government with washington post chief correspondent dan balz. then more on the watergate scandal with jill wine-banks, a former prosecutor involved with the case, and geoff shepard, who worked with the nixon administration's special white house counsel. host: good morning. it is friday, june 17, 2022. day three of the house january 6 hearings is in the books. and the longest hearing yet, the panel detailed how donald trump pressured his vice president to delay or overturn the results of the 2020 election. committee members also made the case that pence positive refusal to go along with that scheme -- that pence positive refusal to go along with that scheme put him in danger.

phone lines split by political party. (202) 748-8001 for republicans, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents, (202) 748-8002. you can send us a text. that number (202) 748-8003. if you do, include your name and where you are from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media, on twitter, @c-span w j, and facebook.com/c-span. you can start calling in now. this is the front page of usa today. pence fended off trump while violence escalated. the picture of the january 6 committee hearing room. yesterday, it was democrat pete angular of california -- pete aguilar of california leading

the questioning. [video clip] >> the president latched onto a dangerous theory because he was convinced it would keep him in office. we witnessed firsthand what happened when the president weaponized this theory. the capitol was overrun. police officers lost their lives. the vice president was taken to a secret location because of his safety. let's take a look at the effect of donald trump's words and actions. i want to warn our audience that the video contains exceed was it content -- contains explicit content. >> mike pence will come through for us, and if he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country. i hope you will stand up for the good of our constitution and for the good of our country, and if you are not, i am going to be very disappointed in you, i will tell you right now. >> i hear in the pits -- is that

true? i am hearing reports that pence caved. i am telling you, if pence caved, we are going to drag motherfuckers through the streets. >> i guess they are hoping there is such a show of force that pence will decide to do the right thing, according to trump. >> bring out pence, bring out pence. >> hang mike pence, hang mike pence, hang mike pence, hang mike pence, hang mike pence. host: part of the presentation yesterday before the house january 6 committee. we are getting your reaction to it as we take you through day three of the select committee's hearing. it is day four and five that

will begin tuesday and wednesday of next week, but we want to hear your thoughts on this hearing, the one specifically focused on mike pence. phone lines, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002. before your calls, one more picture of the gallows that were erected on capitol hill january 6, 2021. a story in the new york times that focuses on that image and structure. they write, a striking array of far right iconography littered the capitol during the riot, such as the confederate flag and crusader crosses, but the gallows, while riders chanted hang mike pence, is one of the most chilling to emerge from the day. it is also one of the bigger

unsolved mysteries of that day. little is known -- no one has publicly claimed responsibility for erecting the gallows. it appears to be too small to be used but its presence, along with the noose, clearly conveyed a threat of violence. that is the new york times. philip, we will start with you, independent. good morning, sir. caller: good morning, john. nice to speak to you. it has been a minute. i want to make some comments that i've gotten from watching the hearings. the feeling that i receive is that many americans just don't understand history, government, civics, and what they do understand is the wild, wild west. guns and violence and also, you

know, the racism that still exists in our country is incredible. i have done over 30 years of research into the race relations issue and it has gotten to this point in history now where it is really relevant and we have to deal with it, but more than that, i think we need to deal with the issues of violence in our society and the lack of integrity in our leadership. i mean, these people on the goc -- mean, there's people on the gop side who i don't understand how people could even consider them as leaders. and it goes all the way up the ladder, to the supreme court, even. host: if you don't know why the gop could be considered as leaders, why are you an independent? caller: because i want to bring about the best in leadership,

not just to be towing the party line -- be toeing the party line. i want people with integrity, not people with a title, trying to be important, but people who are sincere. now, again, i have been saying this for a while. i have talked to you a while ago about race relations. i know you have a good ear for hearing people out and, you know, just encouraged to call this morning and get my views out. of course, i cannot get it out perfectly, but i will make one more note. there's a guy by the name of robert t jones. that guy is the first white american that i have seen have a complete idea on how race is really destroying this country.

host: appreciate the call. we are going to focus on yesterday's hearing. there's plenty of callers who want to talk about that, this third in a series of hearings this month. mike pence was the focus of this. lee in michigan, republican, did you watch? caller: you let that guy just ramble on for two minutes so let me speak please. that guy right there is -- of why america is so bad now. he is brainwashed. "the gop doesn't," this hearing is a joke. it is just a third impeachment. it is the democrats having a narrative and putting this narrative out there of the worst case scenario of how everyone was thinking. why they are having this hearing

is because all of the media, including you every day, is now covering the january 6 committee, the january 6 committee, every day, every show, it is propaganda for the democratic party. you are nothing more than the advertising arm for the democratic party. this is why they are doing it. democrats own the -- all the media. host: may i ask a question? caller: they demonize fox because that is the only one they don't control. does everyone see that now? of course, you have everybody coming on -- host: what do you think about these witnesses that have come forward, republicans, former advisers to mike pence, who are giving their testimony before the committee? caller: i think they are hilarious. i think they have no backbone

and are just trying to make a buck and get on the bandwagon. that is all it is. donald trump was three miles away speaking. there were millions of people. just because a few people -- not if you, but -- just because a few people -- not a few, but -- a few people breached the capitol and fought with cops, they should be charged, yes, but two hours after that, everyone was just walking around. host: this is vivian, collierville, tennessee, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. how have you been doing? host: doing well. caller: i have been looking at the hearings. we saw that they had that noose out there. we saw all this, sir.

it was happening in front of our eyes. people around the world saw this. how in the world can these republicans sit up there and defend what is going on? you know what it reminds me of? like a long time ago, when we were slaves, they didn't want nobody to be free. they didn't want to tell the truth. but it is time for america to wake up and look at what's going on. any time you will sit up and say on tv, kyl nancy pelosi, hang mike pence -- on tv, kill nancy pelosi, hang mike pence, all this came out when trump got in there. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i am not a republican or a democrat. i am just an american number one. what is right is right. what is wrong is wrong.

what they did was wrong. i was watching a talk yesterday about this 2024 election, and if the republicans don't win that election, there's going to be more of it. i say bring it on. this is america. you proud boys and all of that, will -- that, you will never win. host: i believe you mentioned former judge mike luttig, advisor to mike pence in the lead up to january 6. here is part of his testimony looking forward to the 2020 for elections and warning about threats -- the 2024 elections and warning about threats still being posed. [video clip] >> donald trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and

present danger to american democracy. that's not because of what happened on january 6. it's because, to this very day, the former president, his allies and supporters pledge that, in the presidential election of 2024, if the former president or his anointed successor in the republican party presidential

candidate were to lose that election, that they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election but succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020. host: conservative lawyer, retired federal judge mike luttig, part of his testimony yesterday. response on his social media platform, truth social, the former president, donald trump, sending this to his followers yesterday.

