women are treated in afghanistan? why would i want to do that? whereas another woman said, i'm free now. why would you want to go to prison? >> jenny nordberg, howd how didu gain the trust of these families and girls to talk to them? >> it took a long time. i worked with very good people in afghanistan. that's the only way to do it. there's no phonebook even to find these families and these girls, and the bacha posh. little by little and through connections and taking the time and patience and being very respectful. you can't just barge into people's homes and expect them to share their innermost secrets. i met and interviewed many more of them, you know, then are in the book right now, but several of them had never told this story before. they were living as women now,

married women with children, and a history of being boys and young men that they have never spoken about before. so over several years i spent time with them, and these are some extremely brave women in the book who also decided to tell their stories to open up a window, if you will, you know, into what is actually going on in afghan society and with afghan families. because the way i see it, is also mirrors the whole construction there of a very harsh page your keep and in gender apartheid. >> is there a danger to these girls and these families being put in this book at? >> you can never predict everything that's going to happen in the universe. this has been a very different process for me as a journalist, because most of the time as a reporter you want people to tell you as much of possible. in this case it's almost in our

first negotiation, when they've opened up to me and i've said that i don't know if we should include this, this is potentially controversial, and i changed some details, sometimes i changed names. i tried as far as possible to protect these women and girls, and entire families as much as possible. and it has been -- it is a tricky process. they have many times been very bold to say, well, i want to tell what it's really like. like my main character, zahra, she said i want to show the reality of afghanistan. so there's a success story of her as a very unique woman. it's kind of the story that we want from afghanistan, someone who comes from the village and took parliament. we love that story, but she's also decided to show herself as a human being, and some of the

ugly and some of the week that we all have in us. that's a very conscious decision by her, and also invite me into our family. and i tried to treat that very respectfully and carefully. >> and this is booktv on c-span2. we are doing a preview of some of the books coming out in the fall. "the underground girls of kabul," jenny nordberg is the author. comes out in september. >> every weekend booktv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books on c-span2. keep watching for more television for serious readers. >> up next on booktv, "after words" with guest host bob woodward of the "washington post." this week, ma john dean and his latest book "the nixon defense: what he knew and when he knew it." in the book at them an in his

congressional testimony led to president nixon's resignation presents a more in depth look at the watergate scandal based on newly released audio tapes. this program is about one hour. >> host: hello. it's great to be here with john dean. i was recalling coming in here today at the studios which are on capitol hill. there were 39 summers ago when you held the country and the world mesmerized with four days of sworn testimony before the senate watergate committee, and there's really been no news story like that since. one of the things that happen when the secret taping system was disclosed in the nixon offices and found, which you didn't know about, and then -- >> guest: suspected. >> host: you suspected it you didn't know at all. then those tapes came out and

they've indicated almost 100% exactly what you said. there was an anchor i ran into, one of the tv anchors who reminded me he was six years old when you testified. i think it's so unique for those who weren't around. first thing i would ask is, what was watergate? >> guest: well, i suspect at this table there's probably more collective knowledge between you and i on that subject then any table that ever could be set to address the matter. you and i know that subject well. you know it from your reporting. i know to living it, and then taking a second look, third look and the fourth look in study. watergate is defined in most dictionaries of abuse of high power occurring during the nixon presidency for political purposes. you and i know that's a pretty weak definition of a rather sad

chapter in american history. it was a patriot that america did not shine its brightest. the presidency showed its underbelly, and to this day the legacy of those events affect the way the governor. >> host: but watergate itself, sam ervin who headed the watergate committee said what it was, an assault on the integrity of the process of nominating presidents and electing them. in other words, that nixon and his people were tampering with everyone's vote in a way. do you a great? >> guest: i agree with that, off, but what has happened over the years the definition of watergate have so expanded from the break-in, the cover-up, the interference and influence of the election process, general nixonian abuse of power. in fact, congress has actually defined it as a result of legislation and regulations that

field of the legislation. today watergate has a very, very broad meaning. you and i, and today we will be talking about a very narrow area of that, but it's indicative of the entire events. >> host: so why 39, four years later, because it's 40 years ago that nixon resigned. waiheke jumped again to a total -- waiheke jumped back into a total immersion in that period the tapes for that year, from the time of watergate burglary until their existence, why have you done that. >> guest: if i don't getting into i don't think i would have gotten into it. i started out, my publisher suggested i might revisit that subject in light of the 40th anniversary of watergate. that's a rolling anniversary as you know. it goes from june 17 of 2012

