>> in a way it really impacted me to go from the freshman congress and be in the middle of the biggest scandal of the century. >> you were a republican -- how did that affect your career? >> well, it did two things. number one i think it pretty much terminated any future i had as far as a leadership position in the party. secondly -- >> because you were one of the first to vote for impeachment. >> right. secondly it was very liberating. once the ambition to do anything more within the party structure was eliminated it was pretty much free to do whatever i wanted. so ambition can be a highly motivating factor and it can consume one. it doesn't consume me for the reason i knew that there was really no opportunity within the party structure. i was pretty much a free agent the rest of my career.

>> you did all right. you did all right. bill weld, would your life have been different without watergate? >> it sure would have. it was the beginning of everything for me. i think of it as one of two events that electrified my generation, the other being the assassination of president kennedy and teddy white's book. but some people in my generation were disillusioned by watergate when gordon strong said -- one of the people who was convicted, what advice would he give to young people regarding public service, he said stay away, stay away. but for every one of those, there were ten who were very highly motivated. i shared an office with a young yale law graduate, hillary rodham. both of us went into public service. i came down there as a corporate lawyer and went back just championing to become a litigator and criminal litigator. and within half a dozen years, i was u.s. attorney under president reagan for five years

and then head of the criminal division down here for two years. and my stock and trade there was the idea that public corruption is not a victimless crime. and there's some sense in the past that it was and these cases were hard to prove. having lived through watergate, having listened to every minute of the tapes, it was simply impossible not to have a burning desire to uncover public corruption. and i became an ally of the press over the years in that we both wanted to knock down the same temple walls because we knew the rock that could repose within. and it was the watergate scandal that allowed me to take that tact. >> fantastic. and bud crow, we know that you spent four months as the -- >> four months and two weeks. >> four months and two weeks in jail. how did it change your life? >> i would first like to say to my former colleagues that it's a lot easier to come into this building with valet parking than to come in -- it just works for me, you know. well, obviously watergate changed it profoundly.

i was involved in one of the horrors, the break-in of the office of a psychiatrist. we were motivated by what we thought was a national security imperative. that's what i was told by the president. i authorized a convert operation in july of 1971. it was carried out. nothing was found. but what that constituted at that time -- and i've looked back on this a lot over of the last few years, was a major breakdown in integrity. my personal integrity and that of the unit for which i worked. we asked a lot of questions about who can do this, when can they do it, how much will it cost? but we didn't ask the critical questions like, is it legal? three of the four of us were lawyers. you would have thought that might have been relevant. and, basically, is it the right thing to do? is it consistent with basic

values that we had? respect, responsibility, fairness, honesty. we didn't ask those questions. but when nothing was found, they did take pictures of a damaged office. and i remember asking, is there something about the word covert that was unclear? and then they said shut it down, which we did. some gentlemen that worked for me went on to the committee to work to re-elect the president. you can't get into trouble. i remember june 17th or 18th, i was at st. louis in a meeting. i came out and saw the news kiosk the story about the watergate break-in and read who was involved and i thought, this is going to change everything. wasn't sure just then what it would be. then i think i had maybe two or three days when i got back to demonstrate the moral courage, which i wish i had at the time,

to go in and tell the president what happened the year before. >> right. >> i think what richard bendenista and others have said, the cover-up was key -- not exclusively but primarily to cover up what happened in 1971. >> right. let me ask you about this national security. we asked people in the audience and online to ask questions. what you and fred thompson keep talking about keeps coming up. in post 9/11, is there more going on down at pennsylvania avenue in the name of national security that we should know? and would that taping system -- maybe we don't know. you study the presidency now. >> yes, i have. i don't know what's going on. i know that a president, if the country is attacked, has a responsibility to respond to that. he will put things into motion that he thinks will be

responsive. whether it's outside the law, i have no way of knowing. i do know president obama brought in someone to run his conflicts and ethics office. the question of national security, these threats are with us all the time. every president is going to respond to them in some way. the problem is that when national security is used to justify political activity, and i think that's what happened to me. at least that's what i bought into, in 1971. it was wrong then. it's wrong today. >> what do you think, the institutions, legacy of watergate, enough checks and balances that that kind of thing can't happen again? >> i think we have a potential repetition of watergate because we're looking at watergate. you saw power, money and secrecy. and today, you're seeing money and secrecy. i think the political system is being overwhelmed with money and a lack of accountability. the fact that you can have millions -- [ applause ] millions of dollars funneled into a particular campaign and the public will never know, certainly may not know until after the election. i think there are lessons that

are still relevant. much of it has been swept aday. all of the so-called watergate reforms have pretty much gone by the wayside. >> the campaign financing? >> campaign finance. trying to have full disclosure, limit how much can be contributed. money will always play a major role in our political process and tends to limit are doom to failure. one thing you can insist is full accountability immediately so that the public at least knows by the way of internet or other opportunities who is getting what, how much and what's the accountability for -- people contributing, what are they seeking to get out of this particular candidate or this particular party? i think it's very dangerous what we're doing right now. i would like to see more accountability and more disclosure and less secrecy. >> you want to weigh in on this, bill?

