next on the presidency" i was state university hosts a panel on the implications for future presidents. panelists include a congressman who served on the house judiciary committee during the nixon impeachment hearings. he donated his papers to the university. this is just over an hour. julian: good evening. my name is julian neeley, i'm serving as the student body president representing the student government. it's my pleasure to welcome you to tonight's evening or program. water gate, years later, what have we learned? we will discuss what we have learned from watergate and how they are applicable to today. this program is sponsored by i.s.u. department of history and political science, university

library, ames public library and committee on lectures. student government funding makes events like tonight's program possible. as president of i.s.u. student body i'm pleased to introduce you to our moderator, ms. kathie obradovich. she's been reporting on politics in iowa for 30 years. as our opinion editor for the "des moines register" she oversees the pulitzer prize-winning staff and writes and columns and moderates, debates forums and other events. she's in the greenly school of journalism and communication. she is an iowa state university graduate who grew up in ames. please join me in welcoming kathie obradovic and our panelists. [applause]

kathie: thank you. thanks so much, julian, for that kind introduction. i'm so thrilled to see such great students like you coming out of greenly. my alma mater. and it's great to be back here at iowa state even though i'm not teaching yet until spring. i was very excited when the congressman asked me to moderate this panel not because i'm an expert on watergate. i have to tell you that right now. i was 9 years old when nixon resigned. and frankly, a lot of what i learned about watergate after that was courtesy of robert redford and dustin hoffmann. [laughter] for you current students just look it up on google play maybe or amazon or ask your moms. you know, today, though, we are all part of the drama with

robert mueller's investigation into the president's campaign. all this talk of impeachment. what does impeachment even mean? we're really lucky tonight that we have some gentlemen lucky to -- here to help us put all this into context. we're going to start off with a little bit of informational video because i know that most of you guys weren't even born when nixon died in 1994. a little bit of a primer to get you up to speed a little bit. and then we'll bring up our panelists. thank you. [applause] >> good evening. it was almost two years ago in june 1972 that five men broke into the democratic national committee headquarters in

washington. it turned out that they were connected with my re-election committee. and the watergate break-in became a major issue in the campaign. the basic question at issue today is whether the president personally acted improperly in the watergate matter. >> i go to congress, and just because i was a different party from nixon and i had met nixon at the white house when he was sworn in. it wasn't because we differed on policy or other issues to vote for the impeachment. that's what i walked into. >> when i was elected in november in the general election, i had to decide what committees i wanted to be on. i decided i did not want to be on the house judiciary committee, of course, not knowing that it would be in the

middle of history when it would have to take up the impeachment of richard nixon. if anybody had the slightest inkling that there would be an impeachment, i would not have been put on the house judiciary committee. there's no way i would have been on such an assignment. >> there's been insinuations that i knew about the planning of the watergate break-in and i was involved in an extensive plot to cover it up. the house judiciary committee is now investigating these charges. >> from our perspective and from the committee's rule, it was a combination of putting the presidency on trial. we had to decide whether or not under our constitution the sworn check of the abuse of power -- whether this one check that the framers of our constitution laid out which they never expected probably to ever happen whether

that check was in play. what we did realize at the same time the presidency was on trial, the congress was on trail because the congress had to make a decision which was momentum momentous because it affected the country. >> the stakes were very high. if we wanted to have justice done we couldn't seem to be acting in a partisan way. so the effort was very serious and insere. the house judiciary committee went out of its way to act in a a nonpartisan way as possible. because we did not want any questions to be asked of that, where we being unfair to richard nixon. we wanted to do whatever we did correctly. >> ever since the existence of the white house taping system was first made known last summer, i have tried vigorously to guard the privacy of tapes.

i've been well aware that my effort to protect the confidentiality has heightened the sense of mystery about watergate and, in fact, has caused increased suspicions of the president. many people assume that the tapes must incriminate the president or that otherwise he wouldn't insist on their privacy. >> we had no idea that there would be tapes that we would listen to and the impact of those tapes which probably no president now is ever going to have in the white house. again, really was a crushing blow. and when i heard the tapes and i had to make that decision, that's -- that's really what was a major factor in terms of ultimately deciding to vote. >> no one in the white house was involved. i want there to be no question remaining about the fact that

the president has nothing to side. >> he wasn't able to admit his mistakes. if he would have been able to have gone before the camera and said look, i'm sorry. events happened that were not right. it was wrong and i was wrong. and i ask the american public for forgiveness and i -- i still want to be your president. i think our public is a forgiving kind of public. and the voter would have accepted that. and i think it would have been very difficult to proceed. i think that argument would have been hard. he could have acknowledged what happened. and i think it would have been taken on its face and change the ultimate outcome.