until august 9 of 2014, which is the period between the break-in and the arrests and nixon's resignation. so i originally started out, and what i wanted and was a question of how could someone as savvy as richard nixon, politically, very, very astute and intelligent, mess up his presidency on the bungled burglary that provoked it all the way he did? and that's what i set out to answer. i is and in doing so that much of the answers would be found in existing tapes. i had no knowledge until i started cataloging who had taped what and what was available that only -- >> host: and our hundreds of hours of tapes that no one has really listened to or transcribed. >> guest: i found over 600 conversations that as best i can tell nobody outside the archives and processing the tapes ever

looked at. >> host: what did you learn? if somebody reads this book and what are they going to learn that they did no? >> guest: there is probably every page something that i did know. i don't know many pages had things you did know, but we are pretty sophisticated readers and knowledgeable about this. i didn't know, for example, that richard nixon was, to take account of sequentially, at the outset was only getting his knowledge and information from haldeman initially and then ehrlichman, his chief of staff, bob haldeman, his top domestic adviser for white house counsel don erlich men. and your reporting in the "washington post" as well as others. the post is the only paper that's covering it. >> host: time and time again he read those articles and he's angry about them. he wonders how information is getting out. >> guest: did you always wonder how he felt about that? and now you know. >> host: he said that's a

story in the post. where's that going? is that coming from here? is that coming from the committee to reelect, coming from the fbi and so forth. just to step back for somebody. what do we learn about nixon that we didn't know? because when you about the criminality. we knew about the abuse of power. we knew about the smallmindedness that everything seemed to be about nixon. what is added transfer what i did as you know is i follow it day by day to try to understand how this thing fell apart. i pull away to a wide angle companies a combination of two things. character, the man's character and -- >> host: which is? >> guest: he had no hesitation to break the law. he had no hesitation to pretty much do anything he thought might be a solution to a problem. very expedient. but the most striking thing is,

is decision-making is so sloppy, so unprocessed, so seat-of-the-pants. i was stunned him and bob, i can't but wonder if this doesn't reflect other areas of his presidency. he knows when he's making these decisions, they are important, particularly as it progresses. now, how much of this pattern we see here, which i duck out in some detail is true of the vietnam, of the china. >> host: these meetings about watergate with his top aides, haldeman, or liquid, you to a certain extent. they are rambling. they are unfocused. >> guest: and i have tightened them. >> host: and there's no kind of let's march through this and let's make a decision. and he will just say something, almost at random. and then haldeman will say something. at one point -- >> guest: and 30 minutes later

at the same conversation if not with the same person. >> host: nccic on traversing things. use of the metaphor can you say as a participant you and his counsel at the time, not in the inner circle but you say this was the devils merry-go-round. what did you mean by that? >> guest: that was actually a metaphor i picked up as i was writing but i thought about this but i thought about the circular nature of the watergate conversations. and how the same tune in the same circle repeated, sometimes slight difference but basically over and over but the man with the lever a city in their right in the middle is richard nixon, and he never pulls it. that's what i said this is the devils merry-go-round because of these conversations were not, not at a very high level of conversation. this is in deep thought. this is pretty expedient thinking. >> host: as i went through it

and you were a good number of things i learned. and one was about chuck colson who was nixon's kind of hatchet man, his special counsel, somebody was always hanging in the shadows. >> guest: i tried not to be pejorative and calling it special projects. >> host: okay, but he had his reputation and eventually pled guilty to related crimes, and i think it seven months in jail. the fascinating moment, carl bernstein and i wrote a store on october 10 in the post saying that watergate was part of a larger operation of sabotage and espionage bringing forth the details about the lawyer who was hired to run all kinds of agents against nixon's opponents in the primaries and so forth. and then colson comes in and

says, it's absolutely fascinating. he says, i did a hell of a lot of things on the outside, and you never read about it. the things you read about were the things i didn't do. but you see, i did things out of boston, which was his hometown. we did some blackmail. and then nixon goes, my god, he's surprised. and then colson says, i'll go to my grave before i ever disclose it. but we did a hell of a lot of things and never get caught, things that -- and then the abruptly dashed the. >> guest: catches himself. >> host: stops. and nixon never and course. there's no curiosity. your guy comes in and says we did blackmail and a hell of a lot of things. you either know about them or suspect, or you would think you would want to know.

