gold. [laughter] isn't it amazing that he has so many followers, and the company that's selling the gold, that's using him to sell the gold finds him very credible in doing that? i'd love to hear your comment on that one. thank you. ..

and this happened to be murdoch's building. and i had gone to see somebody up on one of the top floors who had an office there. and after the meeting came down in the basement in the parking area ran into who other than bob haldeman. he gave me his business card and i gave him mine. he said let's get together for lunch. i said bob, i'd really like to do that. i think there's a lot of notes at this late stage that we could compare and try to help them put together the pieces of what the hell happened. i didn't follow up fast enough and he didn't follow up fast enough and the next thing i learned he had stomach problems and he was gone. a number of his aides who were talking to him and talking to me

said it was something that was treatable but because of his christian science beliefs that he said this was one thing he was going to do the way he felt his religion called for him to do. and the if the world healed, he would be healed. if not, his time was up and that's what happened. >> host: john erlichman called richard nixon a pathetic figure in american history. would you agree with that assessment? >> guest: i don't know if i'd call him a pathetic figure. i can understand where ehrlichman was coming from. my publisher has urged me that i should return to nixon. it's something i have done reluctantly. i have not written about richard nixon per se. he passed through on other things. but i've really never really looked at nixon. so i'm doing that right now. one of the things i found

recently in the archives, not on this trip, on a prior trip. the nixon papers are on their way to california. they're going to actually be a little bit more convenient for me. but i found in those final days both haldeman and ehrlichman had partners and they made their best case in the presentations. and it would be clear after reading ehrlichman in i can his submission why he would be extremely bitter when nixon did not grant him a pardon. because everything -- everything everyone had been done had been basically for nixon and he would not see fit for one of two of the finest public servants he'd ever known as he announced when they departed, to not issue a issue as george bush would, when

bush 1, when cap weinberger and some others were involved in things that occurred in his presidency. had not taken care of it. i'm sure that he was bitter for the rest of his life. he became a very bitter man. i think it took years off of his longevity. he got involved in a lot of this watergate revisionism. wanting to believe it. and i saw a man go downhill pretty quickly. >> host: for three hours during the first sunday of every month we go "in depth" with authors. this month john dean. he's written 10 books and now working on your 11th? >> guest: 11th. >> host: and john is joining us from las vegas. welcome to the program. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. mr. dean, i wanted to know if thought that what happened in the 1960 election in illinois and west virginia had a major impact on president nixon's attitudes towards the powers

that be in the media and what have you. and did you have any conversations regarding -- i believe his top lawyers at the time wanted him to challenge the electoral count in all of illinois which would have given him the presidency but from what i've known -- i had an indirect conversation -- a second party conversation with the president back around 1966. his reasoning for not challenging that election, i believe, was it would have torn the country apart in a time in the '60s when we had a very serious problem with nuclear confrontation with the russians. if you would please give me your thoughts -- any conversations and maybe that made him a little bitter to the press and what have you because of the stolen election. >> host: thank you, john. >> guest: yes. that's a good summary of the situation. and nixon's position was indeed it would be too divisive if he

did so. what was never really fully reported is, yes, there were problems in the chicago area. what never really got flushed out because he did send a number of emissaries out to check out the situation to see what would happen if he did contest it. and the down-state illinois elections would have totally obliterated any changes in the -- if there was hanky-panky in chicago. so he realized in the long run he really would not have been able to prevail with illinois. but rather than make an issue out of that and all that polling and searching he'd done in down-state, he just let it pass and took the high road. i think to his benefit in doing so. >> host: let's go to tim who's joining us from hancock, michigan. good morning. tim, are you with us? >> caller: hello. yes, i am.

i've got a question to john about the car that he used to drive. it was a porsche. >> guest: 911. >> caller: i'm curious what he did with it. if he still had it or sold it? >> guest: it was a porsche 911. a little maroon one. great shape. i loved the car. in fact, every time i drive on the dulles road, i think about that car. and in coming from the airportist a few days ago, i thought about it because when i used to drive the dulles road when i had that car 30-some years ago, there were no police on it. and it was a good time to get the carbon out of the -- out of the cylinders out of the car. i sold it back to the dealer so i never did find out what happened to it when i left and went to california. >> host: scott elliott, of valentine, pennsylvania, what was your most memorable moment during your tenure in the nixon presidency.