>> i hope the papers will bring out perhaps what can be done rather than what we're witnessing perhaps on the front pages and on television today. >> does history repeat itself? that is a question that we are going to be talking about tonight. and while i'm just warming you up here, please come on up, gentlemen. we're going to have our distinguished panel make a few remarks. but i want you to be thinking about questions because you are

going to have been opportunity to ask them questions. and i don't want people to be shy. so this is a really great opportunity for you. i'll tell you while we were at dinner, congressman neil smith, former congressman neil smith joined us at dinner. and he brought along a picture theimself listening to nixon tapes. very interesting. he said he listened to them for four hours. and he was skeptical about the role of the president before he started listening to the tapes. and he kind of had no doubt after he listened to them. so those tapes were incredibly are you important just as you are heard on the video. so i want to introduce our very distinguished panel starting you are right here with right here edward mizvinsky. he represented iowa first and congressional congress from

an 1973 to 1977. you and and he served on the house judiciary committee during water gate. he's donating his papers to iowa in state which is an incredible opportunity for anyone who is doing research here. [applause] he has also served as u.s. in representative to the united nations human rights commission and he's currently president -- this is interesting and admiral. and currently the president of a global advocacy and patient a advocate for a medical outreach in places like sierra lake erie you leone and the democratic republic of congo. he's the son of immigrant and parents born and raised here s. and seated next to him is nick kotz. he's a former reporter for "the

register." he won a pulitzer prize for reporting in 1968 while he was at "the des moines register." a you his work has won numerous awards. in a his reporting on six books exposed government corruption and and exposed weighty topics like national defense, civil and rights, social justice and labor unions. right to his most recent book "the harvest makers' dreams: and the rise of south texas" was published in 2016 and also a marine corps veteran. yes, go, marines. and finally, jonathan yarowsky, did i say that right? i'm sorry i was trying to practice. onserved as chief counsel the subcommittee as general

council of the house judiciary committee and a special council to the president in the clinton white house. he's also served as a member of the national commission on crime. and as vice chair of the you antitrust modernization committee. he's partner and co-chair of the you legislative department of wilmer hale law firm. jonathan, why don't you start us off? give us about five minutes. we'll hear from the other panelists and then ask questions. jonathan: hello, everybody. i thought the little film brought us to a good point because it was kind of fuzzy as we look forward. i know a lot of folks, including myself, think there are a lot of similarities in the current landscape and there are. there are some -- without passing judgment because we can't do that at any point. i mean, there's been some firings. there were firings back then with archibald cox.

and we've had a firing of an f.b.i. director. hopefully we won't have another firing with the special prosecutor and there's been a lot of talk about obstruction of justice. and that's probably the cardinal sin that we saw with watergate. it wasn't breaking into -- not that you should do that -- breaking into the democratic headquarters or having, you know, pay-off money. it was really the obstruction of justice. that's the gravamen of everything that we've been hearing. but there are a lot of differences. you know, the congress then had a democratic majority. and a republican president. and not that that was a partisan reason to have an impeachment. but there were probably pretty objective review of the president's action. would that happen in this congress? those are rhetorical questions. but it's different. the other thing i would tell you

is that there are differences now in congress. the moderates are gone. they're rare species. and there were moderates on both sides of the aisle. and that was probably one of the key interpersonal chemistry reasons why you saw an incredible investigation and bipartisan action back then because people were able to work with each other. congressman smith the was and is an icon. i mean, you're so lucky to have him here and to have him represent iowans for so many years. but he spent his whole career working with other people across the aisle. that's how that worked. does that work now? i don't think it does because really there are very few moderates and that may be one of the lessons of watergate or one of the ironies of watergate. the one thing i truly believe