>> guest: in the book as you'll recall, i actually note that chuck made a similar post to me. >> host: yes, in a footnote you say this. >> guest: and he als also takes this to his great coat as he said. we don't know what these things are. it's interesting the way he caught himself before he shared with the nixon, and nixon doesn't have the inclination to inquire. >> host: tell them about your conversation with colson at the time, because in the footnote you say he told you he did things that would send him to jail. and that they're never going to come out. >> hostout. >> guest: he said because i only know about them. he would not coming. he said i'm not could you tell you what i did. that's the reason he said that's one way to keep a secret in this town, only you know it. pretty good analysis. >> host: and colson is deceit. nixon is deceased, so there may be a whole other aspect. >> guest: chuck did something very effective.

he took all of his presidential papers with him, all controversial. he would give what he wanted to wheaton college. i send somebody out years ago to take a look and they said there's really nothing in there. so he clearly put out anything his papers that were troublesome, and they are gone. gone. i assume they're kind of. >> host: do you think he was kind of one of the hidden forces in all of this, the dirty tricks, the illegality? >> guest: indicates there's this interesting pattern, but. nixon is a different person with different people. he'd respond at a different level, conversation. with me he is always on a fairly high level. colston brings out his absolute darkest side. haldeman next. the two of them just seem to draw something out -- >> host: haldeman was nixon's chief of staff.

what do we learn about holden in the state's? >> guest: we learn he is an extremely intelligent. he is the one that seems most conscious of the fact they are taking from the gentleman's time has expired. when it gets kind of dicey he backs off and shuts up, or makes gratuitous statements that are favorable but because he seems to click and remember. nixon occasionally remembers he is recording. but unlike haldeman who seem to be very cautious. in fact, there's a situation that happens at the end after they've left, and he knows he has not polled the machinery out. and haldeman -- >> host: the taping machine. >> guest: haldeman starts calling for meetings in the lincoln sitting room. there's only one reason he went to meet in the lincoln sitting room because that's when they're tracking videos as to how they're going to do with things and he doesn't want it on tape. >> host: and, of course, halderman is looking for a pardon at this point?

>> guest: not at that point but at some point. >> host: it was to come. the other thing is, as you say, -- west bank -- guest back -- >> guest: if i survive this i will pardon people. he said that i promise that but know when to go to jail. but the problem is he didn't survive it. so he didn't honor his commitment because as you know, haldeman and ehrlichman from your final days research, they tried desperately to get a pardon. >> host: and, of course, nixon, and to the moment he resigned, could've issued those pardons. and reviewable. >> guest: is probably one of the pre present -- strongest presidential powers. no one can really contested but it is just an unchecked power. >> host: in april 73 there's a tape, one of the many that fascinated me. and this is a couple of weeks

before haldeman and ehrlichman resigned, and you leave. >> guest: was it not fascinating how he had the mini blade them off the staff? had you known that? >> host: a little bit of the. >> guest: i had no idea that he had to go through the -- he really, he has to be see them, if you will, to get them -- >> host: oh, yes. and then the d.c. each other. but this one is expected because ehrlichman, kind of the second closest aide within the council, comes in and talks about the watergate cover-up. and he says there were eight or 10 people around the white house who knew about this, and then nixon says, well first haldeman is there and says, oh, i knew all kinds of people knew about the cover-up. and then nixon says, well, i knew it. and then you write, which i

think is quite accurate, realizing that he had just confessed and possibly realizing that he'd been recorded, the president immediately tried rather awkwardly to backtrack. and then he's heard on the tapes saying, i knew, i must say though, i didn't know. and there's this kind of gobbledygook, and if you dig it out the realize they kind of all know what's going on. >> guest: of course they all know. and they confess it. it'it's clear. >> host: why it's clear. >> host: y. with a covering of? what were they covering up? >> guest: i think initially it's clear that nixon is coming up for mitchell. he's concerned about his friend. haldeman once told me that richard nixon believed he was president because of john mitchell. right or wrong, he had been his friend, had nudged him to do it and encouraged him to do it and

made it possible, given him a good base in new york. and just felt really great, you know, great affection for mitchell and did not want this to splash on mitchell. so that's where it starts. but he's also worried something very interesting, bob, and i don't do a lot of commentary. i just let the facts rule out. >> host: this is a passionate presentation in a very interesting way that you're able to bring yourself -- you must have a good editor. >> guest: i did have a good editor at i tried to edit myself along the way to stay out of it, if you will. but one of the things he is very apparent very early is he's concerned if he had said something to colson that is triggered if the watergate break-in. now, i didn't elaborate on that but this was sort of a subtext in these conversations. you can tell from the tone of voice is. you can tell from the way somebody approaches something.

