even in illinois talked about substantial bodily harm. you think 26 years on death row for a crime you didn't commit is substantial bodily harm. lawyers are supposed to help keep the client out of the trouble. mr. mardiad didn't do that. he took his friend, parkinson, i'm leaving the lion's den and i'll throw you in and not tell you it's a lion's den. both are attorneys for the same committee. these are the problems i have got. you got to get through to mitchell. had he done that things would have been better for mitchell because i don't think mardian did his client, the committee to re-elect the president any favors by being quiet. i think it's very easy for, you know, doctors have it better, you know, m.d.s. they just try to cure the disease. they don't decide whether you're a good person or bad person and

there's never a doctor on the other side fighting for the disease. [ laughter ] >> sometimes. >> but if you think through some of this stuff, what the client is telling you when he's done something wrong, maybe he would like you to sit back and say what's the best thing you could do right now if you could. all of these people we know now had they worked this a year earlier, there would have been some kudos for coming out and doing it, they would have been sorry they made a mistake and a president would not have resigned with his name blackened. we wouldn't have, as the watergate sadly, you know, we all pass the watergate obituaries come along and for all of them, no matter how long they live it's a line in their obituary. we discount the future insufficiently. in one of my -- one of the

classes -- here's a dollar bill. a dollar today, $2 tomorrow. you'll get it no matter what. they always a pick a dollar today even though they get 100% return the next day. they don't think about the future. that's what lawyers should be doing. think through what's happening here. what happens if they uncover this. and that's what the lawyer -- lawyer can put a break on the client, ask the client to waive certain things and i think ultimately the aba rules, in some states like florida, the rest have -- many of them have may, it says you may disclose and you have unreviewable discretion. i don't believe it, that a court will buy that one. because if you may disclose and don't, you have the soft liability because when you're

sued because you caused a problem, my answer i had discretion. you could have disclosed you chose not to. i also, you know, people say the ones that talk about suicide never commit suicide. well that's not really true. they are talking about suicide because they want help and in the clients that say i'm going to kill somebody some of them do kill. and that's a good time to call the client in and say you really serious? you think you got problems now? what happens if you have to live with that? so i think we lawyers should think much more about our power to persuade the client to do what's moral even in those cases where we cannot control. because we're the objective voice. you really want your children to know this if it ever comes out? >> good point, ron. and let me just say whoever asked the next question has a hard act to follow but are there any other questions?

>> you remind me of that movie these law students should all go watch is "to kill a mockingbird" as posed to "the firm." the model -- it's true -- the model you're talking about the lawyer being the good person in the community is something i grew up with in a small town with lawyers and i think we need a lot of that in this world. >> it's worth noting that the best example you can give the model is an act of fiction, a work of fiction. >> gregory peck. >> thank you all very much. i hope you've enjoyed this and learned from it. [ applause ] >> can we get one more big round of applause for all of our participants today? [ applause ]

>> in a moment i'll invite professor rotunda to give some closing arguments. i want to thank whitney stepcoe if you could please step up here. [ applause ] for those of you who don't know, she has been our senior symposium editor for "the law review" for the last year and for exactly a year minus a day she's been working on this symposium. she's put in a whole lot of work. she's given her life for this event. her parents are in attendance,

bob and catherine stepcoe. thanks for giving her up for the last eight months to a year. [ applause ] we're done with her now, you can have her back. i would like to invite professor rotunda to close us out. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, kevin. this is i think -- the reception is at 5:00 down stairs and we never -- i don't want to keep from you that so i'll try to be pithy. 40 years ago strange phrases became creeping into our national vocabular ka bcabularv. stone waulg. the big enchilada. fbi director earl patrick gray

let him twist slowly in the wind. john dean tells nixon there's a cancer on the presidency. these phrases and expletive deleted was another one and smoking gun. since then a lot of scandals have picked up the gate, billygate, iran-contragate. monicagate. wikipedia lists hundred gate scandals, including bart and homer simpson. so we look up to watergate to remember, people forget, for you it's all distant history. i recall the 25th anniversary there was a man on street interview in champagne, illinois where i lived and they asked the young college student what was watergate about? oh, some president resign. lyndon johnson, richard nixon, one of those two. we can laugh but it's easy to forget. a poll in germany showed that 20% of german college students do not know, had no idea what auschwitz was.