>> guest: there were more good days than bad days. watergate was a surprisingly small part of it. the most memorable days -- it would be hard to say days because it was such a unique position. the council's office was high enough that you could see over everything virtually that happened in the white house as well as the government itself. so it was a wonderful perch from which to understand government. the overall job experience was very rewarding. i often thought -- in looking particularly going back and looking at our papers, my files are one of the larger of the nixon white house collections. i have -- i'm not ashamed of anything we did in 99% of our work. they're good opinions. they were well-handled. the processing was good lawyering. we blew watergate totally but that was me. i didn't even tell my staff

about what was happening. 'cause it never occurred to me when i went over there that one needed to be a criminal lawyer. i realized in that particular administration it was essential that the white house counsel be a very sophisticated criminal lawyer. had that been the case my antenna might have been up and i might have been able to help the president much better by having that reaction faster than i did. >> host: in one of the books you say -- and i'm paraphrasing that there was no single meeting to plan the cover-up. >> guest: never never. the cover-up was very much catch as catch can. it was reaction to what was happening as it happened. a lot of confusion as to what had occurred, why were all these men arrested in the dnc. who was james mcchord at the

re-election committee. who were these cuban-americans? we were really struggling to put together the pieces initially and try to understand it. but as i say, you know, i don't -- to the best of my knowledge, i never even heard of the crime of obstruction of justice at that point. it wasn't until we were well on the other side of the law that i pulled the code book down and started looking at what are we doing here? is this a problem? indeed, it was. and when i first raised it for example with john ehrlichman, another lawyer, i saidorn it looks like me an obstruction of justice we've gotten ourselves involved in. we better have second thoughts. he had one of those lines that john typically had you don't forget easily. he said is there something putrid in oldtown where you live? and i said no. i think you're all wrong. he didn't look at the code and didn't want any part of it.

it was -- i don't think -- in fact, another interesting thing comes up on the nixon tapes. after i go in and start telling nixon about the seriousness of the problems, he will later have conversations with haldeman saying, you know, i don't think dean is right that this is obstruction of justice. i don't think there's anything wrong with paying these guys off. they didn't want to accept -- because they did not feel -- first of all, there was no bad motive in this. in those, i recently ran into a memo in the prosecutor's office on good intentions in committing criminal offenses. they were worried about that as a defense by some of the people involved. that they would say we had no real criminal intent to do something that broke the law. to the contrary we didn't even know we were breaking the law because i think it was very widespread in the nixon white house.

one of the things was, you know, there were mistakes made because there are so many federal crimes -- now, obstruction of justice and defrauding the government by misusing agencies of government would become watergate well understood. you don't do that. before then, these thoughts just didn't jump into our mind. >> host: so let me go back -- >> guest: not that it makes them innocent. it just makes them more understandable how we did them. >> host: you talk about the 18.5-minute gap. that famous photo of rosemary woods stretching with the typewriter and the dicta belt. how did that come about and what was in that conversation and why it's missing? >> guest: well, the photograph as i recall was done after the -- after the taping system we became aware and subpoenas were served and what have you, the president agreed he had to

turn over these tapes and these gaps started appearing. first of all, they thought it's an 5-minute gap and 18 1/2-minute gap and there's other tapes missing and they have a massive hearing in judge sirica's courtroom. at one point i think they took a -- it went back to rose's office and to have her show so the jury or the judge could see with just a judge then what had happened and now she could reach the machine and have her foot on the pedal -- or reach the telephone and have her foot on the pedal at the same time. and the long and short of it, it wasn't possible. it wasn't physically possible. so she -- and that's shown in that picture how difficult that was. but when she was actually on the stand it showed that she couldn't do it. there has never been much of a mystery how that could happen.

there were only three people who had that conversation on june 20th. >> host: 1972. >> guest: '72. one was steve bull who queued it up for the president when he wanted to listen to it. another was rosemary woods, when she was trying to transcribe it and the third was richard nixon, who was not very good with machinery. i remember him having -- machinery so basic as opening your drawer or my favorite was when he would try to take the medicine tops off the bottles where you had to push them down and turn them he just could not get them off. he would have them in his mouth and you wanted to see, mr. president, can i help you. i imagine hearing that tape -- or even trying to relisten to that let me listen to that again and getting the wrong buttons. because the experts who judge sirica hired to look at it said