i think he thinks he might've told colson to tell hunt to break-in. because it earlier and that. i put a footnote on one of those conversations in 71 during the pentagon papers episode where he is literally pounding on his desk demanding they break into the brookings institute. >> host: where they suspected there was a secret report on the vietnam bombing. >> guest: exactly. >> host: if you listen to that tape, nixon is just in a rage. i want you to get in there, and he won't let it go. and in such good tapes, this is a 1971 now, a year before watergate, he is ordering a break-in. he voices great disappointment they didn't do what he asked. >> guest: you know who turned that off lex. >> host: oh, you did. that's right. he went out there. >> guest: that's what got myself on the outs if you will so i knew nothing about the plumbers operations because i had, i had --

>> host: better remind people what the plumbers operation is. >> guest: the special investigations unit which was a self starting, many fbi and -- >> host: it was set up on dirt nixon's order to track down leaks. really for ellsberg. >> guest: they were unhappy with the way fbi had done. anyway, i turned it off and that's the reason i know none of that. don't talk to dean about it. so that's what this is all a surprise to me. you asked me what are they covering up. they are definitely covering up the activities of the plumber. here's the way this happens. because ehrlichman agenda is, this is the thing that amazes me that neither ehrlichman nor haldeman -- well, there's some strings they might run out that would be a problem. i'm not even sure how much

ehrlichman has told him. but what happened is, john mitchell, within 48 hours of the arrest, bob and fred, two of his aides debrief libbey, a lady confesses as he had the name that he had used two men in the watergate that he used in a break-in in the site could trust to a psychiatrist office and now they're in jail. and lady tells him of the things. safs provided paraphernalia and what have you. so mitchell is generally concerned at this point. i think, my hunch was that mitchell, had i not been the case might've stepped forward and said listen, i made a terrible mistake. and done the right thing. he then you so worried about the fact that the white house has got, it's both peter and this as well.

>> host: so that's what mitchell called the white house -- >> guest: that's what drives the cover-up. >> host: that's part of it, the 1970 houston plan which nixon authorized. wiretapping, additional break-ins. nixon authorized it and then rescinded because j. edgar hoover, the fbi director protested not because it was illegal but because he felt that was the fbi's turf. we do break-ins and wiretaps, and how dare you get somebody else to do what. >> guest: i don't think that go the cover-up. nixon in his own mind felt that stuff was all all right. if you read some of his he thinks, he knows it's politically troublesome, but he also i think would not have gone as far as he did go with the jeopardy that mitchell had because of the watergate break-in. >> host: a couple of things here. first of all there are

conversations which were not taped, and karl bernstein and i a number of years ago talked to clark macgregor who was the former congressman who replaced mitchell as the campaign manager for nixon and clark macgregor told us that nixon and mitchell had a meeting a few days after watergate in the residence of the white house. and all macgregor was able to say from what he learned from mitchell was taken of all laid their cards on the table. and each learn about things they didn't know about. and if you really look at it, if that's true, macgregor is deceased now and you get from mitchell is gone, nixon is gone. but if you look at that point, there is a time in your tapes, it shows which is kind of go full blast with the cover-up. they are going to cover. now, you say the 1970 houston

plan didn't concern nixon but i think it did and -- >> guest: he approved it. >> host: but this may 23 tape, and i really thought this was interesting because this houston plan is clearly illegal. everyone knows it's illegal. and nic sims approved it, and on this tape nixon says i ordered that the use any means necessary, including illegal means. nixon is telling this to his chief of staff at the time, al haig -- >> guest: and he quickly says the president of the united states can never admit that. of course, he just had. and so clearly that was one of -- my whole view of this is, this is a matrix. you have a whole series of activities that mr. kobak in

1969. illegal activities that kind of come together and the watergate burglary when five people are arrested in the democratic headquarters, then you've got an investigation. you have a thread on the sock is going to pull it down. and all of this is connected. >> guest: well, you know what was interesting is chuck colson reported his reaction, nixon's reaction that first weekend, which i think is true, but nixon was wise enough to walk it back. and colson, who only colson could quote himself as here's a, said he could remember what nixon had told him that weekend when they talked, the weekend of the 18th and 19th of june of 1972. but he did know what his staff had told him. he had told them.

