host: "washington journal" continues. host: on the 50th anniversary of the watergate break-in, two individuals who played a key role in the prosecution and defense teams of watergate. jill wine-banks, a former watergate assistant special prosecutor and the new book in the -- and geoff shepard

, deputy to the lead counsel and also the other of a new book. thank you for the time. remind us where you were on this date in 1972, june 17. guest: i was in the middle of a five-year term on the nixon staff, the others lawyer on the staff. i knew everybody involved, although i didn't know people in the break-in. the break-in wasn't of particular concern. i had a full-time job working on policy issues and life moved on. it was a very busy and very happy time period couldn't have been prouder than to work on nixon's white house staff. host: wherever you? guest: i was a prosecutor at the -- where were you? guest: i was a prosecutor at the time and lived in dupont circle

and write about the break-in. host: bob woodward was one of the writers. he talked in 2011 and. his from his perspective. >> we --[video clip] >> those were captured. what did you hear in the courtroom? >> this saturday they sent me down to the arraignment. these were not the average d.c. of burglars. that hundred dollar bills in their pocket, very sophisticated electronic equipment. it was a mystery. the judge started asking them what they did and lead burglar who is named james mccord went asked, the judge said to speak

up mr. mccord, and he said speak up, and he finally said see i a. -- cia, knows are elected words. host: this is the article that appeared at the next day in the washington post. bob woodward, one of the reporters, five men, one of whom said he was a former cia were arrested yesterday in what authorities described as an elaborate plot to bump the offices of the democratic national committee for the article goes on to note that was no immediate explanation as to why the five suspects were employed by the cia or any other individuals or organization. what was the eventual explanation for why they did that? guest: there really is no expiration, except i will say that my theory is, there is so much dark money, cash in every

white house safe, and they didn't have to make decisions about, is this really going to help the committee to reelect the president? is this going to help reelect treat nixon, who had done some very good things as president, but why would he need to do this. he won the election with 49 states, and overwhelming landslide in the electoral college. there really is no logical sense that someone came up with this idea along with many others as part of what is called operation gemstone -- jump stone, bringing those in the democratic party into a houseboat with prostitutes and cameras so they could be blackmailed that included a lot of other silly nonsense that no campaigns would spend money on if they had to account for the money. host: houston was a special

prosecutor appointed and when did you join that team? guest: i joined immediately. we were appointed at the end of may of 1973, so 11 months later. host: within that 11 months, talk about your role at the white house and how it changed. guest: sure, i was on john ehrlichman's staff in my immediate supervisor and one of the people they hired was gordon liddy. i had known gordon at the treasury and i violently opposed his joining the staff because he was such a loose cannon. that was one of the things i lost. and then they went on to move cash for the committee to reelect the president. i remember saying he has come and gone and nothing has gone wrong, they must meet a full because i fought so hard to kick

him out. and then my secretary, her roommate was a secretary and then it became who else was involved in she said, don't you know who it is? i said i am not even watching, she said let me give you his initials, ggl. and i still didn't get it. and she said g gordon. and i said, oh no. and it is worse than described. his proposals for a campaign intelligent plan are absolutely off the chart. he shouldn't have been there. they shouldn't have allow that to go forward, but once john dean had hired him, john dean was put in charge of creating a campaign intelligence plan. john didn't watch him and it is

like victor frankenstein. he created the problem i hiring gordon liddy and he couldn't control him. nobody could control him. going threatened to kill john mitchell. he put his hands on his shoulder and gordon said, take your hand off or i will kill you, and he meant it. this was a scary guy, and nobody stood up to him. i was talking to pat moynihan in the middle of watergate. that was one of nixon's first council, a really neat guy. he grew up in hell's kitchen, and he knew both sides. he said this business we are in, politics, attracts some very intense people. you can't keep them out because we work of volunteers. the test is what do you do when

you first have an inkling that you have enough on your side of and that is where we failed. host: we are inviting viewers to join this conversation as we talk to two key players from that time on the 50th anniversary of the 1972 watergate break-in. republicans, (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independent (202) 748-8002. guest: there is nothing i would agree with that geoff said. when the top of the line is willing to sit, for example john mitchell sat in his office as attorney general and he not throw gordon liddy out of the