it took 7 to 9 different times to erase. well, you don't even need 7 to 9 different times. so i can see nixon trying to recapture -- then saying well, let me get it again and not understanding how it worked at all. and doing this. and since he's the only one who knows he did it, he's never admitted to anybody. so no one has ever known, you know, what it is. >> host: let's come back to that. butch is joining us from jackson, wyoming. welcome to the program. >> caller: thank you a lot. it's a real pressure to talk to you mr. dean. i see you on msnbc a lot. i'd just like to know a few questions. i could sit down and talk to you for hours. are you still a conservative philosophy, over the conservative philosophy? i'd like to think what you thought of the movie with david frost and nixon interviews. and i would also like to know about the new movie "w" that's

out and i think it's scowcroft who said when he knew cheney that cheney today is not the cheney that he knew. and do you have any idea what he was talking about. >> host: thank you, butch. >> guest: okay. let me take the first. on many issues i still consider myself a goldwater conservative. i am about as nonpolitical for somebody who writes about politics as you can imagine. and i say that in a partisan sense. i vote both sides. i don't believe that anybody has all the answers. and i try to study a problem and vote for who i think might be the best candidate for the best circumstance and try not to be driven by any ideology. i'm registered in california as an independent for all practical purposes. they have a clause where you don't have to declare either party. so i don't. so those are my politics. your next question about -- >> host: the frost/nixon movie. >> guest: i have not seen that yet.

i actually have it on my iphone. and i got -- i was thinking about watching it on the way back but i watched "in glorious bastards" instead. i understand it's well done.rst i certainly remember the original.w3ñ÷ but i think -- i was delighted to see it because ron howard does such a good job with everything he does. it brought those issues to mind to another generation. and trust me, i've been over at usc's annenberg school as a visiting scholar for about nine years now and kids today -- they know nothing about watergate. i did a little seminar here in washington for harvard law students who have a semester. they know nothing about watergate today. so i try to get out and about a little bit and talk about it. >> host: the movie "w." >> guest: i've not seen the

movie "w." has that been released? >> host: it came out a few years ago. >> guest: missed it, totally. i missed "w." >> host: and brent scowcroft's depiction of cheney. >> guest: i'm aware of that description. i've talked to a number of people who have known cheney over the years. i heard david gergen recently on cnn talking about al haig after he passed. and haig had a quadruple bypassed and how he changed after that. when i was writing "worse than watergate," i talked about cheney's health and the fact he wouldn't release his health records. and i did a lot of digging then. and i actually talked to a doctor very recently who was doing some more research on this subject as to whether a quadruple bypass does change a personality. 'cause i think there were two different cheneys.

it's only anecdotal at this point as to whether personalities change in these sidewalks. -- circumstances. but from those who knew -- i didn't know dick cheney at the nixon white house in his earlier iteration. i knew people who worked with him when he was white house chief of staff. they were not overly impressed with him then. i must say that i find him a rather troubling character. i find him a very typical authoritarian conservative. i'm very anxious for his book to come out to see what he says to try to justify this. probably won't try to justify it. just claim it's okay. but i'm glad that it's not likely he's ever going to be elected president. >> host: speaking of books, your favorite books, among the list ulysses grants memoirs and my life so far by jane fonda. [laughter]

>> guest: i couldn't resist that. i've known jane for a number of years. and when i read her book -- i talked to her when she was working on her book. and the book is so honest, i wish more people could write autobiographies with that kind of candor. and so for that reason -- i had a number of my male friends read that book. i said i think we all need to better understand a woman's point of view on so many issues and jane is very outspoken on them. when i wasy6ñ assembling that l i said i should put jane's book because i've recommended it to psalm people. >> host: welcome to "in depth" tv."xo >> caller: thank you for taking my call.

i too watched -- you know, i was just -- when the watergate hearings were out i was just glued to the screen. i was just fascinated by the whole thing. the person's name alludes me at the time. he was known as deep throat and, of course, he's been exposed. >> guest: mark felt.wwb >> caller: thank you. nixon was aware that he was feeding information continuously to woodward and bernstein. why didn't he fire them. >> guest: well, we wasn't aware that he was feeding it to woodward and bernstein. what happened -- and this comes up on one of the tapes in october of 1972. i've been over at the department of justice. i've learned from henry peterson that felt is leaking. henry peterson has learned it from one of the lawyers from the "washington post." and he pulls me aside and says, you know, felt is a serious leak problem.

