brookings institution to steal material from their safe, the idea of paying folks to rough up anti-war demonstrators, the list goes on, the enemies' list. >> we should ask the audience how many were on the enemies list. at the time it was a big deal. it was a badge of honor. >> the fact is nixon had surrounded himself with people who vied for his attention and the way to get nixon's approval was to bring the dead mouse to his door to show that you were a tough guy, to show that you weren't bound by the rules, that you were going to play hard knuckle politics. and in the end, that did him in. >> again, for those who are watching who weren't alive then, watergate is more than just a bung gle

bung bungled break-in in this building. as mr. woodward and mr. bernstein reminded us a few days ago, watergate were things that occurred in '71 and things that occurred back to 1969. what are the lessons? >> one of the questions you posed to me was how i felt after archibald cox said he had been fired. my lawyer that's here tonight, carl chaffer, had told me, john, you have the case that we can now describe as the oliver norse case, and they can't touch you. but the lesson to me was, charlie, you may be right. he absolutely was right from a legal standpoint. still, for those who get involved, the lesson is to be

accountable, to stand up, tell the truth, because the truth is really the only way these things get resolved. and while there are revisionists out there trying to rewrite that truth at this point, we basically have the best historical record we'll ever have, and it not only corroborates those of us who were involved in the unraveling, it corroborates what the "washington post" did and how they did it. that's the lesson. the truth is the answer to solve these problems. >> i would say -- [ applause ] >> i would say as an historian, i wish the presidents would keep taping, because one of the things the tapes did is they removed called plausability. the tapes eliminate that and you see the president's role. >> can i elaborate on what we were talking about a minute ago? first of all, watergate is

unique in american history. part of the reason that richard was talking about, because the cover-up in large part was because of things that had been done that really had nothing to do with watergate, in part. but by emphasizing the uniqueness of it so much, in a way, we're in danger of minimizing it in that the traces of the elements of watergate are little pieces of it are strong throughout history and they're still with us. the tendencies i was talking about, the misuse of the fbi and taping people and getting -- the president's getting dirt on their opposition and using authorities to do certain things, using national security as a defense. every day we live with the question, today, of the real

line -- when is national security not national security? and does a war matter? does an undeclared war matter? are all bets off? is it only foreign or can it be domestic? they were doing these things, the houston plan that was drawn up in 1970, i think. we need to keep in mind was in the midst of a very unique time in american history. from 1969 to '72, we were having bombings, demonstrations and people killed, hundreds of thousands of people coming to washington, 17,000 troops circling the white house to protect it, congress was bombed, the capitol building was bombed. you had the kent state and the response from kent state and what was going on in all of these campuses and revolutionary talk and all that. that is the excuse that they

came up with not just to properly respond to it, and i think a pretty dog gone tough, significant response was called for myself. but the plumbers, the houston plan and all these high school hairy, not thought out, unethical, extra judicial measures were used to justify all that. >> but have in mind that nixon employed methods that j. edgar hoover refused to do. that may be the standard. >> and that is -- >> you know the reason for that, because hoover was a practical man, and he had sense enough to know that it was dangerous and wouldn't work. >> and with that, i want to welcome back mary jordan and thank our panelists for a great discussion. thank you. [ applause ]

we continue with the watergate conference with a discussion on the legacy of watergate. panel lists include former house judiciary committee member william weld and the associate minority counsel for the committee. they're joined by former nixon administration deputy counsel eagle crow. this is half an hour. >> fred thompson has led us perfectly into our next panel, so up next we're going to talk about the legacy of watergate. and please join me in welcoming our next guest, former defense secretary bill cohen, a former retired senator from maine who, when this picture was taken, had just come from maine. he was a freshman congressman, and he landed on the hot seat of the judiciary committee. [ applause ] >> and former massachusetts governor bill wells.

he's the young blond on the left of your screen. and when that photo was taken, he was the associate minority counsel on the house watergate committee. [ applause ] >> and eagle bud kroge. no, he's not the guy in the middle. he's currently a senior fellow at the center for the study of the presidency and congress. and then when he was working in the white house for president nixon, he was the co-director of the special investigations unit that we know as the plumbers. welcome. [ applause [ applause ] so we're going to talk about the big issues, the impact on journalism and politics, but i thought we should start right off. all three of you have had remarkable careers. you were all about 30 when this

happened. how did watergate affect you personally? bill cohen, did it change your career path in any way? >> it did, and i must say that i was almost an accidental participant in this entire affair. when i first was elected in 1972, they had a new program at harvard, the kennedy institute, and they were going to have an experimental program to see whether or not freshmen congress men could have an impact on presidential policy. they selected four of us. bourke from california, alan steele from dallas, allison jordan and me. a young man by the name of mark althou talisman was the director of the program. the only thing i can recall of the entire harvard experience was the advice mark gave to me. he said, when you get to washington, they're going to ask you to make a list of the

committees you want to be on. make sure the one you really want to be on, put it last. totally counter-intuitive to me, and i said, why? he said, because they don't know you and they won't trust you. you have to demonstrate your credibility to the party over a period of a couple terms and then you'll get the committee you want. against the feeling of my staff who argued quite strongly, do not go on the judiciary committee. it doesn't do anything. it talks about abortion or prayer in public schools. it will kill you at home. over their objection, i put judiciary last, and that's >> great story. >> 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 earlier today 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 invite 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? 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?