamilton who will be wonderful and congresswoman deborah ross, who will talk about things that need to be done now, and maybe can talk about some of the things that we did after watergate, in terms of congressional legislation, that has been undone by the supreme court. let me start with you, jim. you have described the watergate hearings, having only seen them on television, but it was in this room -- hard to believe, because it seems so small compared to what i saw. you've described it as being the most successful, the most consequential, and the most riveting of all congressional investigations. it certainly is true. in american history, this lasted 51 days. 80% to 85% of all american households watched. and they were riveted. they didn't watch for an hour. they watched for a minimum of 30 hours. obviously we are in a slightly different time. but i want you to talk about maybe just quickly five reasons why you think that that was the most riveting and most consequential. >> is the microphone on? [indiscernible] ok. why don't you take one? >> maybe you should stand up so people can hear you. >> yeah. >> try this one. it is on. >> how about now? ok. technology has never been my strength. you know, i think there are maybe five reasons why the watergate committee was the most successful, the most riveting, and the most consequential in history. and let me just described those to you very briefly. the first is the skunk of the wrongdoing that we found. because watergate was not only the break in and the cover-up. it was a series of noxious, dirty tricks. a lot of them aimed at ed muskie. because he was the strongest candidate against nixon. there were massive illegal campaign contributions. and then there was something called the response program which gordon friedman found in the national archives which was his scheme to use the bureaucracy to reelect nixon. fortunately, a lot of members of the bureaucracy just barked -- they were not going to go along with it. another reason why watergate was so successful was the cast of characters. think about the people involved. for the committee, you had sam ervin. who a folk hero. you had norway, a war hero. and you had the other side, richard nixon. who, to be the best known man in america was one of the most mysterious men in america still. you had for cuban -- four cubans , who had bay of pigs and cia backgrounds who had done all types of nefarious things. you had gordon liddy and howard hunt, who never followed the nefarious scheme, no matter how doomed to fail it was. and then you had the trio from the white house, chuck, john, and bob, who would make the hair stand up on the back of your neck when you heard them testifying. the third reason that i think watergate was so successful was, there was good staff work. let's give credit to sam dash. his daughter is here. let's give credit to sam. [applause] sam knew -- sam knew how to tell a story. and that's what he did. the summer of 1973, watergate was the best soap opera on television. it was appointment television, as the new york times said. one day, 60 million people heard john dean talk about a cancer growing on the presidency. the fourth reason that i think watergate was so successful was that it was done in a way where partisanship was secondary. there was a legitimate effort to find the truth. let me give you just a few facts, that maybe today in the context of what is going on now seem incredible -- the watergate committee was set up by a vote of 77 to none in the u.s. senate. the decision to subpoena president nixon after we found the tapes, and then to sue him when he stiffed us, was by a unanimous vote of the watergate committee. the questions that were asked to uncover the tapes both in private session and public hearing were questions by republican staffers. and the watergate committee report that bob referred to -- this huge report, which i think was 1200 pages of text, then many appendices, that was adopted by unanimous vote by the committee. if this happened today, gee, i don't think so. and of course the final reason that the watergate committee was such a great success was that we discovered the white house tapes that brought down a corrupt president. thanks, jill. [applause] >> rick, let me call on you to maybe talk a little bit more about the role of the watergate special prosecution office, and why we were so successful both in the trial and -- >> i will sit next to you. >> awe. >> let me say a thing about watergate. yeah. let me do this. all three branches of government, the special prosecutor, and an implacable press, were responsible for the extraordinary result -- unique, i think, for every country in the world, to investigate itself and come to a conclusion that ultimately rid us of a corrupt president of the united states. and terminated his second term. it was the result of the laws that were on the books being applied by extraordinary people. extraordinary people, who stepped up and did the work. now, that could have ended differently at any point if nixon had destroyed the tapes that we subpoenaed. even up to the moment that we were to get them, i think he would've survived -- served out the rest of his term. wounded, yes. but he would've survived. and let me suggest to you that this country would've survived nixon's second term. whatever you say about nixon, and there is a lot to say about his criminality, and his penchant for authoritarianism -- he was an individual who had a sense of shame. at the end of the day, his sense of shame was on display. watergate did not pose a threat to the continuation of our government, as we see it. i cannot say the same about donald trump. [applause] donald trump was and is an existential threat to our democracy. short and simple. it was the individuals operating within our system who are responsible for the conclusion of the watergate saga. our ability to get the tapes and to then pass them along to the house impeachment committee, along with the roadmap from mr. frampton, who is here tonight. stand up, george, say hello. [applause] we built on the great work that the senate committee did. and we expanded on it. and we were able to get evidence. and that evidence but the nails and richard nixon -- put the nails and richard nixon's coffin. let me conclude my remarks by calling out the names of the heroes of watergate, who are no longer with us. judge john jay circa. [applause] senators sam ervin -- senator sam ervin. [applause] sam dash. [applause] peter rodino. [applause] john door. [applause] archibald cox. [applause] kelly ruth. [applause] james neal. [applause] leon jaworski. [applause] and catherine graham. [applause] may we find those heroes to guide us through the troubling months and years ahead. thank you. [applause] >> of course, richard meant to include senator howard baker. [applause] and he has captured something that's really true, which is, it was a time when there was bipartisanship, there were facts that mattered, all the networks had the same facts. it was an extraordinary time of compromise. democrats and republicans dined together and worked together and got things done. there was unanimous support for the legislation that followed. the trial and the hearings. and we are not they are now. and i think that is what is really so sad, that we don't have those people coming forward now, and we need that. but let's go on with the questions. i want to ask one more question of you, richard. you are not done yet. come on back. one of the issues we were successful in prosecuting the aids -- we named richard nixon as a co-conspirator which was in part necessary in order to introduce the tapes into evidence in the trial. he had to be a co-conspirator. this was not a vindictive act. it was unnecessary act. it was also part of -- it was a necessary act. it was part of what the evidence showed. we worried about things like jury nullification. there was a big debate in the office about whether he should be indicted twice. once was as a sitting president and once the day he resigned. and in the period before he got pardoned. richard and i do not agree in this -- i was for indictment both times, both as a sitting president and again after he resigned. and i look back now, and i was on a panel with gerald ford's son and becker, the young lawyer from gerald ford's office who delivered the pardons to richard nixon -- i was very touched by both of their comments. about the fact that gerald ford made benton becker make it clear to richard nixon that if he accepted the pardon, he was admitting guilt. and he carried with him a supreme court case that said that. and i soft and a little and thought, maybe it was a good thing to let the country move on into pardon -- and to pardon. when i look back now and i think i was right then because i think there would've been a difference if richard nixon had been indicted -- maybe a message would've been sent to future wrongdoers in the white house. i don't know that. i can't say for sure that anything would've changed the behavior we are now seeing in the january 6 hearings. and because it is so contemporaneous, i think it is important that we look at that aspect. so would it have made a difference? i don't know. was it the right thing to do? it was certainly something the evidence supported. you want to say something about that? before you do, i want to say there's another 50th anniversary -- -- the 50th anniversary of a good thing that richard nixon did, which is title ix. which opened up opportunities for women. not just in court, but particularly in court. so thank you, richard nixon. [applause] >> so, let me unpack all of those questions and answer one of them. the decision to name richard nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator is an interesting story and involves some insight baseball. we were the first to listen to the first traunch of tapes, produced after the saturday night massacre, incidentally the event that i think was the most responsible for the change in america's opinion about richard nixon. i think even after the spectacular hearings in this room by the committee,