"the fake news networks are perpetuating lies and falsehoods and russia, russia, russia type misinformation by allowing the committee hearing to go endlessly and aimlessly on and on and on. it is a one highly partisan witchhunt the likes of which have never been seen in congress before. therefore, i am hereby demanding equal time to spell out the massive voter fraud and dem security breach." his statement yesterday. members of congress watching as well and sending out their thoughts. jim jordan, republican of ohio, saying "real america doesn't care about the committee. gas is five dollars a gallon." a member of the committee with this tweet -- "members of his staff and vice president pence told president trump again and again that what he was asking

vice president pence to do was illegal. he knew he had a higher duty on january 6 to the constitution." and dan moulton, democrat from massachusetts, with praise for the vice president, saying "we should be grateful that he refused orders from donald trump and put our country over his own political interests. it might not happen that way next time. that is why the january 6 hearings are so important." some of the tweets for members of congress. went to hear from you, though, this morning. this is tim, a republican from tulsa, oklahoma. did you watch, tim? caller: good morning. i am one of the 75 million trump supporters that people are maligning now, and we do feel the election, just like trump has stated, philadelphia, places like that, the democrats stole the election. it was never investigated.

we have a corrupt justice department that -- we had a corrupt justice department that refused to investigate the corruption that went on and the fraud that went on, and now, because trump was upset and we were upset -- the idea that 81 million people voted for basement-dwelling joe biden, 12 million more than either hillary or obama ever got, is insane. host: did you watch the hearing earlier this week where republican state election officials came in and talked about this and talked about their efforts to look into some of these issues and they didn't find anything there? caller: that is so ridiculous, because we saw -- and everybody saw -- people being blocked, republican poll watchers being blocked in philadelphia.

heck, a policeman that was preventing a guy who had a court order to be able to see what was going on. the things that went on in those elections never have been publicized or investigated. you have never done a count, anything about looking into the fraudulent elections, and it is going to happen again. host: tim in oklahoma. this is windy in roseville, michigan, line for democrats. caller: i am from clinton township but that is ok. i did not watch the proceedings until yesterday. for me, this was must-see tv. i cannot believe our president could do the most underhanded things and try to get away with it. and these people that still support him, i don't understand it.

but i admire mike pence even more -- admired mike pence even more when i heard what he did. he refused to leave the capitol because he wanted to stay with the counting of the ballots. i heard those two judges. this whole thing was riveting. i mean, i could not turn it off. i had to watch the whole thing all the way through. host: you say you admire mike pence. he is, at least in the discussion -- he's at least in the discussion about running in 2024 for the presidency. what do you think happens when he does? do you think there are democrats who would support a mike pence? caller: i hope he does not run because i don't think he's capable. i would rather see anyone else run, but not him. i don't think he's -- he has caused so much problems and he still things he won. host: i am talking about mike pence, wendy.

there is discussion about mike pence running in 2024. caller: i would take him. i admire him for sticking up for -- for telling trump, no, i am not going to do what you are telling me to do. it is illegal, it is wrong, and i'm not going to do that. host: rochelle out of california, independent, good morning. caller: thank you for letting me on. i will say this quick. i respect the other callers. i heard one guy laughing and heckling. that is disrespectful. my husband served in the u.s. marine corps. he served in two stores. during that time, bush was in control. as soon as they said we are at war, i remember exactly where me and my three-year-old son were. coming from the mall. and he stopped everything, like, we are at war with iraq.

and i was like, let's go, we are americans. we are fighting for the same thing, not knowing it would take so long. my husband was gone for two years. thank god he retired successfully. i didn't vote for bush, but at the same time, i respected the other side. i have a journalism degree and i have never seen such made-up -- like he said, fake news. nobody's going to give up their integrity just for donald trump. i'm sorry, no. and here is another thing. did they realize five people died that day? the previous caller said, well, he was two miles away or 20 miles away or whatever. come on, man. he has followers and they went to the capitol and god forbid if they would have gotten these people. host: that is rochelle from

california. the committee said yesterday that some of the rioters who got into the capitol came within 40 feet of mike pence's position in the capitol as he was being evacuated. here is a rundown of the timeline of events that came within minutes of mike pence leaving where he was in the capitol to the rioters storming near where he had been. it was pete aguilar, democrat from california, who led most of that yesterday. we are getting your thoughts on all of it this morning, day three of the january 6 hearings. we are expecting six or seven by the end of the month. there's two more scheduled. cliff in oceanside, california, republican. did you watch? caller: i certainly did. what a farce. that is what i have to deal with

here in california. they keep voting democrat. they have been brainwashed, not realizing that trump has shown how bad the media truly is. when he says "fake news," my god, i have never seen the likes of it, never, and it is one-sided, i must say, one-sided, the democrats. but i must state also that with january 6, like the two impeachment trials, a waste of taxpayers money, and instead of doing what is right for the american people, these do-nothing democrats continue with that. you must ask yourself, are you better off when trump was the president? are you better off when biden is now president? you must be rational and think. host: heather out of milwaukee, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, mr. mcardle. thank you for c-span.

i have a quick question. how can one be an originalist regarding the constitution's so electoral process and do this? if they want the process to go through as the constitution is written, why would people try so hard to stop that process from happening? i know there's a lot of unhappy people in our country. a lot of things have changed over the course of, you know, from trump to biden. there's a lot of things in this country i'm not happy about either. i think we have got to think about how we need to work together instead of this constant fighting against each other and that is pretty much all i have to say. thank you again for c-span. host: it is the constitution's 12th amendment that lays out the electoral college process. that was in the spotlight yesterday.

usa today noting that amendment, saying the vice president shall "open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." that is what it states. the electoral act of 1887 then lays out the formal process for how that is done, but it was greg jacobs, former chief legal counsel to mike pence, who testified yesterday who noted that it is unambiguous that the vice president does not have the authority to reject electors. that was the effort that president trump and some of his supporters were pushing mike pence to do, but an interesting note, it is always an interesting day when the editorial boards of two very different editorial boards agree on something. this from the editorial board of the washington post and the editorial board of the wall street journal focusing in on that electoral count act, saying it needs to be clarified,

starting first with the wall street journal editorial board, saying "if democrats want to prevent such shenanigans in the future, the obvious move is to repeal the electoral count act and clarify neither the vice president nor congress can adjudicate disputes on electors. democrats did not move swiftly on the electoral count act after january 6, but perhaps this inquiry is focusing some liberal mines." to the washington post, whose editorial board says "january 6 has shaken the nation. whether it is updates to acts or a broader effort to reconcile, the environment looks hostile. but people care -- people cared 50 years ago, when watergate happened, to make government work again.

the worst mistake anyone can make today's to give up on that." this is eric out of massachusetts, independent. good morning. caller: hello. good morning to you and all of america. i would just like to make a comment about the january 6 hearings. one of the things, on day one, and i know there are questions about pence's influence or his influence on pence, but i want to say i was distressed by that we had an officer, the capitol police officer, female, who came up, and she compared her service on that day to her grandfather's service in the trojan river valley battle in which 1300 marines died and 4000 were injured, and she got up there and said she's comparing her

service on that day to her grandfather's duty or his service during the trojan river valley battle. i thought that was really awful. host: did you serve in the military? caller: i did. i was in the army. i thought it was over the top that she compared her service to her grandfather's service in that battle where 1300 marines perished and we had 1400 injured. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to say jim jordan did a tweet about real americans. if you are born in america, are you a real american?

and then the immigrants that go through the class, aren't they real americans? anyway, i watched all of them, and it is real important. these witnesses are mostly republicans, and i just -- i just love it. they are testifying. and, john, would you mind showing when secret service pulled pence out of, you know, the senate? would you mind? because i watched it that day. host: why was that image so important to you, diane? caller: it was very scary. to me, it was like, what's going on? because it was like at the -- because it was, like, at the beginning, remember? i was watching c-span. i was sitting here and i couldn't move.

when they pulled pence, it was like, oh, we are in trouble. host: the washington times with that wrapup yesterday of the peril the vice president was in. they write "he became a clear target of the mob when president trump sent a tweet at 2:24 p.m. that day that said mike pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done. the crowd surged and made it to one floor below, where vice president pence was waiting off the senate floor. at 2:26 pm, the secret service rushed him down the stairs. that detailed, minute by minute account from yesterday hearings -- from yesterday's hearings. you can watch that in detail on c-span.org. the next hearing will begin tuesday of next week. you can watch that here on c-span. it is c-span3 that will be

airing it on tuesday, but you can also watch it on c-span.org and the free c-span now video app. happening on c-span3, of course, because we are expecting the house to be in and our coverage commitment of the house, gavel-to-gavel, is always here on c-span. the hearing is 9:30 a.m. wednesday. also on wednesday, jerome powell also expected to testify on capitol hill, the federal reserve chairman. that you can watch on c-span3, c-span now and c-span.org. civil events taking place today on capitol hill. it is the 50th anniversary of the break-in in the watergate building that eventually led to the resignation of former president nixon. today at 1:00 p.m., bob woodward and carl bernstein will mark the 50th anniversary of the break-in by talking about how the story

developed and its lasting impact. you can watch on c-span two today at 1:00 p.m. other 50th anniversary coverage. people who worked for nixon discuss the scandal here on c-span at 5:00 p.m. and former counsel and staff of the senate watergate committee, along with the lawyers and journalists who played a role in covering the political scandal, we'll talk about the 50th anniversary. we are airing that here on c-span. all of these, you can also watch on c-span.org and c-span now. one more note, this one coming up at 9:00 a.m. today on this program, we will dive in-depth into the break-in with jill wine-banks, former watergate assistant special prosecutor, and geoff shepard, former deputy to special white house counsel for the nixon administration.