that history tells us about watergate and looking forward is that there are absolutely no political purpose or benefit to mingle politics with what you do with impeachment. that may sound like moralizing or trite observation but it's really not. history will tell us that. so we really need to remember that. why? who was the beneficiary politically of watergate? i guess you could say superficially it was the democrats because the next election the democrats won 48 seats in the house, five senate seats and had great power at that point and passed a lot of landmark legislation. but within four years, by 1978, the republicans came back and won 16 seats in the house and three senate seats and in 1980 , only six years later or eight years later, ronald reagan carried every state but six. actually, if you look what happened, it was the

conservative wing of the republican party that benefited the most long term because they did away with the moderates. and this is not a partisan attack on republicans. it's just an observation. they built a core group of very conservative identity in the republican party. which now i think has led to the current administration and the point of view what good or bad. i was in the clinton white house. impeachment occurred there. i had to deal with some aspects of that. but one thing i can tell you was because there was such a partisan clamor to go after president clinton, he became more popular than he ever became before and has remained that way for about 20 years. my only point, don't assume there's a political angle. that's what you're going to hear all the way. we need to keep this process if it happens. it may not happen separate. because this is a fundamental safeguard of our government.

the executive branch is always going to be very powerful. the two checks you have obviously are congress and the independent judiciary. what we saw with that and his colleagues back in the water gate hearings was a strong independent congressional branch doing its job of oversight. and let's hope and pray that that's the kind of congress we will have going forward. kathie: thank you, and mr. kotz. >> when i was asked to be on this panel what did we learn from watergate and you've got five minutes to talk about it, before i left home yesterday i asked a neighbor, can you help me with this, what did we learn from watergate? and she told me, don't break into anyone's office. and if you do, don't get caught. [laughter] that's what she learned.

i'm going to talk for a few minutes about the news media. the press, what have we learned and not learned? i'll tell you up front, the answer is not much. and i want to give you a contrast between that time and the -- in the press and today. in 1967, before any of you were born, i was playing handball one day in the gym in washington, d.c. with a young legislative assistant to a congressman. the legislative assistant was ed mezvinsky in his mid 20's. the congressman was neil smith. he is a very persuasive guys. he said you've got to get those records.

the agriculture department has records showing that there are dirty meatpacking plants all over the country. well, he persisted and i got the records. there were 30, 40 stories in "the des moines register" and the "minneapolis tribune." i was then in the washington bureau of "the register." within several months, congress passed a law, the wholesome meat act of 1967. the press played a major role in that happening. a few years later, it's 1973. i'm working for "the washington post". and ed mezvinsky, my informant

on the meatpacking business was now an informant. i was part of a group that worked on watergate. my contribution to it was a story showing that president nixon had avoided paying half a million dollars in income taxes by back dating a deed on a gift of papers to the government, a complicated story. the end result of that, the president had to pay the taxes with penalties. and he was no longer president. the press played a big role in watergate. the movie -- i don't know how many of you have seen the movie? but all the president's men are very, very informative today. would that meatpacking bill to

cleanup, the meatpacking industry -- would that get passed in five, six months today because a newspaper had revealed what was going on? i don't think so. today, and we're seeing it today, if the press pushed with all kinds of investigations of what president trump has done that was illegal, unethical, immoral, would there be an impeachment? would something happen? i don't think so. so what has changed? in 1967, 1973, what was the press? there were three television networks, nbc, abc, and cbs.

there was no cable television. there was no internet. and to a great extent, the press focused on the facts. and there was a general agreement about what the facts were in situations. that is no longer true today. and when president trump talks about fake news, he's got a point, but not the point that he thinks he's making. we have three cable channels running 24 hours a day. and if you want to see how they present the news, flip from msnbc to cnn to fox. and all you have to do is look

and listen to the three of them for about 10 minutes. because they're not presenting the news. msnbc is presenting a liberal view. fox is presenting a conservative view. they are the spokesman for the president. and cnn, which at one time was trying to present the facts is also become an editorial entity. the result, trust in newspapers. trust in television. trust in reporters and editors has plummeted in this country. 21% -- this is a poll. 21% of americans have a lot of trust in the national news. and if you think that the social

media is filling the gap, the same poll shows 4% of americans have trust in the social media. i ask another friend before i left washington, what's the lesson that we have learned? and my friend is a very, very distinguished news editor. he said, nick, i think the most important lesson we have learned is that the reporter as hero image that emerged from the watergate accomplishments of individual journalists and their institutions is done. it's over. we're down there with the politicians and the lawyers in the respect polls. and in his view, a major reason is that we in the news media