office when he presented the operation. this is far he became the operation head of creep. nobody said that it was insane, crazy or illegal. he said the budget is too high, cut the budget and i can approve it. so gordon liddy was not hired by john dean. i don't wear that idea came from. john dean certainly was involved and has certainly paid the price for his admission of his culpability and role in this, but he became a prosecution witness and totally cooperated. there just a lot of things there that are just not true. they hired this man. they had them break in. there was one attempt that failed and to attempts, the second one which was the first actual break in, they put in wiretapping devices in the wrong places. then they went back to fix them

on the date of the arrest on june 17. you had four cuban-americans involved with the cia and the bay of pigs and you had james mccord, the head of security and then she gordon liddy and howard hunt. the way the white house was involved became clear immediately. the burglars had hundred dollar bills all sequentially numbered, there were from a campaign check that had been given to creep and cashed by one of the cuban-americans in his florida bank. resent the president said it use the cia to stop the fbi from following money was because those dollar bills in those pockets would have been traced back to the campaign. so there you have it. host: the question immediately became at the time, how far up did this go? i want to fast forward to a year later, april 1973, from a nixon office white house tape.

this is talking about the man we have in talking about, g gordon liddy here is part of that tape. [video clip] >> they were trying to reach me. they seem to be in transit from someplace. >> very good. >> in the meantime, on liddy, i don't know the man and have no control over him. the president wants everybody involved in this and everything they know. >> i will get that first thing in the morning. >> i think that's the best thing to do. one thing i want to be sure of that we understand, i have no control over him.

his -- raising the question that maybe he is talking because of me. because of mitchell. >> taking it from a high authority. it will be handled discreetly. >> i just want to be sure to understand as far as the president is concerned, you have to call anyone on that. those are your orders. >> thank you. >> i talked to john dean. i wanted to ask you this, the president thinks it is important that if we tell liddy's attorney -- >> we are trying to get in touch

with him. >> you tell him if necessary, you tell him i have called you directly tonight and you have a direct from the president. i will tell him. host: that conversation happening april 15, 1973, 11 months before seven nixon aides were indicted by a grand jury on charges of conspiracy on watergate. what did you hear in that tape? guest: this is one of 19 communications between richard nixon and henry peterson, the head of the security division. gordon is following the code of silence. it is a really interesting development, because if gordon had come clean, which he did in his book 10 years later, then john dean couldn't have whipped up his fairy about not involvement.

dean hired liddy. it is on the march 21 tape, but that tape you just played is perfect, because months later, nixon says on the air, i told him he should tell the truth and told him if he wanted to hear it directly from me i would talk to him. and peter margolis, liddy's lawyer, called the associate special prosecutor and said, henry peterson never told us that he never made that offer that we could come in and see the president. if he had, liddy have come clean. host: nixon wants the truth to came out. is it what you heard on the tape? guest: it is not what i heard in hours and hours of tapes. what we know is what happened on the 17th, immediately calls out where the president was. on the plane flying from florida back to washington, there was a

conversation and we know that because he recorded a daily diary. he kept notes. if you flip forward to june 20, the tape that has the 18.5 minute gap for which nixon blamed his secretary, rosemary woods, who came to court and told a fanciful tale that is definitely not true that -- and we don't know what is on that because the notes were vague, although we know it was a discussion explicitly of watergate. what we now know from his recordings on that day was that he says, yesterday flying back i talked to the president. he is very concerned and upset about watergate. we know that someone was dispatched to get findings to

try to get men out of jail so they would not talk. we know that hush money was paid and we know that richard nick should said -- nixon said, how much is it going to cost, $1 million, i know where we can get it. how many people were -- host: comedy were convicted as part of watergate? guest: many more than you think because there were conspiracy cover up, campaign violations. it is that money that was so available in the post watergate legislation which had been undone by the supreme court and the united decision so that dark money is back in politics and available to be used. and when he refers to the plumbers, the plumbers were hired to stop leaks supposedly and one was ellsberg for the

pentagon papers p they broke into a psychiatrist office to try to get something to use against him. host: jill wine-banks from back during the investigations in 1973. this dates from a part of the legal team, and then a photo of president nixon's legal team in the oval office. geoff shepard , where are you in the photo. guest: i was probably not in it because that was the public team. i was part of the solicitation team that did the planning and analysis. i am the one who transcribed the tapes. other people went into court. i hired all of the staff but i wasn't porting to st. clair. host: we are taking your calls on this, the 50th in a bursary of the 1972 watergate reagan.