we will be talking about the legacy of the break-in and take your calls as well. that coming up in just about an hour and a half on the washington journal. taking your comments this morning after day three of the select committee hearings. this is annie in south carolina, a republican. good morning. annie, are you with us? caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: yeah. do these people think trump was actually -- actually said that they should hang mike pence? i don't think so. they have tried to crucify this man. i've never seen nothing like this before in my life. i mean, if you look at when he was president and you look at what's happened now, people

can't see that, they can't see nothing. i mean, you know. and the people at january 6, i don't think that was all trumps people, like the man with the red hat on telling them to go into the capitol, you know? they were encouraging them to go into the capitol and i don't think trump would do anything to mike pence. i think mike pence is a good man. i really do. and i voted democrat before. bill clinton. i voted for him. i thought he was a good president, the only one that -- the only thing he done was side the trade thing. other than that, he was a good president. host: mike in alabama, good morning. caller: i want people to understand that hundreds and hundreds of americans, including

democrats, had several concerns and questions about the election, and i don't think anybody, anybody on the republican side, went to president trump to overthrow anything. what they wanted was just asked a vice president to think about what was being said, think about the concerns, and just hit pause. that does not mean to overthrow, make president trump a king. it is just to say, look, something looks bad. something looks wrong here. that is all it was going to take, a few days to do a correct and real investigation on whether the machines were mishandled or whether ballots were improperly counted. all that could have been done. but that is all the republicans and the president wanted. we were not trying to overthrow nothing. president trump didn't want nobody to hurt vice president pence. all he wanted was just to see if

all the allegations, investigate them, and say, look, we were sorry, we were wrong. let's move on, but that didn't happen. look at the chaos. look at all the problems we are going through now just because somebody did not want to say, look, we have been told in this country, if you see something, say something. that is all we were trying to do. look at the facts and come out and say this is the truth and let's move on as americans. thank you. host: sandra, mckee, texas, democrat, good morning. caller: hello. i just wanted to call in and thank mike pence for how he handled the entire situation. he was calm, cool and collected. he did his -- you know, his duty. and he did not cave in on -- not cave in.

on the contrary, he showed enormous courage. enormous courage for our democracy. republican supporters are calling in and they throw their words around, like "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" and "patriotism" and all we want to do is this. they are behaving like animals, unintelligent animals and savages, because they want to browbeat -- they want to browbeat people to their will. this is what is happening. the scariest part is that they are not recognizing how blind they are and that they are behaving exactly like people in germany. you know, mike pence, he did not cave in. he truly showed his patriotism by upholding the constitution. host: that is sandra out of

texas. we did not hear directly from mike pence yesterday. it was advisors, legal counsel who testified yesterday, but one of the things they testified about was how the former vice president reacted and how they reacted when a statement went out from the trump white house that mike pence was supporting the idea of delaying or overturning the results of the election. that statement coming out just before the january 6 meeting of the joint session when ballots were to be counted. here is some of that testimony from yesterday's hearing. [video clip] >> trump issued a statement claiming that the vice president had agreed he could determine the outcome of the election despite the fact that the vice president had consistently rejected that position. let's look at what the president said in his statement. "the new york times report regarding comments vice

president pence supposedly made to me today is fake news. he never said that. the vice president and i are in total agreement that the vice president has the power to act." mr. jacob, how did the vice president's team react to this statement by the president that the vice president could take an active role in determining the winner of a presidential election? >> so, we were shocked and disappointed, because whoever had britain and put that statement out, it was categorically -- whoever had written and put that statement out, it was categorically untrue. >> mike pence's chief of staff had a conversation with mr. miller. here is what they told the committee about that call. >> tell me about the conversation you had. >> it was brief. i was irritated and expressed

displeasure that statement could have gone out -- that a statement could have gone out that misrepresented the vice president's viewpoint without consultation. >> the statement says the vice president and i are in total agreement. was that incorrect? >> i think the record shows that that's incorrect. we have been through many documents that clarify that this is not where the vice president was. >> right, so, essentially, the president is sending out a baldly false statement about being in alignment, purported alignment, with the vice president, despite all the predicate that you indicated had gone before their decisions? >> i interpret the statement is false. i will let you figure out who send it out. >> when mark short contacted you, he was upset. is that what you said? >> he clearly was not pleased. >> tell us what he said. >> what's the process for

putting out a statement for a meeting when only two people were in the room? >> did he ask you to retract a statement? >> no. he just -- i think it went right to what is the process for putting out a statement when only two people were in the room? >> he clearly disagreed with the substance, though, right? because he said the vice president does not agree with this. >> i'm trying to think of what exactly he said. the tone was very clearly that -- he used some language to strongly inferred that the vice president disagreed with that take. i don't member what that link which was. host: that from yesterday's presentation before the january 6 select committee. the schedule for the road ahead,

tuesday and thursday next week. we are asking, if you watched yesterday, what did you think about it? this is rich in hickory hills, illinois, an independent. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i watched it and it just reaffirms my opinions about our country and we hear these people talk about, you know, americans, and it seems like the whole idea of what america is is being demonstrated through this because of the -- we have people that believe that, you know, it is like this person who would have a university scam, and we elected the man. it is because, you know, we think that we don't like the problem with immigration, there's all these people coming into our country and they are

taking our jobs, and so that's america. we are all immigrants. my parents came in from a different country if i am not native american. and this process of what america is, you know, freedom and we are supposed to -- you know, that all men are created equal, all these principles we talk about, or being thrown under the bus for the sake of, you know, it is sort of like this guy is prejudiced and they are not prejudiced so let's vote for this guy and, you know, we have these mike pence, you know, stood up, you know, for the american values. you know, like i say, my problem with it is part of the american value is that, when somebody is out there telling you that i said this and i didn't say it, i am supposed to say, no, i didn't say that, you know? instead of saying it is politically correct to go along with a sham.

it is sort of like, even though these republicans are in fact -- the ones that are actually testifying -- they in fact -- this was what was going on. host: michelle next out of upper marlboro, maryland, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for having me on c-span. it has been a while. i can't take a lot the last couple years with the callers, but i want to say thank god for the hearings. i think they should be called the redemption of america hearings because we needed this. we cannot lose sight of january 6 and the insurrection. it was an insurrection and the lies about our democratic process, you know, perpetrated by our leader, the president of the united states, if this were another country, the state department would write papers

about this country and how corrupt it is and how this is a dictator, but this is the united states of america. and this needed to be exposed, trump's actions, the way he was using the presidency as a cash register. it needed to be exposed and all those who supported him and got in line to prop up this lie, probably on the promise of getting money themselves, but these hearings are important and i want to thank the committee members for their hard work and all those who are involved in it. they are literally saving our country. host: would you consider -- i asked a previous caller about the idea of mike pence running for president. what are your thoughts on that? caller: you know, i am an independent. prior to the trump presidency, i was not in the camp of pence, but you know went? right now, absolutely.