so that the meter they made it inadmissible hearsay, and he said he told his staff that nixon was so angry to learn that the committee was involved in this he would've thrown an ashtray across the room. well, you know, that isn't a surprising reaction to. >> host: so did nixon know about the watergate burglary on june 17, 1972? >> guest: i don't think so. >> host: did he know about the operation that they went in a month earlier to plant that the bug? >> guest: don't think so. by do think -- but i do think -- here's the thing, bob. had they not been arrested at the watergate on the night of the 17th, they were headed that night for mcgovern's headquarters up on capitol hill. and if they had been arrested there, you can trace a ride back to the oval office. because nixon gives an instruction to haldeman to put a plant in mcgovern's

headquarters. now, what does a plant mean? it can mean a lot of things. >> host: not a fight country, for sure. >> guest: right. and haldeman takes that and tells gordon to tell lady to changes intelligence operation for muskie to mcgovern. so it had been arrested that night in mcgovern headquarters, we have the order in a sense can write from the oval office. but i don't think the plant, and when you look in the context of some of the other conversations, message limit electronic surveillance. >> host: but lady would take anything and run with it. what is nixon's legacy now transferred one of the things i think people might look at as a result of the way i was able to get in and dig out some of this stuff is the fact his decision-making is pretty shoddy stuff. and how broad and a wide was this really perilous and

information week decision. >> host: but this isn't going to change the view of people had of him or history might have of him. >> guest: well, it could explain that maybe somebody like this and you or ehrlichman are much more important to his decisions safe from everything from epa to china than nixon was. they drove the decisions. you can see, that man suffers making decisions, important decisions. >> host: but what he's doing these he is trying to tease out from people what they know and -- >> guest: there is some of that. but he's also trying to clarify his own thinking. >> host: so what's his legacy going to be? history is not going to judge him as a management consulting team would judge. history is going to judge him about whether he was good, whether he accomplished some things, whether he cared about the people he represented.

>> guest: well, they would judge them in the context of other presidents is what they will do. as you know on a hearty biographer. a president who has gotten a really bad rap, and no one has ever understood it because it never got dug into the factor i think as long as the facts about nixon's presidency, things like watergate, he's not going to be well-respected as a president. he's not going to be an admired figure. he can't be. >> host: well, not only that but i mean, what these new tapes and the old tapes show is this. he almost had this view of the presidency as an instrument that he had which he could use for personal -- to settle political scores. in these new tapes you have, he people say go after the mcgovern contributor to go

after the dnc contributors. get the irs to run their tax returns, and so forth. >> guest: very interesting, the more successful he is, the more revengeful he becomes. you know, he reaches the pinnacle of his reelection with real serious numbers. it's a record in the top three of all presidential races in the electoral and the popular vote. >> host: in 1972. >> guest: in 1972. and what happens? he becomes more bitter. what's he talking about most? how he's going to go after his enemies. this is not a gracious winner. but he's also troubled. >> host: union and worked for him and had all those meetings with him. did he seem happy? i mean, one of the things working for people, you discover, and some of the editors at the "washington post" like ben bradlee who was tough and really knew how to look,

we're going to put this in the paper ever going to keep us out of the paper, but he was happy. he would make jokes. there was a spirit. was at any of that? >> guest: nixon has very little sense of humor. >> host: no joy? >> guest: you know, i don't know. there's some conversations that i did not include because they weren't relevant. in doing things the publication stop and listen to some. he had a loving relationship with his daughter's. i'm sure they were stunned when this stuff came out to see the other side of the. so there was a joy in his family, and the same with his wife. he has defined the relationship with a few conversation i listen to there, most of that stuff was retracted or taken out his personal. >> host: so we haven't seen, i mean, what, how we only seen a third or a half of what's available? there are hundreds of hours for

privacy reasons. >> guest: there's a treasure trove there. just like these after all these years with nobody bothering to flush all this out to fully understand watergate. and to me now have the full picture of his role in watergate for the first time. >> host: one of the other things i found fascinating was ehrlichman goes to nixon, this is in march of 73 before you come in and give your cancer on the presidency speech and they talk about the actual watergate tap into the democratic headquarters, which functioned, at least for a number of weeks. they did get some stuff and ehrlichman reports to nixon, and there's some pretty juicy stuff in there. and then i thought of this is being held back. and then they are talking about the tapes and this is what's so interesting. nixon says, i think we out to destroy the tapes. >> guest: two states, not the dnc takes. >> host: and we are to get rid

of these tapes. and he actually orders haldeman to do it twice exactly. and at the end, haldeman said sure. nothing happens. why? >> guest: i think he gets consumed in watergate after that himself. not being a lawyer he thought nixon might be able to use these selectively in his advantage and made the decision that he was going to do anything about it. what again is interesting is that's after, that point when it leaves and the continued the means. he insists they meet in the linking -- in the lincoln sitting room about future testimony. >> host: so there's a big portion that was taped that we don't know about and then -- >> guest: not a large portion. i would say it's like 90-10. 90% of nixon on watergate is on dave. >> host: i don't mean -- i mean nixon being president. there's all this stuff. >> guest: there's a massive supply.