let us know your questions and comments. we are going to start with carolyn out of mount vernon, new york, emma kratz line -- democrat's line. caller: if it wasn't for the security guard who discovered the break-in. you keep talking about the break-in, it was an african-american security guard who discovered the break-in and he was never given the credit. in fact, he was demonized for discovering the break-in and he ended up dying broke. what do you have to say about that? host: his name was frank willis, the washington post today with a picture. do you want to take this one? guest: you are totally correct. it was his astute watching of the doors and the burglars were stupid, foolish. they taped the door and the tape

was removed and they re-taped it. and that is what made him so suspicious and that is when he called the police. they also had across the street of the watergate complex, and the howard johnson lookout and the lookout had a walkie-talkie, this was in the days long before cell phones, and he was supposed to be watching while they were in there to make sure there was no police involvement and nothing happening. the police pulled up and he supposedly was watching television. there is now another story i read recently, but in any event he failed to notice, impart because they didn't pull up in a police car appeared they were in an unmarked car and plane closed , just like hippies or he didn't notify them, and so they were caught red-handed. it is a shame about what happened to mr. willis. i didn't know what happened to him until watching it.

it was terrible he didn't get his due. i could attempt a lot. host: mr. shepard. guest: in anything you have, the facts don't always align. all she can say it was stupid they re-taped the door, the question was why did james mccord re-tape the door? why did he disappear. host: the burglar in that video. guest: there are a series of fascinating books. i have no personal expense to comment, but they are called the doctor. it starts with jim hogan and the secret and they go through the discrepancies of what was going on because we don't fully understand. even today, 50 years later, we

don't understand the break in. host: he think we will ever understand it? guest: know, people have diapered their summit contradictions are jill and i could sit here for three hours and disputed because her take is very different than my take. guest: we will never know. guest: i don't think we will ever know about the 18 minute gap. i don't think we will know about liddy and what was the motivation of him doing these crazy things. you had a question on the earlier program, what else is there to come out? i think what is significant to me is the surfacing of four batches of documents, internal documents, from a special prosecutor's office. those documents undercut the whole narrative that we have been told since 1974, and we can get into those, but the internal documents of that committee are not due out for two more years

and the impeachment committee is not due for two more years. this will continue to unfold easily for our lifetimes. host: let me bring in brian from albuquerque, new mexico, independent. caller: a couple comments and a question. a similarity between nixon and trump would be that the more you learn about both of these men, the worse they look. and that a difference would be, trump is a better criminal, because he learned at the knee of roy cohn and the rest of the mafia about how to conduct business. another thing that developed now watergate is now we have the right wing propaganda in the ecosphere that flooded the zone with manure of disinformation so people can't figure out what is going on. it is distract, counter charge, and that is the state of play in

politics in america, unfortunately. guest: that is a dramatic difference now from then. back in the era of watergate, there was a single narrative and nobody deviated from the narrative. there was no alternative source of news. today you can get a wide variety of news. it can't all be true. in it is vicious. but your question earlier, what if social media had existed back during watergate? what if there had been people who had gone on the air to defend nixon p they could have dumped on gordon liddy and nixon? they could have dumped on gordon living in john dean. that has changed dramatically. nixon and trump both thin skinned, but dramatically different people. guest: i agree they were both

thin-skinned. both seem to be socially awkward and always feeling like they weren't part of the in group and fighting for that. i am not a psychiatrist, but this is based on readings i have and you would probably agree. guest: a were outsiders. guest: they were outsiders and that motivated them. i give nixon cut it for opening china and passing title ix which the anniversary is this week also for starting the epa. so i think there were some things that nixon accomplished. in terms of the media landscape, that is one of the crucial difference between then and now. back then we had three networks and they all had the same facts. everybody agreed on the facts. the other difference is we had bipartisanship.