i would vote for pence for president. i would vote for cheney for president. i am independent. i vote democratic and republican, but absolutely. host: all right. jane on our republican line in wayne, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i am so appreciative that i have a chance to bring up some of the particulars myself. one of them is that a lot of people don't realize in america that at least three states were being investigated still up until january 6. and many people were hoping that the truth of the election would come out and there would be a form of integrity. so in that case, in pennsylvania, the fraud of biden's election -- was being run by mike schapiro, now running for governor. he wants to retain the power of democrats in pennsylvania just

as even liz cheney wants to retain the power of the swamp, so it really was a show, and not a hearing, in order for the democrats to have the ability to misuse our political system time and time again. so we all know this is highly suspect and i am sure many americans are like me. we have a truth monitor, can actually see through this napalm smokescreen of this trial. many things that the people speak are partially true, but when we put on our truth monitors and understand that this is really a smokescreen in order for the biden family to be making billions of dollars and their friends. host: do you trust the election system in pennsylvania? do you think it worked correctly in the primary you had last month in pennsylvania? caller: no, definitely not. trump definitely won

pennsylvania legitimately. i will go to my grave and stand before my lord, jesus christ, and no biden did not legitimately win pennsylvania. host: do you think dr. oz won the republican primary? do you think that is accurate? do you trust the results of the primary? caller: say that question again about trusting the results of the primary. no. i think the filtering, what gets taken out of the voters hands by people behind the scenes, the inside people, the ones who had 10,000 votes here or there or maybe even 400 votes if it is a local election, those are the people who are ruining our one-vote counts trust of the american people. host: that is jane in pennsylvania. this is lynn out of eastpointe, michigan. independent. good morning. caller: i am just amazed by the

attitude of certain people who just do not want to see the truth when it is laid out in front of them. i applaud mike pence for his courage, for not getting into the car and, just -- i am just stunned by the denial that still persists in our country, and we have so much evidence within the hearings the last three days, it has just been an eye-opener for everyone who actually believes our democracy -- believes in our democracy. i just want to say that i cannot understand it. i don't think i ever will, but i do applaud the commission and i applaud all of those who take the time to listen and investigate on their own, do their own research and find the truth, what the truth really is. thank you. host: talking about those

hearings, it was the third hearing that happened yesterday, the longest hearing yet, but we are not sure, when it comes to the ratings for the hearing -- c-span, of course, the pool providing the feeds to the various networks showing these hearings. we know the first hearing, the one in prime time, drew some 20 million eyeballs. that is a bigger audience than a typical rating for monday night football according to desiree news, but the second hearing, it was more in the range of 10 million people. that one of course was not in primetime, and we will find out soon what the ratings of the third hearing where. "with hope and doubt, millions tune in, but more opt out." that is from the washington post today. did you watch? caller: i did, john. i will redo the headline from

the manchester newspaper -- i will read you the headline from a manchester newspaper. this is a republican paper. at the top, it says there is nothing so powerful as truth. that is a quote from daniel webster. the previous lady who says she doesn't understand, people don't want to hear the truth. and that is what this commission is about. it is what it is. facts are facts. there's a basic distrust in american society today of government, of media, and we have to learn from history. if you look at germany, which was in the depression, they were convinced by one person. the fact is one of my heroes is al gore, who graciously conceded

the election in florida, the hanging chads. we had a president who cannot accept defeat, who cannot accept the fact that he lost, so he come up with this lie -- so he came up with this lie, and never before has there been so much questioning of our voting system. so, i mean, this is -- this is kind of sad, and it is perpetuated today. people -- i have neighbors who are staunch 45ers and they are not going to listen to me or anybody. they do not want to hear the truth. in my mind, this man is a traitor. a lady called in the other day and called her a traitor. and he should be in prison. host: you brought up al gore. the conservative editorial board

of the wall street journal -- we showed one of their pieces today, but a different one bringing up al gore, bringing up the 12th amendment issues, saying, when congress meets to count the electoral college, the vice president should open the certificates and the votes then be counted. does that mean al gore could have torn up florida's votes? of course not. talking about the reform needed here and the language of the electoral vote count act. this is a caller. good morning. caller: i agree with the last caller. al gore is one of my heroes. also, a peaceful man, god-fearing. so is mr. penn's and people like -- mr. pentz and people like mr. romney. that is why jesus did not let

mike pence get in that car. host: do you think his life would have been in danger if he had left the capitol? caller: and we need to be afraid. we need to get on our knees and we need to start living in truth. they say that, you know, hey, truth is part of our faith, and we still have all these so-called christians in denial with a mustard seed for a heart that will not open it up to the truth. host: all right. sheila in west or, massachusetts -- in worchester, massachusetts. good morning. caller: i would ask you to give me a couple minutes. i would ask every citizen in this country who has watched the hearings, as i have, probably 80% of them, would sit back and say to themselves, if you are accused of a heinous crime and

the court of public opinion will decide your fate, do you expect that both sides of the story will be told? do you expect that you would have a defense team able to ask questions and to rebut accusations? these hearings are one-sided. we are not hearing both sides. i have seen clips of people in that capitol building who said it was planned. there are two young people who were interviewed on cnn. i have never heard their story again. i want to know where ray epps is. i want to know who opened those gates. we are not hearing both sides of the story.

host: sheila, you might hear more from former president donald trump's side of the story at 1:00 p.m. eastern today. he is speaking at the faith and freedom coalition gathering in nashville, tennessee, and we are going to be airing that on c-span, also once c-span.org and the free c-span now video app, but 1:00 p.m. eastern. do you think you will watch, sheila? caller: i may watch it. however, i want these hearings to be fair could i want both sides -- hearings to be fair. i went both sides represent appeared i don't want two republican rino's representing me. there is not a person in this country that would go into a court and think that was fair. host: this is richard in lincolnville, maine.

independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree totally with sheila. these are not hearings. these are infomercials. it is all one-sided to try to bend everybody's opinion to do whatever they want to do with donald trump. i mean, let's face it. they are phony. just absolutely phony. host: richard, what would you say to the callers -- because we have had this conversation since last week -- the callers who would call in and say but these are republicans who are testifying? these are members of mike pence's inner circle, republicans serving in the justice department, republican state officials offering their testimony before this committee? what would you say to that? caller: i would say that everybody is entitled to their own opinion and i didn't vote for donald trump. i would never vote for donald trump but i didn't vote for either president in either

election because i am waiting for somebody who can come across and speak the truth, be the truth, and inspire. instead, what we get is the least objectionable candidate wins. host: one more call in this segment. this is deborah out of south bend, indiana, independent. good morning. caller: how are you this morning? host: i am good, deborah. caller: no, i don't want anything to happen to mike pence. let's just leave well enough alone, right? ok? but this situation reminds me of an incident i had when my grandmother and grandfather -- my grandfather had something on

top of his head and, me, i am sitting there, i'm nine or 10 years old, and he is hollering and screaming and raising hell or whatever you want to call it because he is blaming my grandmother because he cannot find his glasses. ok? so you are not going to never find the truth with this hearing. the only way i could explain to my granddaddy where his glasses were, i said, granddaddy, they are on your head. "i told you she didn't know nothing. she couldn't even tell you where my glasses was at." does this the way you want -- is this the way you want to look at the january hearings and find out who is right or wrong? host: deborah in indiana, our

last caller in this first segment of the washington journal, but stick around. plenty more to talk about in our last two hours. we are going to focus on the 50th anniversary of the watergate break in. today the 50th anniversary of that break in. we will be joined washington chs -- dan balz. later we talk about the legacy of the break in with jill wine-banks and sheppard, former deputy to the nixon administration special white house counsel. ♪ >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house generally six committee hearings investigating the attack on the capitol. go to c-span.org/january6, our