have had our own arrogant unwillingness to bring the facts straightforwardly to the public. he concludes and i would conclude by saying and to young people that are interested in becoming journalists, there is a great challenge, a greater than ever challenge today for young people to go into this business and to try to emulate, to uphold the standards of were achieved by the news media during watergate. thanks. kathie: and congressman? >> thank you, kathie. first, i want to thank the university and -- for having the commitment to take the papers in

as they have, for doing this event, for the fact -- for all of you being here, which is really quite a testament to the fact that we're talking about a topic that a number of students, of course, were not a part of, maybe did not know much about until they watch the video. but we're here. and so it's a privilege and an honor for that event to take place. also, it was mentioned that i just want to briefly reiterate, i would not be here, but for the fact that a member of congress who came here tonight neil smith is responsible for me being here and having this experience and talking to you tonight and donating these papers. i wouldn't have gone through the process. here i was. i grew up in ames. my father had a grocery store

nearby here. my family came from russia and poland. he came because he believed in this country. he came to ames, iowa. this is where i was raised and graduated. and it made an impression upon me historically and it made an impression as i got involved publicly and little did i know that when i would run and be in congress that i would have to face the issue of watergate and face the issue of what one council to the president said, he said there was a cancer in the presidency. and he testified before the committee. his name was john dean. and as a result of that, it opened up the process. but when we campaigned, campaigned in the summer of that

year, it really didn't have a lot of attention. and it finally got attention because of a firing of a special prosecutor. his name was archibald cox and became the saturday night massacre. and when we think of that we think of the firing of the f.b.i. director and people got worked up now. but that's what triggered it. it started the process. and then we were called to hold hearings. and as a result of those hearings, we discovered that there were tapes in the white house. and a certain staff person, his name was alexander butterfield came out of the woodwork and said yes, the president kept

tapes of the conversations, which was unheard of, unheard of that this would be done. though past presidents had done some taping but not to the great extent that president nixon did. so as a result of that, we started the process. and what's different then than now is that there was a conscious effort to make it bipartisan, to make it nonpartisan, to encourage, yes, i was a member of the democratic party. but i grew up in ames, where i believed and supported the president whether he was a republican or democrat. that was the tradition that we were raised in the state. and to a great extent, it's still there. so i was raised with that. little did i know that i would end up hearing taped conversations of laughter of impressions of people, and denigrating the political process that would cause me to decide finally to support the impeachment of a president.

and you know, i fought back. and i was reminded -- i studied when i was in high school -- i studied civics. we had history. we still have it here at ames high. and we studied the american revolution and thomas payne. and he said that to a great extent to reap the blessings of freedom, we must undergo the fatigue of dealing with it. and that's what we had then. and that's what we have now. we're dealing with a period in time in our history where the congress and my time was on trial. the president was on trial. but in many ways, the country was on trial. and we saw the evolution of public opinion where before it didn't have much impact. and then lo and behold it developed over a period of time.

and so what we see now is we see investigations going on. we have the mueller investigation. we see the impact of congress, which is different. as john pointed out, it's more partisan. you have one side operating on one side. the other side operating on the other side. and it's very hard to get a consensus. which was unheard of when we did it at that time. we had the consensus. and we brought it together. so really -- what's very interesting is the last event that we just had a vote and kathie mentioned it was on the supreme court. and you see the divisiveness that's happened in this country. and in terms of the credibility of our institutions, our institutions, the congress, the supreme court has the support

rating of about 37%. the congress has a rating of about 11%. the presidency is in the 30%. so we're in a different period of time now. and we hope that the experience that we learned from watergate where there was an attempt to listen to weigh the facts, to try to be partisan or nonpartisan that that period is in a very critical period. you heard what nick indicated about how the press is being viewed. we're in a time where we had the supreme court decision just to come down. and again, i was reminded -- and i come in with the judge. his name is louie brandeis who warned that the greatest menace to freedom, to freedom and the fact that all of you are here tonight, the greatest menacen is

that the public become inert, that we don't participate, that whatever the feelings politically and i know people are there to register that that is the focus to not go through that period that we learn from the past and hopefully as the good university here has recognized my papers, that we will learn and move on and we're not going to have the tapes. the tapes as one member of , congress said to me as i voted. and when we voted, a black woman from texas, barbara jordan, a woman from new york was with me who was on that tape, when we voted for that, we cried. we cried. why did we cry? because as i was raised in ames, we respected the presidency, and