not only was the urban committee and the judiciary committee both completely bipartisan, but the country was bipartisan. people talked to each other. we debated the policy implications and facts. we didn't debate facts. if we had the same landscape, if there was a fox news, social media, oann, newsmax, i think it should nixon might have survived because people would have believed the propaganda. say it loud and often and people believe it. the facts are something we need to get back to and have gotten lost in the trump era. host: about halfway through our decision -- discussion with jill wine-banks and geoff shepard on -- the author and former special counsel to the exit

administration. taking your call on the 50th anniversary of the watergate break-in. this is out of florida, independent. caller: just a quick comment and a question for mr. shepard. they were secretly rehearsing john dean for his testimony. it was a sham. could you please comment more on the documents that you found that the prosecutor sold -- stole that indicated that they lied about the grand jury tampering and they had exculpatory evidence. these prosecutors should be disbarred. there is a doj complaint has been filed and i hope that goes through. thank you very much. guest: that is troop your what host: these are the ones that

are available on watergate.com? guest: yes they are. as jill says, facts are what matter. host: and it's in the washington journal segment, so if our viewers want to find it, they can find it on the website? guest: and if they go to 6 /17, they will get the documents i will quickly summarize. they detail meetings with the judge. the special prosecution staff was meeting secretly with the judge to work out things in advance of trial, and you don't know what the bigger surprise is, that they were doing it, which is an absolute no-no, or they were writing memos describing how they did it. the opening memo, dated december 27, it says when the four of us, the four top prosecutors met with you, judge surette a and

judge gesell at your request, this is what we discussed. this is incredible. if that had been known, none of those people could have been involved in the prosecution. then you have a series of memos, the ones i talked about -- they were saying, if you told us nixon wanted to tell the truth, i could have convinced -- you have a series of prosecutions, who are convinced that democrats are guilty as can be are not prosecuted, and republicans who were not that involved -- chuck colson. the prosecutors said the chances of conviction are just 50-50, but they still indicted chuck because he was such a prominent republican. host: jill wine-banks? guest: i agree he should have been indicted. the reasons he weren't were not that important, but that does not excuse the guilt and culpability of a convicted

felon, charles colson, who is very much involved. to these documents that jeff is referring to -- geoff is referring to, they have been debunked and denied. there is no truth to them. they are not representative of what he was alleging is dead. if you want to have a fair discussion, you need to have the people -- i cannot comment from personal knowledge. i know from talking to richard that that is not what happened. there was no secret ex parte meeting. no one on our staff would have ever agreed to do that, ever. it just isn't true. it's one of those things you can say it loud, you can say it often, you can repeat it again now, but that is not necessarily going to make it true, and i would love to have someone who has personal knowledge of this respond to it. host: let me bring in ron from california, republican.

good morning. caller: good morning, what a great panel. a couple of things here, if you recall the nixon break-in, how much would that cost, about $1 million? he said, that's no problem. one of the things that happened to me personally, i could have been a person that was going out and getting money for the republican party here in orange county, california back in 1972, and at that time, those that were collecting money could get 20% of whatever they collected. when they did that, that money just disappeared. there is a famous bank robbery here in san clemente called inside the vault, the true story of a master bank burglar, and i might [inaudible]

but jimmy hoffa gave him the inside information about where nixon had buried millions and millions of dollars in banks throughout orange county. this happens to be one. they broke into this bank and got about $10 million out of the safety deposit box -- host: that's not a story i have heard before. is that one you have heard before? guest: no. in this business, you get wild stories. i have never heard this. it's true, there was a lot of money because people were terrified of george mcgovern, and the committee to reelect had raised $10 million before the new law came into effect. there was too much money and too little supervision, and it blew up. but we have seen recently proof of how other campaigns get carried away and try very, very, very hard to win. but i never knew anything about

orange county banks or 20% givebacks -- i could raise money for 20% givebacks. host: our next caller out of oakland, california, democrat. good morning. caller: i have a nice little story. my dad was appointed i richard nixon to be marshall of southern central california, and he was originally supposed to subpoena nixon in 1972, 1973 -- i was in high school, and i have the same name as my dad. a bomb threat was called in against me in high school, and my dad's marshals had to come and put me into protective custody while the bomb squad checked my car. then the saturday night massacre happened and the watergate prosecutor was fired, and in 1974, the new one was hired, and my dad was given orders to serve nixon the two-page subpoena, and

nixon had given me a pass to serve in front of his house. when i entered the base near nixon's estate, the guard near the kiosk said oh, the base commander is coming to see you. he took my pass away and tore up my pass and threw it down on the ground, and my surfing buddy, who was with me, we looked at each other and could not believe what was happening. he goes, don't ever, marine corps or navy property again. we went down to tea, served there, went to a party at my friends house, his mom worked for beckham, which was building the nuclear plant, and they told me they built the power plant backwards. host: it sounds like you might have a book from your stories. let me ask jill wine-banks to

add some color to that. guest: that's a great story. if your father was serving him with a subpoena, it seems there was not that much of a struggle, because in the white house office, they agreed to accept all of the subpoenas. when we first realized we needed to subpoena him, when we first found out about the tape, archibald cox said, we will write a nice letter and ask them, which they of course paid no attention to. guest: they did and we declined. guest: so we then had to subpoena them. there was a question in the office, how do you survey subpoena to the president of the united states? you cannot knock on the door and say hi, i am the marshall here with a subpoena.