to trace, and you can do this -- >> host: kissinger said when he heard about the taping system, because he did know about it, he said this is pure madness, to tape, you know, years and years of conversations through a voice activated system so if somebody just went in there and made some noise, the system went on. and kissinger said it would take years just to even do a once to listen estimate exactly. -- >> guest: . exactly. it's a remarkable -- he once said it's the gift that keeps on giving. that's very true for any student of this president. we will never have a record like this again. because you can literally trace this man's behavior in watergate from the beginning virtually to the end because you know that could not have been a very different pattern to follow after the plug was pulled in

mid-july when butterfield revealed it. it was just a repetition of what we have already learned. his defense then becomes really trying to protect the tapes and prevent them from -- >> host: but no present is going to get again. i remember in giving president obama for one of my books, and went into the oval office with two tape recorders so that would not be a malfunction. and his press secretary said, oh, they knew a lot about tapes and if one left. and then obama said, can you believe they take everything? he looked at his press secretary and kind of like, we will never do that. that's never going to happen again. and so in a sense, we get to look into not just the actions and words of this president, but a little bit into his soul, don't we? get into the interior courtyard where real decisions are made.

>> guest: we do, no question. and that's, that's something i don't have a soundbite to explain nixon. i think you have to watch them and see how he handles this as it progresses. it's not a pretty picture. >> host: is there anything on the tapes that sheds light on him in a positive way? is there anything that's favorable? >> guest: absolutely. there's no question that his aides did not serve him well. he is not given the facts he needs to know early on. now, how he would've dealt with it is another issue. >> host: does that include you? >> guest: no. the sooner i get in there in late february, i'm hinting initially about problems. and i'm trying to figure out how much this man knows and doesn't know. >> host: ask security council how come you're not banging the door down earlier?

>> guest: there's a tape where he recognizes that when he says, you know, dean won't be able to say because it's too. he had no access to me because it had to come -- >> host: why didn't you insist on that access? why would you not out there early saying wait a minute, we are going down the road in a criminal cover-up, and for months and months you were running that to a certain extent. >> guest: i assumed that, i couldn't believe that when it went through these tapes that he wasn't being told more than he was being told. i just assumed that haldeman -- >> host: a lesson for a lawyer, never assume. >> guest: now under the rules of ethics, a lawyer come we seize these problems can has a duty to report up, and to report to the very top if necessary. >> host: you wish you had? >> guest: yes then what would watergate have been different?

>> guest: i think are the on he would've had a chance to get out in front of it and stop it, whether he would have or not i don't know but he never had the chance the way it unfolded. >> host: and he's got all those earlier actions, the burglary, the houston plan. but he later explained, was at this kind of a mindset that nixon was the driver and, you know, if you had gone in there and if you'd said to haldeman in june of 72 of the days after the watergate burglary and said, this has got a bad album about it. i need to talk to the president. if you had gone in there and slammed your fist down and said, this is illegal, this is against the law but you're the president of the trendy. you can't do this. >> guest: in your early '30s, you don't go in and push around the leader of the western world. neither you nor i would deal with the situation must -- much

differently at this point in our life. what i did do on march 21 is try to confront him with these problems one after another after another and he has a response for every one of them. for example, i tell them he is terrible trouble and he's committed perjury. his responses, john, perjury is a tough row to prove but i tell them, who knows how much is going to cause? he says, what could it cost? i said i pulled a figure out of thin air. i never thought about this and i said that this could cost a million dollars over the next couple of years. that would be what i would have been today but i've no idea but i was trying to stun them with a number where he would say, how come we can't raise that kind of money. to what cdo? >> host: i know we we can get a, and in cash. >> guest: and he checked with rose woods asked how much money they had in the slush fund. they had 400,000. he was already looking for it.

so i'm not sure if i'd gone in it would've been different. because at that point i'm really trying to warn him because i realize no one has warned them what we are doing is just deadly. >> host: as i mentioned to you, the one thing i disagree with is you say if the book on page 209 that you don't believe there was an organized effort to conduct espionage and sabotage. and you are quite firm about it. you said you never found the existence of such a scheme, and if so, if it existed, it's kind of a fantasy scenario with the number two in the fbi who is one of our sources who was named deep throat by the managing editor at the "washington post." >> guest: how -- before responirespond to that, were you surprised how much we knew at the time when they would?