web resource page with all of the hearings on the attack and the subsequent investigation. we also have reaction from members of congress and the white house, as well as journalists and authors talking about the investigation. go to c-span.org/january6 for a fast and easy way to watch, when you cannot see it live. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span 2. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 8:00 a.m. eastern on doctors in history, on the 50th anniversary of the watergate rate in, american university professor joseph campbell talks about the 1972 scandal and what he calls the myth of heroic journalism. he argues congress and other federal agencies contributed to the downfall of the nixon presidency, and it was not

solely caused by the washington post reporting. at 2:00 p.m. on the presidency, mark updegrove, president and ceo of the lbj foundation, talks about his book, "incomparable grace: jfk in the presidency," and how jfk grew dealing with domestic and foreign challenges. exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturday on c-span 2. find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online, anytime ,on c-span.org/history. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the 1972 watergate break-in happened 50 years ago today, and as washington post chief correspondent dan balz says, -- i want to start with an

issue that callers often bring up on this program, the idea of trust in government. how do we measure trust in government, and how badly did watergate dent americans' trust in government? guest: this is a long-standing question pollsters have asked for more than half a century. it basically says how often do you trust the government to do the right thing, some time, all of the time, very little, or not at all? there is a wonderful graphic, for those who can go to the pew research center and enter in "trust in government." there is a wonderful graph that tracks from the late eisenhower period two today with the understanding of government trust is -- host: i will put that graphic on screen for viewers as you talk. guest: great, thank you.

what you can see is, in the late 1950's and early 1960's, majority of americans, and he did not matter which party they were affiliated with -- the majority of americans had a great deal of trust in government. we saw that begin to go down during vietnam. obviously, very divisive period in the late 1960's in the united states, and we saw trust in government begin to erode. with the watergate scandal, it eroded considerably more, so by the time richard nixon left office in august of 1974, trust was way, way down. only a minority of americans trusted -- said they trusted government some or all of the time to do the right thing. i think the interesting thing is not simply what watergate did to push down trust in government or, in a sense, to shatter

americans' ' faith in government, but it marked a dividing line between an era of trust and, now, a very long era of distrust. that chart, as people can see, has never really returned to anywhere close to what it was pretty watergate and pre-vietnam -- pre-watergate and pre-vietnam. the have been a couple moments, 9/11 being one of them, where the american people rallied together with their government and had a stronger feeling about trust in government. but that receded again very quickly. pew came out with an updated version of this on the sixth of june, and at this point, i think it showed only 20 percent of americans said they have trust in government to do the right thing. watergate is a dividing line in

the history of the relationship between the american people and the government and the american people and their politicians. host: that dividing line and issues of trust what we are talking about with dan balz this morning. if you want to read his deep dive into these issues, you can read on the washington post headline -- website. i'm headline watergate happened 50's ago, its legacy still with us -- (202) 748-8001 for repoublicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. you also talk about a dividing line of sorts for the political parties and how watergate impacted the two parties. start with the democratic party. guest: it is a fascinating story. the 1974 elections were a debacle for the republican party. they suffered significant losses. what you had was a gigantic class of new democratic

lawmakers coming into the house of representatives. they became known as the watergate babies. a huge class. there were more than 70 new democratic members of the house, starting in january of 1975. they did a lot of things. they came in with a real reformist attitude. as someone said, we felt empowered to try to straighten things out. they instituted and helped answer to a lot of reforms. we can talk about those later if you would like. but this new group of democratic lawmakers were different than some of the old-timers. they were younger. they were, in general, probably better educated. they were a little bit more liberal, a little bit more professional class in their orientation. host: who is the most famous of those watergate babies? guest: the one who typifies this

is very hard, elected to the senate in 1974. he told me he ran for the senate because he was so angry about watergate. he had managed george mcgovern's losing campaign in 1972. he had never thought about running for office. he became a symbol of this new democratic party and what we saw over a number of years and ultimately, in 1984, when he challenged walter mondale for the presidential nomination, you saw the stock dividing line between the old new deal democratic party and a more technocratic democratic party. we have seen those tensions have played out throughout the half-century since watergate. i was just going to say one of the aspects of this is that, as this new group began to get mass in the democratic coalition, working-class voters began to

deflect and go towards the republican party. we saw that first with the reagan democrats in the 1980's and see it more substantially during the trump era. host: that is the question -- what did it mean to be a republican post watergate? guest: one of the questions, when i started out on this article, was how is it that the republican party, which saw its president resigned in disgrace and suffered a massive loss in 1974 elections and lost the presidency in 1976 -- how did it manage to reconstitute itself relatively quickly, and the country elected ronald reagan and ushered in, really, what was the end of the old liberal new deal consensus and an era of conservative governance? one of the answers to that, ironically, is that because

watergate had shattered trust in government, there was more fertile ground for a much more conservative antigovernment ideology to take root. the kinds of things that very goldwater had talked about, when he ran and lost to lyndon johnson in 1964. his conservatism was out of favor in the 1960's. by 1980, it had a majority support in the united states under ronald reagan. it is a remarkable change. so what you had was the party of richard nixon and, if you will, nelson rockefeller and george romney, the father of senator mitt romney today -- that party which was more eastern in its grounding, more midwestern, gave way to a party that is southern-based and sun belt-based and a much more conservative party. the republicans have always been the more conservative of the two

major parties, but by the time ronald reagan was elected, and since then, it has become a much, much more conservative party. host: talking legacies of watergate that we will be talking about, stemming from stand -- stemming from dan balz and his column on this. it is watergate happened 50 years ago and its legacies are still with us. let's chat with our callers. caller: roger in north carolina, independent. you are up first. caller: yeah, good morning. i was a sophomore in high school when watergate went down. i kind of lost my trust of the government during the vietnam war era.

written a lot about the watergate thing and all that debacle that went down. my question is will you write about the cancer is to be -- the conspiracy between the dnc and the fbi to take down donald trump? caller: we have -- guest: we have written extensively about the mueller investigation. as more information is made available, we will certainly write more about it. host: one of the things you talk about in your pieces drawing the line from watergate to donald trump and our current situation. take us through that. guest: it is interesting. we are on the 50th anniversary today of the break in. we are in the middle of the select committee hearings in the house, looking at what happened on january 6 and the role of the

trump team involved in that. there are a number of connections or links you can draw from nixon to trump. one of them is similarities in their personalities. both of them had a kind of sense of being victims, that people were out to get them. both of them tended to demonize their opponents. we know richard nixon had an enemies list. and we know from all the tweeting donald trump did that he would go after anybody who he felt was going after him. the other aspect of this is the bigger question, and that is what each did during the presidency to try to -- sabotage against the democrats

heading into the 1972 campaign, and frankly the massive effort to cover it up through the lying that went on for some years, until finally, through the release of the tapes that were in the white house and all the investigations that were going on in the senate watergate hearings, richard nixon ultimately was forced to resign. i think one of the things that is important also is that we are in a different era today. we are obviously in a much more partisan environment, a much more polarized environment. an environment in which people, whatever side they are on, have great hostility to those who disagree, those on the other side of the debates. what we saw during watergate was an impeachment hearing with ultimately voting three articles

of impeachment against nixon. that vote included a number of republicans and conservative democrats on the committee. in that sense, it was a bipartisan vote. in the days before nixon resigned, a delegation of senior republican lawmakers, led by barry goldwater, went to see the president and basically said, you have no support in the senate. your support has collapsed. and they left it to nixon to decide what to do, and nixon resigned. what we saw during the trump administration were two different impeachments. people can decide what they think about whether that was valid, but what we saw and that was that, in both cases, the ultimate vote in the senate was pretty much a partyline vote. there was one republican, mitt romney, who voted for conviction in the setting -- senate in the first impeachment trial, i