they said, let's call and ask if they will accept it. they called and they said yes, of course they will accept it. there was no real issue about serving the subpoena. getting it answered was a different story, but getting it served was handled. host: the los angeles times, back in 2009, gaylord campbell died at 81, the u.s. marshal who served the subpoena on racial -- richard nixon. guest: what a great story, gaylord. host: right. guest: one thing that can be agreed upon in the situation, the white house never early lately ignored -- there was cover-up, there was no question of that, but in the relations with the special prosecutor, we did respond to the subpoenas and did obey the court orders, and that's different from the situations being alleged today.

one of the great -- differences, nixon's defense team was not ignoring the rights of the court or what was needed in due process there. guest: i know. he didn't want to turn over the tape. guest: it's like saying this is lincoln, how did you like the play? i think jeff and i will agree that they did not give us the tapes. the reason there was a saturday night massacre, they were refusing to turn over the tapes, they had composed a ludicrous solution, the senate was compromised by which the white house would transcribe the tapes , which we now have and know are not accurate reflections of what was on them, and they are hard to hear. in fairness, it is a -- to get it right.

but it was decided that article cox should go to the american people and say, this is why i have a right to the tapes and need the tapes. the court order they be turned over. they said we had a right to them. nixon said, i am not getting it to them. fire cox was the order he gave to the attorney general, and the attorney general said i will not, because there is no cause and i promised when i was confirmed that i would only fire for cause. he was gone. the deputy attorney general became the acting attorney general. he said, i made the same promise. i won't do it. the solicitor general because the saturday night massacre -- caused the saturday night massacre by firing archibald cox. guest: third-party authentication -- we can't give you the tapes, but we will give you a certified transcript, that was cox's idea.

there is a six page memo posted on my website saying, this is what we've got to do. we rejected it, the courtrooms have to turn them over, but please try to work this out together. he came back and said, i am going to try that idea then comes misunderstandings, because richard's son, the attorney general, convinced al haig that this may be unfair, but if cox did not accept his own idea of third-party authentication, richard was prepared to let him go. as it unfolded, it didn't work. she is right, richardson resigned, ruckefeld got fired. but he did not dissolve the special prosecution office. he put it back under the department of justice. guest: which is the same as dissolving us. the reason you cannot accept third-party authentication, it

is not admissible evidence. you need the actual tape. if there was such a memo from cox, and i haven't read it so i can't comment, it was not by saturday night, it was never something we would have accepted. it is not admissible evidence. host: i think we could do three hours on this, maybe even five. guest: it's really not i don't like you, and even though it's talking about, it's here's the documents, as john adams said years and years ago, facts are stubborn things. host: let me bring in catherine out of pompano beach, florida, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i love jill. she always has something to say that is relevant and she is always backing it up with facts. guest: thank you, catherine. caller: that's very rare.

on the saturday night massacre, what was it like to be working under those circumstances, where people were getting thrown under the bus and having to resign at such a rapid pace? guest: that's a great question. i will try to answer it quickly, but it is a great story. we had the press conference, and archibald cox -- everyone should listen to the recording of his press conference, because he is an admirable man of great integrity, he was wonderful. when it ended, i was supposed to leave for new york for a family wedding. i got together with my team and said, i can't go, obviously. they said, it's saturday night in washington. what could possibly happen? host: of a three-day weekend? guest: a three-day weekend. i get on the shuttle, i fly to new york, i go to the wedding -- no cell phones, no twitter, there is barely a computer.