and we're worried that it could affect the investigation. i went back and reported that to haldeman who in turn reported it to nixon. that's what you -- that's where you see it on the tape. the tape is one of those that stanley cutler transcribed in his book "abuse of power." unfortunately, it was -- it's a very difficult conversation to understand. i listened to it based on a tip from the people at the archives and i heard a lot of different things on the tape. one of the most interesting things that is said -- towards the end of the conversation -- and stanley had to use a lot of ellipsis in the thing because he didn't have it and just wanted to short it. and so at one point you have this conversation where nixon makes the rhetorical statement. he said to haldeman -- he said, you know what i'd do with felt, bob, and then it just -- there's an ellipsis and it tapers off

son of a bitch. i listened to the conversation. i heard something very different. he says you know what i would do with mark felt, bob, ambassadorship. big difference. that's what he did with helms at the cia. he gave him an ambassadorship. so, yes, they knew he was a leak. but at this point there's no deep throat. the reason i had always kept him off the list of my candidates is because by the time bob woodward is getting his late -- latest and last tip from deep throat is the first week of november of 1973. mark felt is out of the fbi in may of '73. it may be that he just had somebody who gave him a tip that was very late in the game. and the only thing he gave is something he picked off the white house grapevine. but that's the reason i always had -- felt never really made my

list. the other big thing, i think, is there are -- for somebody in his position who for all practical purposes the number one man on the watergate investigation and the fbi, there's a massive amount of bad information. i mean, dead wrong information. at one point i was flying to australia -- it's a long flight even from los angeles. about 17 hours. so i took the woodward/bernstein book along. and i had my laptop. and i pulled out everything that felt had given to woodward and bernstein, principally bob, and i found out half of it is dead wrong. i posted it on one of my articles at find law. so if you google -- if you google deep throat, find law,

dean you can find -- they're all done in red. you can find out how much bad information he got. >> host: in fact, you only mention mark felt three times in this book. >> guest: right. >> host: but pat buchanan's name comes up. did you think it was him? >> guest: the only reason i thought it was pat buchanan is that was sort of a romantic interest. i think pat would have been a wonderful deep throat. i wanted somebody to have noble motives. and pat would have had noble motives. >> host: louise is joining us from pittsburgh, pennsylvania, with john dean. go ahead, please. >> caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. mr. dean, i have two comments and a question. first of all, you're right. it is difficult to define the conservative movement. but karl rove gave us is clue. i once read a quote from mr. rove where he said once you think you have us figured out we change like chameleons and go in a different direction. my second comment is, a right

wing supreme court ruled that large corporations could contribute to campaign advertising with no limitations. and it's a known fact that during the 2008 campaign most of obama's donations came from lower to middle class people like myself. we gave more than usual and in larger numbers. my question is, wasn't the supreme court ruling a way to put more corporate money into the 2002 republican campaigns and outdo donations made by average-income americans? >> guest: yes, you're talking about a case called citizens united vs. the federal elections commission. it's a very troubling decision, for me for a lot of reasons. first of all, it wasn't the case they had to decide. it's one where obviously the majority of the justices realized they had 5 votes so thee reached out with a case they had before them. and they added that to the case.

this is what i would call judicial activism in spades. when conservatives do it they don't seem to complain about it. but, yes, they clearly wanted to resolve this issue. and making a corporation a person under the 14th amendment is always dubious to make them a person that can make campaign contributions given the very unique difference between a corporate person and a human person where a corporate person is given indefinite life. they're often given tax breaks. letting them reach into the general treasury when the shareholders may not want this money given. it's very troubling. we don't know yet how this is going to play out. i think we've got to hope for the best. but the potential for the worst is certainly there. and we'll get -- what i'm told

by lawyers who are advising their clients now is they're telling their corporate clients to keep a low profile. say we've won. let's just play quiet for a while. go through our trade associations. the chamber of commerce, what have you and don't start getting the, you know, where we all want to have our own senators we own. that would be a disaster. so i think they're being cautious initially. but it's a very -- very troubling precedent. >> host: you can join the conversation online at twitter.com/booktv or send us an email question at booktv@c-span.org. david is joining us from ocean side, california. go ahead, please >> caller: good morning here in ocean side. god bless c-span and thank you, mr. dean. i've enjoyed several of your appearances. >> guest: thank you. >> caller: on c-span. i was going to ask about nixon's

support from goldwater in the white house and withdrawal of that support. you use the term "watergate revisionism." i'd love to hear your top three watergate revisionist strings at some point. but i want to change directions slightly. since you're talking about mark felt, obviously, the idea that mark felt -- that deep throat was this wonderful, you know, voice for sanity pushing upward. it seems more like he was your authoritarian personality which seems to be endemic in the fbi. >> guest: well, i think you're right on felt. who could well fall into the authoritarian personality right. very self-righteous in doing what he's doing. doing it for his