we had hope for our institutions of government. and so i hope tonight, we can have a discussion and a learning lesson from the past and bring forth some hope for the future. kathie: all right. i'm going to ask these gentlemen first a question. but while they're answering, please get up, get into the aisles bring your questions. there are microphones on both sides. i don't think there's one in the middle, is there? nope, just on either side. i would like to see you guys getting up and asking some really smart questions, ok? but even if you don't have a really smart question, we'll get your question anyway. to start off with, congressman, i mean, it seems that one of the big dangers here when you eject a president and that's not what happened -- nixon resigned, of

course, but if the impeachment had led to a conviction and he had been, you know, essentially ejected, fired, there was a question about, you know, would this be a peaceful transition of power. would the democracy collapse at that point? i wanted you to talk about that effort of you being bipartisan in that context of will the american people, for example, if the same thing happens today be as willing to accept the transition and move on? >> you know, i think that's a very critical point. when we were in deliberations, we had a chairman who was from new jersey. his name was peter rudino and john served with him -- served under with him and worked with him. we specifically were instructed

that in order to be effective, in order to have the support of the public everyone here whether you were partisan, you it had to be bipartisan. it had to have the support of both sides. so literally the first article we had was the obstruction of justice. and we had about -- and the deme was divided 27-17 at that time the majority was democratic. we picked up four to five republicans that supported it. when we got to the second article, which was the abuse, the main sponsor we look to a republican member who came from illinois. and he ended up supporting that. it was a critical factor. you may not recall the committee voted and we voted three articles of impeachment.

obstruction of justice abuse of power and not complying with subpoenas. but what was really significant, the committee voted for that, but what really happened? because it was bipartisan, because you had the institution trying to be which was said then, but you can't say it now, it was said that that was congress's finest hour because of what it did. and as a result of that, three members of the presidency's party in the senate at that time, barry goldwater and hue scott, they went to the president and said, you're not going to make it. you're going to be convicted. and as a result of that, that changed the whole history of what happened. so it's critical that whatever is done with the mueller investigation, even with the supreme court nominee, you have to encourage it to be on a bipartisan or hopefully less partisan basis. kathie: well, mr. kotz, you saw the kavanaugh hearing.

do you think a bipartisan impeachment hearing -- bipartisan hearings in congress is even possible? >> given the way the media covered it. and i imagined three cable networks, you listen to those three cable networks you listened on three different stories. none of them focused straight on the facts. the news media, the press is really challenged today to try to get back to reporting stories and to stop political editorializing. kathie: and mr. yarosky you talked about the impeachment process and the danger politically and what happened with the republican party and

eventually, they came back as a different republican party but very powerful. but, just the question about a peaceful transition, is that a danger today you think? >> i don't think. so not because i'm being lib about it because even in the cacophony of alternative realities because that's what you're all subjected to alternative realities. what nick is describing is hearing not a kind of a baseline of observable facts, but of spin that goes in all directions, and you have to choose the alternative reality you want to believe in. at some point you turn off. i would venture to say that for folks who really love to stay plugged into the news, it's really been hard the last couple of years because it keeps changing.

and you have these alternative realities. however, what we saw in the last few weeks, there is some real glimmer of hope, not just -- i'm -- i come from iowa. my mom was ed's sister. but i grew up in kansas city. so that's the center of the country too. and we all hold on to glimmers of hope. but what you saw with senator flake and senator coons. forget the result however you feel about the result. that was an indicator that there would be a path forward that would insure that reasonable minds would take over a process and insure that the rule of law would apply. now, that was against the backdrop of a lot of craziness on all sides. but i think that example is going to stay at least in the

collective memories of folks for a while. we're going to see how the organic nature of this election that is 28 days away unfolds. i think that confirmation hearing could have a real bearing on the election, which would be astounding that something like that could have such a bearing, but it could. but i think at the end of the day, new and younger forces will emerge in the political system. ed was one of those folks in 1974 who did emerge and look at this great generation of leadership we had. you know, what also happened in that six or eight years that i was quickly describing about, you know, the democrats going up puff into smoke and the republicans taking over with ronald reagan. but guess what they did? it was really a renaissance. they had passed the ethics in government act which did include a special prosecutor. they had created the sunshine in government act, add more

transparency, the presidential records act for the wonderful archivist we have here working with ed's papers and many other things all within four or five years andbrexit years in campaign finance which we all have hungered for, for what? 30 years since they did it. that was in a five or six-year period with new leadership. i can't tell you what's going to happen in 28 days. you probably can tell us what's going to happen in 28 days. i think we will have a new generation of leadership. that will have some of the elders take notice and try to see if they can get their bearings. that to me is perhaps an optimistic read. i don't think we have an easy going though. i think if the election goes so that if the democrats do have control over one house, i think the house will thicken very quickly and we'll just have to see if that optimistic vision occurs. kathie: thanks for the glimmer of hope.