>> well, i tend to agree. human nature, being what it is, if you don't have a vigilant press and vigilant public prosecutors, both state and federal, you're absolutely going to have danger of repetition here. plus, as the secretary and senator says, the dollar signs are so large these day that one super pac can move the needle. that didn't use to be true in the old days. i would subscribe to what my esteemed colleague said. >> you studied the presidency. what impact on the presidency did it have with the hindsight of 40 years and given the fact that it ebbed and flowed. >> i don't think they set up a taping system. that's something they probably have not done. i think they brought people on to the white house staff that are students of what happened in the past. i know that the center for the study of the presidency, we have

the ability to make contact with people on the current staff and convey to them some of the lessons that we learned about abuse of power. we've been able to -- >> what's the number one rule? >> the number one rule is adhere to your highest standards of integrity, the constitution and the rule of law at all costs. that's the rule. i mean, that's fundamental. and i did not understand that fully when i was there. it gets to loyalties. when i was sentenced to prison, judge gerhard gazel looked down and said what you did, you did by loyalty. i think it's important in those positions to understand that your loyalty is primarily to the constitution. when you put your hand on the bible and raise your right hand, that's what you swear to do, is to uphold the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me god. i think when i was sworn in, as a young 29-year-old, my loyalty was direct, personal and total

to richard nixon. and i think that lasted throughout those three or four years. i would have served him better if i had understood that i have other loyalties as well, often which must basically take precedence over those personal loyalties. that's what i've had to learn over a period of time. >> now i've got to ask you about that one moment in the white house we saw that picture. it was the king, the president and you. >> yeah, right. >> okay. so -- >> doesn't get any better than that. >> elvis is wearing purple velvet pants and a cape. >> yeah. >> what was the conversation like with richard nixon? >> well, my gosh, being able to host him there, i was his biggest fan in the 1950s. i never went on a date without elvis presley. and he was really helpful, so i owed him a rot. >> did nixon say he had a favorite song, like blue suede shoes?

>> no, he never broke out into song, though elvis was dressed for it. i gave an answer to the president that was beyond what was correct. he was hesitant. i moved him over to the president's desk. he started talking about things he had been studying like communist brainwashing. keep it up. we need more communist brainwashing studies and elvis said the beatles came over here and made a lot of money. president, beatles? you know, very popular rock group, sir. >> is that true? you're making this up. >> no, not really, completely. the closest he got to rock 'n' roll was -- i had to explain it. elvis said to the president, mr. president, can you get me a badge from the bureau of narcotics and dangerous drugs? >> and that's what he wanted? >> that's what he wanted. that's what the meeting was about. president turned and said why can't we get him a badge? now when you don't have a clue, what could you have said? sir, i'll check into it. i yi do that.

i said, sir, if you want to get him a badge, we'll get him a badge. >> elvis stepped forward and hugged the president, which wasn't normal in the white house. that was sort of the meeting. we got him a badge and carried the badge for the next seven years. and, actually, i heard that he used it once, which was a little bizarre. but i had gone -- you see, the thing is that i was so anxious to please both the president and elvis that i was willing to give an answer that was beyond my knowledge base. when i teach young people or law students and others, so often we say things that we think people want to hear rather than what we think is right. frankly, i didn't know the answer to that. i found out later when i got him a badge, i called john findlay, the deputy director. elvis was here eay and

i turned him down. and he said he was going to the white house to get one. i said, that would have been helpful information. >> that's great. bill, you were working side by side with hillary rodham. in those days you guys were working closely with the bill and hillary was a different bill and hillary, right? talk about working with her in those days. both of you had front seat to some of the most colorful members of congress. >> not only an office in common, but a task in common. we were writing the book about what constitutes grounds for impeachment for a president. it took about six months. finally, we came out with a pamphlet. 25 years later, i'm in a hotel room preparing a witness for testimony, the phone rings as i'm preparing a witness and john

podesta said it likes like they're going to proceed against my client, which was president clinton. and he said there's two people that know more about impeachment than anyone, and one of them is disqualified by interest. so i need you to come and testify, which i was happy to do. the branches of political power offense. hillary rodham was a superstar from the get go. >> we did vite her here tonight. she couldn't be here. but it is noteworthy that when you look 40 years ago at the white house, inquiry staff and congress, there were very, very few women and she was one of the very few at the time. bill cohen, since they've got some good stories, i bet you do, too. how much was the pressure and what was it like to be a republican member of congress? it wasn't as partisan as it is now, is that right? >> it was fairly partisan. not to the degree it is now. but i recall one specific moment when we were watching the program earlier. and president nixon was in the oval office and he had a stack