the nazi death camp. they had a reason to forget. when we think of watergate as a triumph but not a blemish on our memory. time grows old teaches many lessons. time is passing what are the lessons of watergate. one of the things relate to the people involved in this conspiracy didn't decide in 1972 let's get together and violate the law. they took baby steps, happened a step at a time, at one point they were on the other side of the line. many of them were no older or just a few years older than many of the people in this room. i mean we shouldn't be self-righteous, there but for the grace of god what would we do. what would we do if we were 28, 29 years old, 30, 31. the older people all say this is

the way it works. another, i think, another lesson is lawyer civility. there came a time when i handed a subpoena to one of president nixon's lawyers for the white house tapes and i asked him, i said are we being taped? and he said -- [ laughter ] now he was on the opposite side and we became friends later. the special prosecutor, there came a time when they tried to close us down because we were not always on the same side. we granted immunity to john dean, they thought that made their case harder. one of the lessons of watergate was civility that young lawyers should learn you can be on opposite sides you're not enemies just on opposite side. i was on the opposite side, one of the lawyers that president nixon hired was charles wright. and we became good friends after that.

we were on opposite sides. another one was james sinclair who taught me trial advocacy when i was in harvard. we sat in there the room and he was explaining to the judge these various arguments in front of us and i said we went through every one of them i said in our brief and i said you taught me well. kind of like that. watergate should also teach us that with careful diligence investigators can uncover almost everything. now we were the first committee to use a main frame computer. there were no desk tops or laptops. we used the actual computer where secretaries are typing all the information so we can dig out things that no one person knew and the other person was scott armstrong. really, the guy is mind-boggling. i'm glad he was on our side and not the other one. another example, we uncovered a memo, a document, i think it was sent by haldeman to colson and

at the bottom it said burn this memo. they burned all the copies but we found them anyway. we subpoenaed the secretary. we subpoenaed her dictation notebook, he's dictating the memo, she writes it in there. turns it over, starts another one. finishes it up puts it on the shelf. she retyped it for us. we gave the memo to haldeman and his mouth dropped. didn't think we had it. hard to argue that it's not significant. you misinterpret when it said burn this memo at the bottom of it. irwin quoted the bible. here's what he didn't know. i told him this once. he said nothing is covered up that shall not be uncovered. what you whispered in private places will be shouted from the house tops. luke 12th chapter verses 2 to 3. then there's the last lesson of watergate. there will be a lot over the next two years, three years

because we think of our anniversary as one of when the committee started. where are they now? well, a lot of them are in this room. and we say the system worked, the president resigned, a new president said our national nightmares are over. our constitution works. why did it work? the supreme court told the president you got to turn over the tapes. and he did that. the judiciary the framers called our weakest branch they don't have the power of the purse or the power of the sword. it enforces its orders by u.s. marshals. the marshals are appointed by the president. joseph stalin once asked how many divisions does the pope as many as the supreme court zero. the president obeyed the order because the people wanted it. another president, andrew jackson, he was ordered by the supreme court not to shift some

indians west of the mississippi because it violated the treaty and jackson said john marshall made his order now let him enforce it and of course the indians were shipped west of the mississippi although they had won their lawsuit. but the people supported the watergate committee. we had gavel-to-gavel coverage. we had more viewers than the soap operas we replaced. we had sponsors. normally what these people do. think about this. they made money from us. normally what they do, they cut the sponsors off, have gavel-to-gavel coverage and the networks don't like that. they lose money. they found out the ratings were up and charged the people more money than the soap operas. the house impeachment committee said it would not go to court to enforce the subpoena. why? we have the sole power of impeachment.

we don't need the aid of the court and nixon turned over the tapes because he had to, the people wanted it. the president fired the special prosecutor, the attorney general resigned because of that. he appointed a new attorney general and the new attorney general appointed a special prosecutor a democrat who was the head of the democrats for nixon campaign. the president could have fired him too because he had no statutory tenure but he couldn't get away with firing him because the people -- our mail after the saturday night massacre was mountains of mail. one of the letters i showed said you should hire archibald cox to head the investigation. sam said i already got that job so we didn't do that. people say after 40 years where are they now? it's not about us. it's about you. it teaches us only people really concerned and really informed

can protect our rights. it didn't happen for andrew jackson, not for the indians. it happened for nixon. we will get another watergate. i mean we are human, we're made that way. i don't know whether it will be a decade, a hundred years or three years. i don't know. it will happen. it always does. whether we have the system we have depends on the people. that's the divisions that the supreme court has. thank you. [ applause ] 25 years ago on june 12th, 1987, president ronald reagan delivered a speech at the brandenburg gate of the berlin wall and called on soviet president mikhail gorbachev to "tear down that wall." here's that 25-minute speech.