you kind of took it back a little. i think we could use a glimmer of hope. we do have a question down here. state your name. and try to keep your question brief. >> sure. my name is geoff peters. from where you guys were experienced and live watergate to what you're experiencing and living today and you've already touched on part of this, there was a bipartisan much more than there is today. today it seems that everything is divided between the public and the senate and it's just -- i watched the kavanaugh hearings and it was just -- it wasn't about politics. i mean, excuse me, it wasn't about the trial at all. or it wasn't a trial. my question, do you see -- and you said "a glimmer of hope" and one word that resonated as reasonable minds. is it possible to do that when there is such a division? is there too much power and

control to allow new people to come up and actually get in there? kathie: ok. thanks for that question. who wants to tackle it first? >> well, is it possible? i think in a matter of a short time, there's going to be a midterm election. so you've got a pretty quick time period to test. now, interesting, i looked up the percent of those especially in the student's eye -- those in the millenials, the 18 to 20 -- yeah, the 18 to 29, in the last midterm election, 2014, do you have any idea what percent of of the turn out there was? 16%.

think about that, think about that. so if there is a hope for that and in terms of all that's going on right now, and, in a way it's much more visible than when i was in congress. you saw it in the tape, there's between all the other forms of communication and social media. there's all kinds of issues. so i would hope that the turnout in this coming through in the future would be high. of course, you had a president that didn't have the majority vote in 2016, but won the electoral vote. so i'm trying to be positive. i was raised in ames to be positive. but the key is, have we learned a lesson from the past? >> i totally agree. >> let me ask some of the college students here or younger people here. we've talked a lot about parties and partisanship.

congress versus the executive branch those are all collective , groups. basically our commitment as a citizen is a very individual commitment. so ed's citing a very really poignant statistic that's really depressing -- it should be to you. certainly to us up here, i'm sure. so let's go to the individual level. i remember when i was going through watergate, i was just in college. and you might say, well, you must have felt the same dislocation, isolation, cynicism as you all may feel now a little bit reading what's going on. and i did. but what i don't know how you feel, and so i'm really curious about it is this. i felt down about what was going on in my country, my republic.

but i felt down about the people who were there. i don't know, ninth grade civics still survived in me. and i didn't feel like the country was rigged with a deep state corruption, that our system was going to be right. i never looked at it that way. i looked at those characters with disgust. but i never doubted the foundations. well, how do you feel about it? i mean, i know that's a question back to the audience. i hope it's not just rhetorical. i'd love to hear what you think. but how do you feel about it? that's how i feel about it. doesn't mean i was right. do you feel like out to sea with what nick has described?

do you feel like what ed described about the civil war because it seems so far back, ions gone it's like abe lincoln trying to do the right thing. do you feel that way? maybe that will stimulate some people walking to the microphone. kathie: tell us your name first. >> i'm aaron copal. i'll do both. i would say growing up in this day and age, i guess we've kind of gotten used to the chaos we've grown up in and there's a sense of normalcy and sort of the partisanship. it has become the new normal. we've never experienced in what it was like to have a very trusted institution. you talk about the statistics and the supreme court and, you know, 37% of people support that.

