Page 4 - Watergate Problem News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

>> mrs. woods used the machine to show how it happened. >> when i asked her to demonstrate, she pushed the button, kept her foot on and supposedly reached back about six feet to get the telephone. her foot came off with just the mere movement. there was no way it was believable. >> the white house iention that the talk between the president and haldeman was accidently erased would give more ammunition to the president's critics. >> to hear something so obviously untrue changed a lot of the american public's view of the whole situation. >> rosemary woods would stand by her story. bob woodward w...

Option. we could at that point drag the wagons around of a giant lie that would protect everybody willing to lie. >> i didn't run around trying to bribe anybody or shred documents. we preserved the documents. >> the president, erlichman and i made no attempt to take over the watergate case. the view was that the truth must be told and quickly. >> when i testified -- i knew clearly, was i in or out was the question? and i decided i could not play that game. i made mistakes. 'd gotten ourselves in a deep problem and further lying and living that lie isn't something i'm comfortablwith. thanks for...

>> nixon held his ground. he insisted he knew nothing of the cover up, but among the thousands of hours of tapes one conversation recorded shortly after the break in would destroy what was left of his credibility and his presidency. >> on that investigation the democratic party thing, we're back in the problem area because the fbi is not under control and they have their investigation is now leading into some productive areas. >> what finally catches him is when the tapes are released, the smoking gun tape puts the lie to the statement that he had no advanced knowledge. >> on the tape you hear...

Firing. >> now you're back to the watergate problem. >> here is the watergate issue. what nixon did was hush money which is bribery, destroying tapes and telling his underlings to lie. any president should be indicted for that. but you cannot indict and should not insight a president simply for exercising his constitutional authority. >> you seem to be having it both ways. you can indict for a crime but can't indict them for anything. >> you can't indict him for simply exercising his constitutional authority. if he goes beyond that, bribes, destroys evidence, of course he's subject to prosecut...

That make him look like he's lying or that he is trying to hide something, which may not be the fact but he has created this perception now that i think is going to dog him. if there is any further revelation, this is going to be a very, very slow burn for him toward the end. >> so best case scenario, what could this be? i keep trying to look at the other side of the story because we don't have victims that are speaking out in a very specific way. we have these two elusive stories of women who were apparently paid off. we don't even know if they're actually talking, and if they are they're not...