believe there were seven in the second. but it is basically a partyline impeachment proceedings. in a sense, the outcome was pr gained or foreordained. -- preordained or foreordained. it raises a question if impeachment was one way or a principal way that the founders felt a president could be held to account, and that process seems not to work today because of partisan overlays, what, then, is the answer if you have a president who does some of the things that we have seen in recent years? host: we had out to boston, charles, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i think at the core of watergate was richard nixon's dirty tricks campaign against the democrats. i would make a juxtaposition

with a hillary clinton campaign. hillary and her followers and her campaign had many, many connections in washington and was able to pay for and peddle information that was false, proven false, and use it to manipulate the fbi, manipulate the media to go on a tear on russia collusion and use it as an excuse when she lost. then we went through the impeachment hearings, and basically hillary clinton's russia collusion and the dossier was used for smear donald trump and impeach him, and it cost us $40 million in the mueller investigation. i would say that is, in history, much, much more serious than watergate ever was. i would like to hear your thoughts on that. caller: i am not sure i -- guest: i am not sure i agree with you. i am not sure that, as you lay

it out, is exactly the way it played out. i know there are many people who believe, as you do, that it is exactly the way it happened. there is certainly a different set of scenarios as to what actually went on. i think it is pretty clear that what happened in watergate was a substantial effort, as others have said, to damage the democrats in a way that i do not think we saw, have seen in more recent campaigns. but i appreciate your perspective on this. host: where were you on june 17 of 1972? [laughter] guest: that is a great question. i was getting out of graduate school and was making my way with my wife from central illinois, the university of illinois, to philadelphia, where i went to work for the philadelphia inquirer and spent

a few months working for the inquirer before i went to washington in the fall of 1972. i have to say the watergate break-in had no particular impact on me at the time. i was more concerned about making the move and getting settled in a brand-new job and not paying that close attention to that particular story. it took me a while to catch up to it. host: did you get a sense that, after watergate, after nixon's eventual resignation in 1974, that there was something different about being a journalist? what was it like, being a young journalist back then, in the wake of everything that happened after that break-in? guest: one of the things about being a journalist, whether you're young or old, is the exhilaration of being able to watch history unfold and try to write about it and describe it and interpret it. i think, for me, trying to

understand kind of the new world we were in, the post watergate world, a new president in gerald ford, try to take hold and a country shaken by what happened. on, 1-, a desire to move on, and on the other, a recognition that we had to come to terms with what we had just gone through, that was all part of what any journalist, young or old, was feeling, particularly those of us who were in washington. but i think, more broadly, one of the important changes as a result of watergate, in the same way that there was a change in the relationship between the american people and their government, there was a way in -- there was a change in the way reporters dealt with the government, the relationship between reporters and public officials and lawmakers. we learned, through the pentagon papers, which had been published

a year before watergate, of the line that had gone on about vietnam -- the lying had gone on about vietnam. it was not just the pentagon papers that exposed that, but it brought into sharp exposure. we learned about that lying. we then saw what happened during the nixon administration. prior to watergate and vietnam, there was a much cozier relationship between reporters and public officials. there was much more trust that what government officials were saying was accurate, was correct . i think, again, watergate helped shatter that, and we have had, since then, a much more adversarial relationship between the press and government. and i think the other aspect, and give credit to bob woodward -- in investigating and producing the stories nobody else was, investigative

reporting is now a central part of what any major news organization undertakes. we have a very large investigative unit, as do most big news organizations. this is now a critical part of the responsibility that we feel is part of our work. host: speaking to some of those exact issues that you just brought up, a column i will appoint viewers to in the op-ed of the washington post -- the former publisher of the post -- watergate resonated because post reported the truth. here is a little bit of what he had to say. those on both the left and right to cry stories they do not like as fake news. had the phrase been around in 1972, nixon's folks would have gratefully used it. but the stories hit hard for the simple reason they were true. they were not fake. they were news. if most of their stories have

been untrue or exaggerated, watergate would have been the story of embarrassment of a newspaper. but bob and carl told as much of the truth they could learn every day -- they got it right. guest: can i just add a footnote to that? bob and carl were alone on that story for many months. they had done the work. they had applied issue leather. they were able to produce stories that nobody else seemed to be able to get. every reporter likes to be first on a story and head on a story, but it can be a little lonely if you are the only ones doing it, and there are not a lot of others who are essentially quickly confirming those stories. there was certainly nervousness at the washington post. if you read the histories of that era, there was nervousness

at the washington post about why is it that we are the only ones who have this? there was a very important moment in the fall of 1972 -- walter cronkite, the anchor at cbs news, a very trusted news source, devoted 14 minutes of one of his programs and 8 of another of his nightly newscasts to the watergate story, and that brought it to public consciousness in a way it had not. it was very important, obviously, for the washington post, but it said to the country this is a story that you should be paying attention to. host: jeff out of new york, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. and thank you for taking my question. i would like to point out that you mentioned the public trust after vietnam, there were terrible consequences that followed. i think one of the

underestimated, untold stories is the lack of trust in public health after the vietnam era. we successfully were able to trust both the polio and smallpox epidemic with vaccination campaigns that were trusted by the american people. this is before vietnam, of course. after that, we suffered, of course, many pandemics, the hrc and now covid-19. we see now there is no trust to do all the necessary public health measures in either of those two. it took a long time to even fund a law of the drug of ailment for hiv because the government would not admit -- it took a long time to even fund a lot of the drug development for hiv because the government would not admit. and we see donald trump completely politicizing the

covid-19 pandemic. we have preventable deaths that are unconscionable and far greater than anything we have lost in wars. there are 1 million deaths, and a great many of these deaths are preventable, and we know they are preventable because we know -- we can see countries that do well, like south korea, and each per capita death -- host: i think we got your question. dan balz? guest: it is an important observation. certainly, the government was slow to recognize the seriousness of the hiv crisis and to begin to try to act on it. he is right. it took ronald reagan a wild to do that. i think, subsequent to that, the federal government did very important work on that, and george w. bush with his program

has provided a legacy that is very important. as to what we have gone through with the pandemic and covid-19, i think this is a further reflection of the state of american politics today, the degree to which almost any issue , whether it is seemingly political or not -- and obviously, public health should not be a political issue -- everything does become politicized. we have gone through that with covid-19. and we are still reckoning with the implications of that. it is unfortunate that we cannot step back from the partisan political barricades and deal with public health issues in a more sober and less political way. but we are where we are in this country, and we have to figure out how to deal with that

reality and still find ways to make breaks through the and to battle this terrible virus. host: oklahoma, this is barbara. good morning. caller: good morning. -- host: we will work on your line for a second. try one more time. we will try to hear you. caller: [inaudible] host: i am so sorry. try calling again, and we will try to get you through. but we will go to richard in louisville, kentucky, republican. good morning. caller: that line you put up at the beginning of your program talked about the trust in government and how it was so high during eisenhower, who was our main commander coming out of world war ii, and he became president. his speech, one of the last days as president of the united

states as he told the american people, you have to watch out for the industrial military complex. john kennedy comes in there. john kennedy was assassinated, so he was out of there. then came lyndon johnson. boy, he really worked with that military complex, didn't he. he lied to the american people about how the war was going, and 50,000 men and women were killed as a result of that democrat, lyndon johnson. incomes richard nixon. he stayed the course for a while, then, all of a sudden, pentagon papers come out, then now we see mcnamara lied, johnson lied, all these liberals who were running the show lied. richard nixon should never have resigned. he started to bring down the military movement in vietnam,

and then they come out and impeached him. before they could remove him from office, he resigned. he should have never resigned. now, today, you talk about the washington post has done everything it could to get into all the crap that went on with donald trump and the fbi. that is a falsehood. host: let me give you a chance to respond. guest: there is a lot in that set of observations. there was a lot of lying during vietnam under the presidency of lyndon johnson. nixon decided he need to get out of vietnam, that vietnam had torn the country apart and that we were in a situation that was not winnable. he worked to try to de-escalate the war. that is separate from the things

that ultimately brought him down. we have to look at the totality of a presidency, whether lyndon johnson's -- if you read robert caro's magnificent volumes on lyndon johnson, you see the full complexity of a politician. the good things he did and the bad things he did. it is similar with richard nixon. there were things that happened early in 1972, the opening of china, which was an historic break from where the u.s. had been in its relationship to china. those things are part of the nixon record. also watergate is part of the record. we have to evaluate the full measure of all of these presidencies. host: coming back to your column on the legacies of watergate on the 50th anniversary of the break-in, you are right, the aftermath of the scandal opened

up the operation of congress. i wonder if you think this network, you have appeared on 102 times, it is this network a legacy of watergate? guest: i think it is. go back to the class of '74, the watergate babies, they came in with the idea they wanted to open up the institution. they helped knock out three very powerful committee chairs, democratic committee chairmen, but they did other things that were designed to decentralize power in the house. to take power away from for example committee chairs, and to give newer, younger members, people who were not so senior more power.