of edited transports behind him. the committee, judiciary committee was supposed to meet the next day to decide what to do about president nixon. they had issued a letter, asking him for the tapes. and he came back and said, i'm going to give you the edited transcripts. he went on television that evening and he made the national broadcast and said never have conversations so private been made so public. and so he hadn't really released a public affairs policy to try to influence public opinion at that point. the next day, the committee postponed its hearing and i called chairman rubino. i said what do you plan to do? he said i plan to write a letter to the president, reiterating our initial request. i said that's it? that's all i'm going to do. i went to the committee. we had the benefit of counsel from bert jenner, who went through all the reasons why this was inadequate.

i was persuaded by that. when we started to go around the circle, i said what if peter rubino just wants to write a letter? i remember the ranking member hutchins says there will be no letters. this is an attempt by democrats to simply steal the election they could not win and we're not going to be any part of it. i said what if it's just a letter, really, reaffirming what we were already asking for? he said no letters. then they were going to take a vote and i said what if i write the letter? they said no letters. as they were going around to take a vote, who is going to stand with us, i left. i went back to the office, wrote my own letter and called peter and said, would you support me tonight if i offer a substitute for your amendment? he said no. i said why not? don't you want this to be bipartisan? he said, look, i have two people on the committee that want to impeach richard nixon right now and if i support you, i will lose whatever control i have of the committee.

i will recognize you, but i won't vote for it. so that night, he recognized me. i made my motion and it failed. and then we voted on peter rubino's motion. that was the night that i decided that i could not support the republican position, especially after our own counsel had given us an analysis of why the edited transcripts were inadequate. and so as they were calling the roll, two democrats, john conyers, voted against. when it came to me, i knew it was going to fail by a tie vote if i voted with the republicans and i decided i couldn't do that. i voted to support peter rubino and that changed things. >> bill, did you see a lot of bipartisanship? >> the members are pretty

colorf colorful, we were sitting around discussing article ii, agency abuse, misuse of the fbi and the cia. one of the members scratched his head and said what's the theme of this article? i don't get it. jack brooks, a cigar-smoking congressman from texas was leaning way back in his chair smoking a cigar, relaxing. he came down hard, took the cigar out of his mouth and said the thing of this article is that we're going to get that son of a -- out of there. i wouldn't call that bipartisan. >> i was responsible for trying to cut the crime in the district of columbia. that was one of my jobs. there was a little thought of that as i was being driven away, handcuffed. well, it was one of tremendous disappointment and sadness, because i was a deep believer in richard nixon.

i felt that he had made decisions that were extremely valuable and important to the world. his opening to china, working out a deal on anti-ballistic missile treat which russia, narcotics control, things that were great that i believed in. just a few of us went over the line. and it wasn't the administration as a whole. there are just a few of us that, either through lack of experience or basically ignorance, arrogance, immaturity, whatever it was, made some calls at critical points that basically led inexplicably to watergate. i didn't have anything to do with watergate. people groan. but i say, don't worry, i did something far worse the year before. >> disappointment in what? >> that myself and others were not able to operate the level of integrity, intelligence and loyalty to the key values, rule of law in the constitution. >> but do you think that it was

right that you went to jail? >> yes, i do. i've never hesitated for a moment on that. i felt that when i pleaded guilty it was after a trip to williamsburg, virginia, with my family. i was out behind the house, was under indictment in california as well as here. my kids were playing and i looked at it. isn't it amazing? my kids are able to play here. i'm able to drive down here, go to the church of my choice, talk to a reporter. what were you defending? i was defending the right of someone at a high level working for the president to make a decision to strip away from another american citizen his right to be free from an unwarranted search. i said i wanted to plea guilty. ask him if he would agree to have me sentenced before i would talk to a grand jury or u.s. attorney. i'm forever in his debt that he accepted that. i pleaded guilty november 30th, 1973. >> how did you get along with the other inmates? >> my gosh, i got my first job

offer. >> what was the job? >> he was a -- specialized in stereos. and he asked me, would you like to work with me when you get out or are you going to go straight? i said, i've given crime at it. i'm not very good at it. he said you're the worst i've ever seen. why didn't you call me when you needed help? i said i didn't have your number. it was bizarre but you have to survive there. jail was the right place. prison was the right place for me. i think i was the only guilty person in the prison that i was in. executive clemency would not have been good for me. i had a wonderful lawyer who said own up to it, plead guilty, take the hit. don't write a book and then we'll work with it. i was disbarred for six years, was eventually reinstated in 1980. >> let's move this back to richard nixon. one of the still enduring