11% support congress. and like 30-something support the president. and that's just been normal for us. and it's hard to see differently. and speaking for myself growing up beyond the great rescission and post 9/11 and seeing things get worse and worse, you don't feel that you have the capability to help out. but i also think that's turning around in a way. this recent election has gotten both sides politically involved, which is great. but that's just what i've experienced recently. i feel anxious, i feel choked. and sometimes i just have to back away from it all. and my question -- sorry, i have to bring it up here. i wrote it down. from what you experienced in both watergate and the mueller

investigation, what is one piece of advice you would give to younger people like myself who haven't experienced watergate about sort of navigating this political chaos we're in now? kathie: who wants to start? nick: the first and most important step is to become informed. it's difficult today. but there are still reliable sources now. i don't know whether any of you listen to national public radio or listen to public television. the pbs news hour which runs -- now runs six days a week is the closest thing to a factual, balanced presentation of what's going on.

there are newspapers that still do this. the problem with newspapers is from 1973 to today, we -- newspapers have lost well over half the circulation. newspapers are in dire economic straits. if you work at it, you can still get a picture to base your opinions on. and then as both these gentlemen have said, the critical issue in this election is going to be turnout. if 16%, 18%, of people in your age category turn out, it's going to be a very bad election. young people, college educated

people are going to be very, very important groups to how this election turns out. kathie: and you did some work for public television news hour, did you not? did you, nick? did you do some work for pbs? nick: i have. kathie: is there another question? who's first? ok go ahead. >> i wanted to thank you for doing this panel. mine's more of a historical question. >> tell us your name before you start. >> my name is sean. >> ok, sean. thanks. >> what do you think would have happened if ford did not pardon nixon after he resigned? [laughter] >> maybe we should hear -- >> the question -- did everybody hear the question? >> what would happen -- what

would have happened if ford would not have pardoned nixon? well, as we all know, ford came in and felt that he had to end the nightmare, he said. and so he pardoned him. i guess nixon -- so you know, it's an interesting issue that's come up legally. can a president be indicted? and so you'll know the special prosecutor in the watergate case, the grand jury treated nixon as "an unindicted co-conspirator." wasn't indicted. but the grand jury put him that way. and there was the question, well, would he be -- would he be convicted if he was convicted? and so knowing the climate, if he wouldn't have pardoned him, it would have gone on for much longer.

whether he would have been convicted is probably an open question. however, the issue still remains because here we are 2018. and the issue has come up. and if you remember there was a pleading in the state of new york by the council for trump, michael cohen. he made guilty to paying a woman he pledled guilty -- guilty to paying a woman to remain silent. but he testified in the pleading in new york that he did it at the direction of the president. and as a result in the state of new york, it's been indicated that you may have an unindicted

co-conspirator in the form of the president. but to answer the question, it's sort of conjecture. i think there were those who wanted to indict the president and convict him. it would have gone on for a long time. and the country would have been probably terribly divided. kathie: anybody else want to take a swing at that one? >> you know, the funny thing if he wouldn't have pardoned nixon, he might have stayed president. from what i remember reading and do remember somewhat from the news is that he came in more as a moderate, as a peacemaker. people liked him on the him, you know, he immediately extended the sin of what we had seen in watergate to himself by pardoning him. he put himself in the shoes of richard nixon at that point. i think he became unacceptable to the american public. but sean, know this. we're talking about indictment.

and for an indictment to lie, you need a criminal offense under our criminal law. but interesting -- and i didn't know this until i had to deal with impeachment. not with richard nixon's impeachment. but there was another impeachment of william jefferson clinton. but the standard for impeachment in the constitution -- it's not in the statute books, it's in the constitution. it's high crimes and misdemeanors. and that comes from some ancient formulations from england and it does not necessarily always mean pure, criminal felonious offenses. it could mean breach of trust in a monumental way that you've broken trust with the american public and things like that. that wouldn't be the basis of an

indictment but it could be the basis of an impeachment. i don't think historically that would happen. in this day in age that would keep to criminal offenses. could i say one last irony? >> she's going to get the last question. >> i want to hear her. >> are you sure? >> tell us your name. >> hi, i'm sarah mishe. thank you so much for being here. sincerely, it's amazing and honor for iowa state so have you -- to have you here. we've talked about partisanship and i know we all feel it in the country. in the last couple of years we heard about finding common ground but even now that sort of feels up for grabs, like, even common ground is hard to find. especially with us getting news

from different sources and in cronkite, or a woodward like who do we turn to? so i was wondering, granted if this political division ever sort of ends, which i think we all hope it does, how do we re-enfranchise, the people who are on the other side or being , etc.?ous or un-credible >> great question, sarah. >> well, one part of the answer to that is getting people back together has to begin at the grassroots. and at the grassroots, i mean, electing city councils, electing county commissioners, electing state legislatures.

that is the place where people can actually know each other and come up with agendas. and then i think it has to build from the grassroots. trust between people.