>> host: and, i mean, i was astounded. you know, they said he's the one who is leaking, and then haldeman it says to the president, look, we can't do anything. we can't fire him. we can't throw him out. because he knows everything. >> guest: right. anyway, and the answer to this, in your series where i give you full credit for merging the issues, beginning the process of bringing abuse of power and misuse of campaign operations and connecting and putting watergate as a part of a larger picture, which is today's definition of watergate, which is abuse of power, and it's not just limited to campaign. the post melded that information and changed for ever watergate into something more than just a bungled burglary. what i never found, bob, was a

central organization that was running a 50 state campaign of sabotage and would have either i never heard of it. i haven't found any evidence of it. was their ad hoc and freelance stuff going on? hobley, i don't know. where was i going? >> host: but it existed to the senate watergate committee found donald segretti ran 22 people that were all kinds, there were spies in the muskie campaign. they were sending out phony literature. >> guest: but let me tell you something. that wasn't coming back to the white house. >> host: but that was an operation that was set up, in part, the president's appointment aspect as you know, we can probably debated this for a full hour or more and you and i have agreed to disagree on this part. i get your point. >> host: and i get your point, but what i think, do you think

this is important, and i think it's validated by your book, is that there was a mindset here. and if we can achieve our means, our political means, and screw somebody or have a public relations victory, but go to it. there is no barrier. and if you look in details as the senate watergate committee did, what the nixon operatives did the muskie, it really drove him from the race, or certainly helped, and got the nominee they wanted, george mcgovern it was much more to the left, and it was a big political victory that worked. and if you think of watergate as a burglary or just a cover-up of it, it masks the dimension because the dimensions were to do these things that were really

pretty ugly. you take one candidate stationery, and put it out accusing another candidate of wild sexual improprieties and so forth. >> guest: again, i don't -- videos directed from the white house to do the. but let's not debate that back and forth. look at my opening statement in my senate testimony where i said exactly this. this was a mindset. this was a predisposition, do-it-yourself white house to gather intelligence for political intelligence by whatever means they thought they might be able to do it. and this was the mindset that came right from the top of the white house. when presidents wear hats, all their staff wear hats. when presidents have fires in the fireplace, all the staff has a fire in their fireplace. the president doesn't do that thing, they don't do the.

so it really comes from the top. >> host: and the concentration of power and the presidency is astounding. >> guest: it is. and this has largely been because congress doesn't want to take these things on. things that have to be done, take the area of intelligence, which is an area in your national security come you don't with for a long time. conkers for years didn't want oversight because they didn't want the responsibility of oversight. they said just do it and don't tell us how you do it. so this is why we have this concentration of power in the executive branch. the legislative branch has not one to grapple with these things, and there's some things they don't grapple well with. >> host: that's true. there's a vacuum in an interesting way on the dark side, like nixon exercised his

power in an astonishing way, and i think when all of the tapes and everything is out. i mean even what we know now, and with added in your book, i think, the idea that a presidential aide chuck colson comes in and says, you know, i black belt, i did all these things. >> guest: let me ask you this. i that you might in particular find the story of ron sigler, whose tail has never been told. ron never wrote the book he hoped to write. he never gave an oral history for the nixon library. he died relatively young, and the only record we have of ron now is in the states. and he plays a very significant role. he actually becomes and fulfills the role of haldeman had as the found aboard as is presidency progress is when haldeman lease.