that had many salutary effects. the institution became more open. one of the aspects of that was to put house proceedings on the floor on c-span. one of the unintended consequences of all of that was it has, it made the house more unmanageable, less manageable. it was more difficult for leaders to be able to get their way because there were more obstacles younger members, people without seniority, could put up to try to block things. one of the things, in talking to a number of people elected in 1974, one of the things they acknowledge is while they feel they made an important reform in the conduct of business in the house, one consequence has been that it is more difficult to

actually get things done. one measure of whether a government works or not is can it deal with big issues? we have certainly seen in recent years, it has become more and more difficult for congress to take on and resolve a big issue. we are going through this right now with the debate over gun legislation. this is another test of whether the government, the congress can address a major issue and come to a resolution and actually pass a bill and get it sent to the president. this is one of the legacies. c-span is an important part of that. c-span provided a vehicle for people who otherwise have very little power to have their voices heard and no one more to five that then newt gingrich -- no one more typified that then newt gingrich. he skillfully used it to his

advantage to build a following and ultimately, to help the republicans take over the house in 1994 and elect him speaker. host: about 10 minutes left with dan. when we lose him, we will continue with your calls on the legacy of watergate and trust in government. stay on the lines if you don't get in in the next 10 minutes. caller: in honor to speak to you today. i have two quick questions. what do you think the chances would have been of nixon resigning if there had been social media at the time? secondly, with the way we are

watching actual video evidence and audio evidence be completely ignored by 30% of the nation, what do you think are the odds that this gets turned into criminal indictments for those involved in january 6? that is it. thanks. guest: thanks. first one first. interesting question. one of those wonderful what if questions we wrestle with all the time. what has been known as the terrible what if's of history. it is unknowable what would have happened if social media existed at the time. social media is part of a dramatically changed media and cultural environment we live in today. i don't think you could say,

social media but also there were only three major broadcast networks. one of the questions i have, i will be talking to bob woodward and carl bernstein later for a program we are hosting here at 1:00 -- one of the questions i'm interested in is what would have happened if watergate was unfolding today? how would it be reported through social media and what would the differences be? i'm curious to hear what the guys who broke these stories think about this environment. host: we will all hear those answers together. we are airing that event at the washington post here on c-span, 1 p.m. eastern, sorry c-span2, airing it on our c-span now app and on www.c-span.org. more dan for our viewers later in the day on c-span 2.

guest: more than they have bargained for. sorry about that. the second question is important. clearly, the house committee is preparing the evidence that they suggest could lead to a criminal indictment but they do not have power to do that. they can make whatever recommendation they make to the justice department. we know the justice department is going through a lot of this same evidence. they are doing the same investigation. there is a standoff right now. they are trying to get transcripts of the depositions the house committee has done but the committee wants to hold onto those because they have more work to do but this ultimately will land in the lap of merrick garland. it is not an easy decision. no matter which way he goes. if he chooses to bring a

criminal indictment against the former president, that is a tough decision. if he decides not to, that is a fraught decision. the attorney general obviously understands that. we will see where he comes out. in talking to people about this over a long time, many many months, there are a number of people i have talked to that think ultimately, kind of the question of, in what way should former president trump be held accountable for what happened on generate six? -- january 6? it is an issue that will ultimately go to the american people in 2024 if he chooses to run again and becomes the republican nominee for president. that this is something that will be settled at the ballot box, even more than in the legal environment.

it is a very very important set of questions that are going to go forward from the january 6 committee. as we finish up with the 2022 elections and head toward the presidential campaign. host: 2:40 a.m. in hawaii. alan, independent, good morning. caller: it has been a while since i called in. good to hear your voice. dan, phenomenal to talk to you. i flashback, i was 16 when this occurred. many years later, i was helping an author who was working on his second novel on the jfk assassination. stumbling, trying to get some idea on this, doing foi request of the government and i stumbled

on a group that in 2018 had gotten a core dump from the cia, which i thought was interesting. yes, there was people involved in the cia who were involved in the burglary but there was a huge amount of denial, which everyone acknowledged. the core dump was heavily redacted, acknowledged a lot more involvement. foia's take a long time to process. people at the washington post probably when it comes their way, i am curious, what you guys found. it is 909 pages. the one i looked at. i pulled it up on my computer. a lot of redaction in blank pages and things. i was curious, mark felts may have been in that document, i don't even remember. i would be curious to know what

your thoughts were as far as, just like with the jfk assassination, core dumps come out, these things will be declassified. most think stuff was found and never acknowledged and the way it comes out it probably will not add to our grave knowledge of this. host: in your final minutes, that question as well as, the legacy of access to documents after watergate? guest: i think the answer to your question is these kinds of foia requests that come out years later, the opening of presidential documents, which get opened up long after a president has left office, all of that, is mostly going to be

done by historians and researchers. not necessarily a place like the washington post. we have our hands full covering whatever is going on in the moment. it is pretty difficult for us to have a full unit you would call the history unit. we do some of that. we have a set of running features called retropolis but those tend to be shorter. if we have a request that takes years, we will then process it but i don't know we have ever done a look at the stuff you're talking about. it sounds quite interesting. as with those things, there are a lot of reactions and blank pages. it tends to be something historians do. john, remind me? host: the idea of access to documents. guest: one of the things i have

always admired about bob woodward is his ability to get documents. i have worked with bob over the years, closely on one particular project, which was looking at the 10 days of decision-making after the attacks of 9/11. one of the things i learned from working that closely with bob is that he never fails to ask people, do they have any documents? do you have memos of meetings? do you have emails? two you have any other files -- do you have any other files you can share? it is important part of the reporting bob has done for the past century since he and carl broke the watergate story. it is a lesson i think all journalists can take, that, we

do a lot of interviewing with people and we go back and say what happened when and try to reconstruct things but there is nothing like documents. it is a central element to all investigative reporting. one of the things we now have, where we are in the age of technology, is much greater ability to do big data analysis. we have tried to do a lot more that at the post, as have other news organizations but it has become essential in all kinds of ways for the reporting we are doing, even on contemporaneous events. documents are essential. we dig in all the ways we can. in terms of, going back in history and getting those things from the kennedy assassination

or vietnam or watergate, those tend to be things historians do. i would put in a plug for garrett graff, who just published a new book on the history of watergate in which he has combed through everything available and has written a very bright, lively and lucid history of that. i commend all of you to take a look at that if you have interest. host: busy day for the post and dan. the chief correspondent. if you want to see and hear more from him, tune into c-span2 at 1 p.m. eastern today, washington post live event with dan and also the watergate reporters bob woodward and carl bernstein to mark the 50th anniversary of the break-in. thanks for your time. appreciate the conversation. guest: thank you very much. host: we continue here with your