and in about 30 minutes remarks by former white house chief of staff to president reagan. he recalls the events leading up to the speech and its impact on the end of the cold war. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you very much. chancellor cole, governor mayor deacon, ladies and gentlemen, 24 years ago president john f. kennedy visited berlin and speaking to the people of this city and the world at the city hall since then two other presidents have come each in his turn to berlin and today i

myself make my second visit to your city. [ applause ] we come to berlin, we american presidents, because it's our duty to speak in this place of freedom. but i must confess, we are drawn here by other things as well. by the feeling of history in this city. more than 500 years older than our own nation. by the beauty of the wall and the garden. most of all, by your courage and determination. perhaps composer paul linky understood something about american presidents. you see, like so many presidents before me, i come here today because wherever i go, whatever i do -- [ speaking foreign language ] [ applause ]

our gathering today is being broadcast throughout western europe and north america. i understand it is being seen and heard as well in the east. to those listening throughout eastern europe, i extend my warmest greetings and the good will of the american people. to those listening in east berlin, a special word. although i cannot be with you, i address my remarks to you just as surely as to those standing here before me, for i join you as i join your fellow countrymen in the west in this firm, this unalterable belief -- [ speaking foreign language ] [ applause ]

behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of europe, from the baltic south, those barriers cut across germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs and guard towers. farther south there may be no visible, no obvious wall, but there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same. still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women, the will of a totalitarian state. yet it is here in berlin where the wall emerges most clearly, here cutting across your city where the news, photo and television screen have imprinted

this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world. standing before the brandenburg gate, every man is a german separated from his fellow men. [ applause ] every man as a berliner, forced to look upon a scar. the president has said the german question is open as long as the brandenburg gate is closed. [ applause ] today, today i say as long as this gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it's not the german question alone that remains open, but the question of

freedom for all mankind. [ applause ] yet i do not come here to lament. i find in berlin a message of hope, even in the shadow of this wall a message of triumph. in this season of spring in 1945, the people of berlin emerged from their air raid shelters to find devastation. thousands of miles away the people of the united states reached out to help, and in 1947, secretary of state, as you've been told, george marshall announced the creation of what would become known as the marshall plan. speaking precisely 40 years ago this month, he said, our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against

hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. [ applause ] a few moments ago i saw a display commemorating this 40th anniversary of the marshall plan. i was struck by a sign on a burnt-out gutted structure that was being rebuilt. i understand that berliners of my own generation can remember seeing signs like it dotted throughout the western sectors of the city. the sign read simply, the marshall plan is helping here to strengthen the free world. a strong free world in the west, that dream became real. japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant. italy, france, belgium,

virtually every nation in western europe saw political and economic rebirth. the european community was founded. in west germany and here in berlin there took place an economic miracle. other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty, that just as truth can flourish, only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can only come about when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom. the german leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. from 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in west germany and berlin doubled.

where four decades ago there was rubble, today in west berlin, there is the greatest industrial output of any city in germany. busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues and the spreading lawns of parkland where a city's culture seemed to have been destroyed, today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters and museums. where there was want, today there's abundance, food, clothing automobiles, the wonderful goods of the kudam. [ applause ] from devastation, from utter ruin, you berliners have, in freedom, built a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on earth. the soviets may have had other

plans but, my friends, there were a few things the soviets didn't count on. [ speaking foreign language ] [ applause ] in the 1950s, in the 1950s, khrushchev predicted, we will bury you. but in the west today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. in the communist world, we see failure. technological backwardness, declining standards of health, and now, now, the soviets themselves may, in a limited

way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. we hear much from moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. some political prisoners have been released. certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control. are these the beginnings of profound changes in the soviet state, or are they token gestures intended to raise false hopes in the west or to strengthen the soviet system without changing it? we welcome change and openness. for we believe that freedom and security go together. that the advance of human liberty, the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. there is one sign the soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance

dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. general secretary gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the soviet union and eastern europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. mr. gorbachev, open this gate! [ cheers and applause ] mr. gorbachev, mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall! [ cheers and applause ]

i understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent and i pledge to you my country's efforts to help overcome these burdens. to be sure, we in the west must resist soviet expansion. so, we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength. yet, we seek peace. so, we must strive to reduce arms on both sides. beginning ten years ago, the soviets challenged the western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly ss-20 nuclear missiles capable of striking every capital in europe. the western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter deployment. unless the soviets agree to negotiate a better solution,

namely the elimination of such weapons on both sides, for many months, the soviets refused to bargain in earnestness. as the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter deployment, there were difficult days, days of protests, like those during my 1982 visit to this city. and the soviets later walked away from the table. but, through it all, the alliance held firm. and i invite those who protested then, i invite those who protest today, to mark this fact. because we remain strong, the soviets came back to the table. [ applause ]