so i come back from this wedding and get to my motel, and the desk clerk literally flies out from behind the desk and says, i have a message for you. it says, your office has been seized by the fbi, return immediately. i flew back immediately, the fbi had made it a crime scene. things were taped up. i try to get something personal out of my desk and the fbi said, i wouldn't do that, ma'am. we talked about, should we resign in protest? archibald cox said, you know this case, you know the facts. do not give the president what he wants. if you can continue the investigation, it is your obligation to stay and do this investigation. so we did not resign and we were eventually restored to our independent status by moving us back into the department of justice. under the president, which is a

ridiculous way -- you can't investigate the president you are working for. host: geoff shepard, what is a moment like that from those years that sticks out for you? guest: there were so many. i think it was when fred called me down to the supreme court room after they ruled the tapes had to be turned over, and i nicknamed this the smoking gun tape, where the president is heard to agree -- we will get the cia, fbi, to interview these two individuals. i sat there -- i had written an essay about this, the moment in the room when the nixon presidency died, because his lawyers misunderstood the tape. his general understood and they thought he was trying to interfere with the investigation -- what dean was trying to get

done was to protect the identity of two democrat --. what the fbi was looking into, how did the money get to crete in the first place? that would have disclosed prominent democrats, so you can say it is still an obstruction, but it was a well-intentioned effort to protect the panel. that has been unknown for 40 years, even though it was john dean's idea. it wasn't until this book in 2014, the footnote on page 55 -- he says, you know, this has been misunderstood for 40 years. the lawyers were wrong and there was no wrongdoing. he ends the quote by saying, if a president had known, he might have lived to fight again another day. in short, the smoking gun was shooting blanks. host: let me take our timeline to august 8 and ninth of 1974, the nixon library.

here is a look at some of those events. >> president nixon stuns the country today by admitting he held back evidence -- >> he acknowledges what the transcripts say is at various. but what he told the american people on other occasions. >> rumors of president nixon's resignation swept washington in the world today. >> president nixon will announce his resignation tonight. >> from the discussions i have had with congressional and other leaders, i have concluded that because of the watergate matter, i might not have the support of the congress that i would consider necessary to back the very difficult decisions and carry out the duties of this office in a way, the interests of the nation require. i have never been a quitter.

to leave office before my term is completed is a born to every instinct in my body, but as president, i must put the interests of america first. america needs a full-time president. and a full-time congress. particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad. to continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorbed the time and attention of both the president and the congress. in a period when our entire focus should be on peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home. therefore, i shall resign the presidency, effective at noon tomorrow. >> i, gerald r. ford, do

solemnly swear that i will faithfully execute the office of the president of the united states. >> the office of the president of the united states -- >> and will to the best of my ability -- >> and will to the best of my ability -- >> observe, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states -- >> observe, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. [applause] host: where were you 50 years ago on august 8 and ninth, 1974? guest: i was in the office of the special prosecutor, and my reaction to this, a sad day that the country had come to this. my second reaction was, they said we could not indict a sitting president. he was now a private citizen. i said ok, whatever argument you

had about it disrupting our government to -- indict a sitting president, his guilt is overwhelming and we should throw the book at him. i want to respond about the smoking gun tape. it is not misunderstood. it is clearly a statement by the president that involved him in the cover-up. if we are going to talk about people who have not gotten recognized, i think james mccord -- we talk about frank willis not having gotten recognized, but frank mccord's letter to judge siricca on the eve of sentencing said you are right in all of your suspicions. suspicions, perjury occurred, he laid out the cover-up right before being sentenced, and that's what led to the appointment of the urban committee and the appointment of the special prosecutor. host: geoff shepard, i am sure

you want to respond to some of that, but can you start with your emotions? >> nixon directed them to listen to the tapes on june 23, there might be some problem. fred was appalled, and decided she needed a witness when he decided to tell the people of san clemente the reaction to that tape. i was that witness. so i heard the half of the conversation where he was saying it was a pretty bad situation. i was the one who transcribed that tape and called it the smoking gun. i've got a two week head start on the nation. i know it is over. august 8, we demanded the tape be made public. it was made public august 5, and that's when all the support

disappeared. i said to haig, we've got to have a staff meeting. these people have held on through the long winter of watergate, but when that tape comes out, there is no reason to be here and they are all going to fit. jerry ford is going to inherit a staff list white house. we are going to have an all hands meeting and you need to tell people to hang on. he does it, and i wrote the talking points. you can't tell him what is coming. there are only three or four of us that no. so you go to the -- remember, i am the youngest lawyer on staff. the two lawyers dictated what he said, you know? that i was not fair to my lawyers, i did not tell them what was going on. they may have misrepresented to the congress and the arts the situation. the lawyers abandoned him. but congress, congressional