calls on the 50th anniversary of the water to break in. 15 more minutes to hear from you. also on the topic of trust in government. republicans, (202)-748-8001. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. as you are calling in, a couple other watergate events to preview today. 5 p.m. eastern, former deputy assistant to nixon and others of the arrow will discuss the influence and importance of the watergate scandal. watch that on c-span, www.c-span.org and the free c-span now video app. our coverage continues at 6:20 p.m. eastern, former counsel and staff of the senate watergate committee along with lawyers and journalists who played key roles in covering the scandal and involved in the scandal. they will mark the 50th

anniversary, live coverage 6:20 p.m. eastern. you can watch on c-span.org and the free space fan -- the free c-span app. now back to your phone calls until 9 a.m. this morning. rob, kansas city, missouri, democrat. caller: democracy has been handed down generation to generation in america. it is a gift that is priceless. it is the most important thing that is passed forward generation to generation. now we are at a crossroads. we have something like 30% americans who think one man is far greater, far more important than our democracy. we are at a dangerous crossroads when people think that way. our democracy becomes something disposable. i will never forget seven years after watergate, john wayne said

nixon should have burned if the tapes and that would be the end of it. that is like saying if you kill someone, just hide the body and make sure it is never found so you can never be committed. that is a shameful thing. between watergate and the january 6 insurrection, our trust in government has been damaged deeply. we need to begin to work on restoring it. they ignore those people who want to be with trump and in his cult and continue the investigation and continue to defend our democracy and rebuild and reverse the damage that we are suffering today. host: john, vernon, new jersey, republican. caller: good morning. very good show. two things. i would like to talk about the post and the 1960's-70s. they have an editor in the early

1960's that went up in the summer with his wife and parted with jack kennedy and jackie. they were extremely close. nothing from the post ever came out negative about kennedy or his skeletons. fast forward 10 years later, all of a sudden the post is this objective journalistic icon. that is all baloney. they are slanted. they are to the left so badly. they rode kennedy's coattails and carried his water and then they went after nixon. fast 50 years later. obama, biden went after trump, unbelievably, before the election, during the transition and after. they created a false narrative. they got rogue people and the fbi to carry their water.

did the post cover any of this? now. they went after trump consistently. now you have got trump being vilified by the media, unbelievably. is the post objective? are they this icon of objectivity? no. it is all slanted. it is absurd. absolutely absurd. host: stay on the line. dan wrote a little bit about what you're talking about when it comes to the press and its relation to leaders before watergate and after. i want your thoughts on what he wrote. after watergate "gone with the cozy days when a reporter could play poker in the oval office with the president or when the private lives of politicians were considered off-line to reporting, unless it affected public responsibility." he quoted one of the historians

he talked to. a lot of journalism prior to that was very deferential to political leaders, said one of those historians. you didn't say certain things but i think younger people learned the way to get ahead just like members of congress learned through oversight, the way you get your name in the papers is by making a splash and making accusations. that culture became powerful when it comes to journalism. your thoughts? caller: i think you're quoting caro? i believe. host: it is laurens. caller: ok. most of these historic things are far slanted to the left. it is the nature of their culture. it is where they came up. they came up as academics. we know the media and academia is slanted left, almost 95%. as far as kennedy's picket allows, kennedy was having an affair with the washington post

editor's wife when they were going up there on the weekends. apart from that, let's separate that, what about the other things the kennedys were doing? what were they doing in southeast asia? that was going on way before johnson got there. what were some of the cozy relationships they had with other shady people? let's talk about the 1960 election. you want to talk about a dirty election -- as dirty as this last one was and it was dirty -- go to jersey city, you will see a dirty election. it is not new in america. this last election was filthy dirty, especially in philly and atlanta. go back to 1960, see how dirty that was. did the post really investigate that? did they do their research? that is what i am trying to say. host: got your point. kathleen, dayton, ohio,

democrat. caller: i hate to agree somewhat with the previous caller because both right and left outlets are often reported by sways. we didn't have reed and walter maddow, they couldn't even touch hillary clinton's war hawk status or her ties to wall street. anyway back to watergate. i watched the hearings. i am 70 now. it fueled -- [indiscernible] -- no one is above the law. that is a bunch of hooey. although we did watch the president and accomplices held accountable. we watched our president have to resign. in 2000, supreme court's decision, i call it the

presidential selection, with bush v gore, i lost my faith again in big chunks of government. then i lost faith again, 2006, 08, 2010, when pelosi abdicated her congressional oversight responsibilities as speaker and did not hold bush, cheney, did not even attempt to go after them in regard to hearings and the run-up to the invasion of iraq based on known, i repeat known false claims about wmd's in iraq. i lost faith again in the dems and holding a president and all the pushers of that war accountable in any way, shape or form. now watching these hearings, it is restoring my faith a little bit when i watch judge let it,

which people were complaining about how slow he was. i like how measured and thought-provoking, just very measured and methodical way of presenting evidence, the whole thing. my faith is being restored a little bit with republicans and democrats working together. host: back to the garden state, stanley, independent. caller: hi. i wanted to comment on the status of the committee. with two real republicans on board, the shame they have shown to the rest of the republican party and the republican followers who still believe, after all this evidence they are looking at -- it is dumbfounding how ignorant -- [indiscernible]

-- it is shocking to see a large majority of american people who do not accept reality. see you later. i love you. bye. host: tom, lincroft, new jersey, democrat. caller: [indiscernible] i've often thought the real problem -- [indiscernible] -- full credit for pardoning nixon. i feel -- [indiscernible] -- something with trump would never have happened. he would know he cannot get away with it. -- [indiscernible] -- in the trump administration. if nixon had been made to pay for his crimes, i expect we would have a different thing going on now. host: lonnie, massachusetts,

good morning. caller: thank you for accepting my call. one of the things i have a problem with his it seems like everyone keeps demonizing democrats but the only people we have seen actually do fraud in the mail in thing was the guy from dallas. host: any thoughts as we wrap up here on the 50th anniversary of watergate? caller: yeah. i am trying to listen to everyone say democrats have done this but republicans have actually been the ones that have committed crimes. they have actually been doing things -- [no audio] can you hear me? host: yes. 30 seconds left. go ahead and finish up. caller: i'm sorry. i'm trying to figure out how everyone in america keeps getting upset with democrats when it is not democrats doing bad things.

it is constantly republicans. host: all right. our last collar this segment of the washington post. more to come. more focus on the 50th anniversary of the watergate break-in. we will be joined by joe one banks and jeff sheppard, special counsel. stick around for that discussion after the break. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span two, leading authors discussing the latest nonfiction books. 11:55 a.m. eastern, lisa miller, author of take up space, the unprecedented aoc, looking at the entry into politics and what impact she is having as a member of congress.

10 p.m. eastern on afterword s, the author of rethinking sex, offers her thoughts on sexual consent and societal attitudes toward sex in the 21st century. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and fund a full schedule on your program guide or watch online >> the january 6 committee enters day four of public hearings as they continue disclosing evidence gathered in their investigation. watch the hearing live tuesday at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three, c-span now, or anytime online at c-span.org. you can also visit our website, c-span.org/january 6 to watch previous hearings and other hearings related to that day. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.

>> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those on c-span' is new podcast. >> season one focuses on the presidency of the lyndon johnson. you will hear about the civil rights act, the 1964 presidential campaign, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson secretaries knew, because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who make sure the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and there's. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> i want to report on the number of people were assigned to kennedy.

i want it right quick. if i don't have to go to the bathroom, i won't go i will just stay right here. >> presidential recordings, find it on the c-span mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> only at c-span to get information straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word, if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters , america is watching on c-span, powered by cable. 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 about jill wine-banks and geoff shepard.

host: we will be back here at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. in the meantime, have a great friday. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] >> today on c-span, former president donald trump speaks to the face and read him -- faith and freedom coalition at 1:00. then, the discussion of watergate, 50 years after the break-in. just before 6:30, an in-depth look of the prosecution of watergat