questions that people don't get is he was a smart man, you know, how is this possible? if he were here tonight, what would you be asking him? >> i think we've been talking about has to do with a discussion of ethics but also contempt and hatred, a sentiment that fueled richard nixon toward certainly the kennedys but also toward members of congress and the institution itself. it's interesting. i was listening -- the other day my wife and i had a chance to go to a luncheon where morgan freeman was honored and janet was talking and was asking him, do you think it's in a human being's dna to hate? and he said yes, but it's also in the dna to love. and i think that that is something that struck me, as i was listening to her tell this. i remember reading john gardner many, many years ago, former secretary of what was then health, education and welfare. he had a book called "recovery

of confidence." he said something that really stayed with me to this day. he said our institutions have become caught in a savage cross fire between critical lovers and unloving critics. if i look back at the richard nixon experience, the sense of being not a loving critic, but someone who held anger and resentment and hatred for others. and i think that fueled him. i think hatred is a consuming passion. and it ends up destroying the people -- the person who holds it as much as the people against it. there's no way to go back and ask richard nixon what lessons he learned. i had occasion to meet him following the impeachment process. we got along very well. i wish that he had shown the kind of serenity and tranquility that he had after the experience during the time that he was president. i think we would have had a very different result.

>> he was going to win in a landslide. why did he hire you? >> well, one thing -- bill, one thing he said -- it was the last day before he got on the helicopter and he waved. he said something that is at the back of the wonderful story that bob woodward and carl bernstein's article in the post. he said there are always who hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them in return. and then you destroy yourself. i think some of those hatreds coursed through us. they were political opponents, they're adversaries, you go after them. you don't need to hate them. that triggers and brings to bear emotions and decisions that are excessive and disproportionate to what you're doing. he could have accomplished so much but for that. but i think he did recognize that. >> we're running out of time. i just want to end it very briefly, you know, that watergate had a huge impact on

the american system. what would you say is the top of your list about what it changed? >> not enough has changed. we saw a repetition of it during iran-contra, where you have a secret funding mechanism outside the constitutional process. i think that was almost as dangerous to the system as watergate was. we've learned lessons, but i think i've always felt that within the core of every single reform we have ever conceived, there is a seed of its own abuse. so, we have to constantly be aware that reforms also lead to its abuse and we have to constantly understand we're never going to reach a plateau of perfection. we have to constantly criticize ourselves, have a vigilant presence, we talked about before, but constantly examine what we're doing, how we're doing it and how we can become a better nation. >> bill? >> i would say that watergate was a high watermark that set the stamp on the united states

as a country that would engage in critical self examination, when the circumstances warrant it. not too many countries are in that boat. i think of the traditions in the united kingdom and in israel and in south africa, since nelson mandela, qualifying them as members of that club. u.s. is a member of that club. witness iran-contra and that is -- i think watergate viewed large with his a triumph and i think, as many other people do, that the hero of that drama is benjamin c. bradley, sitting in the front row. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> bud krogh, you get the last word.

>> what i try to teach people going into government, you can never check your personal integrity at the door of any organization that you join. start out with reposing special trust and confidence in your integrity, not the integrity of the president or staff. it's yours. if people can keep that foremost in their mind, if that's what they've got to take them through that experience, i think they can be safe. >> thank you very much. during this fijt panel, we hear from "washington post" reporters who originally broke the story. hosted by "the washington post" live, this is just over 50 minutes. >> now i'm delighted to turn you over to journalist and talk show host charlie rose, the co-anchor of cbs this morning. charlie?

>> thank you. i'm pleased for all of you and me, bringing back a byline "the washington post" over the weekend. so let me introduce bob woodward and carl bernstein. >> you're good. we want you to come up at the very end for a picture. so, stay close. >> how is it that you're writing together again? what kind of tensions? >> can you all hear now? i said it felt good. it was the usual tensions. and it worked creatively, i think. at one point i used the word cravin in a line, in a paragraph and woodward call immediate and said you can't put that in there. we fought over that a little bit, but it worked. a kind of complimentary process. >> why did it work from the beginning?

>> because we had a different emphasis working. i don't know. maybe gordon libby -- waiting for his moment. we just look at the world a little differently. there was a sense of loving reporting. we were both unmarried, very young. we had the running room from the editors and ben bradley, keep going at this story. don't give it up. and that is -- bud krogh was talking about the liberating experience of going to jail. it's liberating to work for bradley. it's the opposite of jail. >> more about that later. when you talk about this story, what don't you know after 40 years?