leadership came down and said, you've got to stop. we are going to get wiped out in the midterms and this very competitive, very tense national figure had to bring his peace to resigning, to quitting. it's the last thing he would have ever done, and it was terrible. but i was in the room the whole time, he says goodbye to the staff the next morning, goes out on the south lawn -- host: the famous picture? guest: the famous picture. it was a horrifying time, but i thought he should resign. guest: that's because facts mattered back then and he did respect democracy and was willing to sacrifice, because he knew the facts were there and believed in our system of justice. but i want to add one interesting story. he was so ashamed, he could not tell his wife and daughters, and

he went to his secretary, who was blamed for the 18 and a half minute gap, he said you have to go to them, and she told them he was going to resign. host: the line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. we can all agree people have different personalities and different levels of morals and character. the people who support trump know he asked the secretary of state to find 11,000 votes. they know he pushed pence to do his dirty work. americans vote on character, morals and facts. a great example is scandal free president obama. your thoughts? guest: well, of course i agree with you. i would say the same is true for president biden. it is really a shame that with the media platforms we now have available, people can get into silos and hear only one perspective. that's really -- it's a shame.

host: colin, you wrote recently warnings for --. guest: this shows the three branches of government linked arms to drive it duly reelected president from office. you had sam dash meeting in a series of secret meetings with the judge. you have the watergate special prosecution force. i can show you indications with at least 10 meetings with the judge. the watergate staff was staffing the impeachment committee. they transferred it to the hill. worst of all, if you go back on august 5, when we release the smoking gun tapes, ruins nixon,

he has already been named a co-conspirator and recommended for impeachment. what did this press -- special prosecutor tell the jury in secret that nixon had personally done? that's what's in my book. that is what was discovered when the roadmap was unsealed at my court petition. guest: ok, now i have to speak the truth -- host: i have to give the books name -- -- guest: let's look at the roadmap to impeachment. that was done because there was a viable impeachment committee working. we had evidence that proved both crimes and impeachable offenses, and remember, impeachment does not require a crime. because the prosecutor at the time believed that impeachment

was the proper procedure rather than indictment, number one, the unindicted co-conspirator was not named in the indictment. he was on a secret list that was filed with the court, voted on by the grand jury, and included the unindicted co-conspirators. there was no public shaming and he was not named in public until the time of trial. and there was no reason for him to be an unindicted co-conspirator. we went to the court and asked for permission to save the time of the judiciary committee reinventing the wheel and having to call in the same witnesses, get the same tapes -- the court gave us permission. it was approved, it was turned over -- this was done in open court. there was nothing secret about this. we had a briefcase of tapes and documents that was given to the house judiciary committee, which

they did use as part of drafting articles of impeachment. the articles of impeachment were bipartisan in their approval and it never went to trial because the smoking gun tape was discovered before that. the republicans said, we won't support you anymore. you are out. this is too awful. you have committed crimes and must go. host: jill wein-banks, we have about two minutes left. i want to give you each a minute of that. geoff shepard first, looking back 50 years ago today. what is most significant for you on this anniversary? >> most significant is the knowledge of what was in that roadmap. we never knew what nixon was accused of. the roadmap is posted on the website for the national

archives, and you can read it for yourself. they accused president nixon of personally authorizing the payment of blackmail to howard don, and they said he did it on wednesday afternoon, march 21. but the chain of events they needed to have to prove that didn't exist. there was a missing link, so they made it up. that's with proven in my book. host: jill wine-banks, your final minute? guest: there's not enough time for me to answer the absurdity of that comment, but it is absolutely a fact that the roadmap was not an accusation or criminal indictment. it was very, very carefully drafted as, here is a topic you will find information about. we drew no conclusion about them being crimes or even impeachable offenses. this is what you should be looking at. this is evidence you can look at. that's what they did. and a bipartisan house voted the

impeachment. before it could be tried, richard nixon admitted his culpability and he resigned -- i am sure it was humiliating to him, but he did the right thing for the country. host: to our viewers, if your conversation -- this conversation interests you this morning, you can learn more

hello, everybody. welcome to the washington times for this special episode of history as it happens a podcast for people who want to think about current events historically. i'm martin de caro and our guest today catholic university historian. michael kimmage. welcome michael. thank you for having me. good to have you here. you are a member of the state department's policy planning staff 2014 to 2016. your portfolio was russia and ukraine. so you bring a lot of expertise to the subject. we're going to talk about today. you are an expert on us russia relations, and that is the road to war in eastern europe. how did we get to this point where europe is seeing i