enormous influence. >> host: haig, the new chief of staff and ron ziegler who really kind of were the ones who went to nixon and listen to him and tried to manage all of this. you know, i think there's no doubt that it's true, but no one ever established the ziegler had a primary knowledge, firsthand knowledge of the crime himself, other than what he heard from nixon and haldeman and ehrlichman and you. >> guest: could you name him as a co-conspirator? yes, you could. and a technical sense. he never was. and i'm pleased for him he wasn't because he was in this odd role of having to be the spokesperson. >> host: it was very odd and when we wrote stories he denounced us regularly, and then when -- is that you saw the conversation where he goes to nixon and seth i want to apologize to the post- >> host: and he did. he did publicly. that was a great note, at least

in my mind, and to thank my colleague, that was important and kind of, okay, you did your job. now let's move into the next phase. the problem with the next phase is, your tapes show, a continuing cover-up aspect the cover-up was a cover-up. >> host: exactly. i agree completely. now, frank gannon worked for nixon who is a nixon defender in a review in "the wall street journal" of your book says a couple of things which i want to ask you about. he says you left out some things in the march -- >> guest: i have not read the review at that someone told me that i omitted part of the march 21 conversation where nixon said, but it would be wrong. he seems to forget that bob holderman went to jail for claiming he said that. that is not in that conversation. that conversation has been publicly available for decades.

it's on the nixon library website. i suggest frank go to the website, read the transcript, listen to it and you will find that he is dead wrong. >> host: okay. and the second thing he says at the end, he said there are many mysteries about watergate. now, i don't think there are many mysteries at all. i think we know too much, but he makes a good point when he says we don't know who ordered the break-in, and we don't know what they were looking for. >> guest: not true. i think there's no question they were looking for financial information of some sort. i put an appendix together where i drew out everything from every conversation, put it in summary form so people could see it. and it's just a question. the white house understood, this is what -- what i didn't add and what i have done elsewhere, showed everybody's involvement

in the break-in, but they were looking for financial information. barker, martinez, hud. hud says that's the instructions he gave them. they did this under oath. no question what they're looking for. >> host: they were looking more broadly for dirt on the democrats. >> guest: a fishing expedition. who ordered it quick special doubt in my mind how it happened and i don't go into this in great depth in the book at all. but what happens is that when mitchell approves the plan, watergate is a part of it. the democratic national committee. macgruder sends liddy on this mission. when the results, the fruits come back, macgruder told me at the time contemporaneously, and he told me -- and just testify to this fact also, i left my cell phone on. anyway, and he has testified to this very clearly, that what

happened is the results were such junk that mitchell calls him in after he looks at his bedroom and says, listen, this stuff is worthless but it's not worth what we paid for. and macgruder loves this. in fact, he's not fond of -- >> host: he is number two in the reelection. >> guest: and macgruder's position has always been that liddy, the self starter, had to go clean this up on it his own d didn't tell anybody he was going to break in watergate the second day. what they're going to break in, the original plan and the briefings were to break into mcgovern's headquarters. so it's clear that liddy takes his groove -- group back in a second day. he claims that he told hunt and the others that mitchell insisted on. welcome i do think mitchell insisted on at all. i think mitchell just told them to stuff you got me was junk. and liddy is a highly manipulative person but when he

put together his book, i think you try to do an honest account. but he does it eight years after the fact and to try to look at other people and remembered what he removes. i'm the first to tell you that memory is not the best source. i think something like the states. i remembered so many things and corrected so many things. this as a contemporaneous record that we make these kinds of mistakes. >> host: one of the things you do in your life easy go around to law firms and talk to lawyers about -- bar associations about this kind of situation and what a lawyer should do. suppose you were a teacher in college or a high school and you taught a class on watergate, and you wanted to tell the students in some grand synthesized way what this was and what is the

lesson citizens our students should take away from this extraordinary scandal? >> guest: i think passionate we 20 lawyers who got on the wrong side of the law during the watergate. >> host: at least. >> guest: that's the best count i could make is 20 got on the wrong side of the law. and noted so. maybe others got on, but i think that everybody who worked at the nixon white house to the difference between right and wrong. and you have a great leader. everything i thought was wrong when i later pulled out the law books was wrong. so to me the lesson is when it feels wrong, it probably is wrong. double check. we have also rather interesting situation. >> host: and if you're in your 30s only enter a lawyer in the white house, bang the door down. raise your hand and baby are going to go out and take an

extraordinary amount of courage for somebody to actually do that. >> guest: i blew up one break-in, which was the brookings. >> host: but not enough aspect brookings never thanked me for solving -- for saving their building, bob. that's one lesson. i think we all have good sense. >> host: usurer got if it's wrong. >> guest: exactly. for lawyers, as a result of watergate era came out the rule, a set of rules that ha have nevr existed before largely because of my testimony. ..

depending on of the rules are written at that time anything like they are now i have a duty to report out. i have to go to the congress and tell them this. that is a lot of leverage nixon