[applause] all the people who were here some 60 years ago know that is the case. too much civility is absent today. consider the level of vitriol in the political discourse that

exists in government today, and even in the halls of congress. i cannot emphasize enough the importance of the relationship between him and the vice chairman. welcome to tennessee. [laughter] [applause] they made a pact in the beginning that this would be a nonpartisan hearing. the sole purpose of which was to uncover the truth. it is hard to imagine this happening today, because it required level heads and plain old-fashioned civility. they proved a congressional committee devoid of malice and political bias could fulfill its function of informing the public and then propose legislation that would prevent this egregious scandal from ever happening again. they knew only a well-functioning separation of powers could ensure democracy and our great country for generations. today we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the water great

-- of the watergate break-in. which newspapers called i think a minor event. about that size in the washington post. and in my mind, the pivotal linchpin of solving what was a national tragedy was the committee's discovery of a secret taping system, installed and president nixon's white house and other presidential offices. these tapes proved john dean, who testified before the committee for days, had been laboriously for days, revealing that nixon and his leadership team were deeply involved in a massive cover-up designed to conceal the entire watergate affair. a chain of events that included the commission of crimes. did we learn a lesson? i three or not -- i fear not.

the investigation found huge sums of unaccountable campaign money erode democracy. today we have the same problem. citizens united decision, in my mind one of the were supreme court rulings in our history, opened the floodgates for corruption. just as with watergate, today's electoral process is awash in unlimited and shameful amounts of money. democracy will survive. as senator durbin said, it is "the last best hope of mankind." in my view, democracy will prevail, because it must. thank you. [applause]

ladies and gentlemen, i want to call up here the folks that made this possible. they are called sponsors. and they are people that gave up their human earthly wealth to make sure that you had a good time. if you would come up one at a time, the assistant counsel sitting here. [applause] john elmore. investigator. [applause] mike carpenter. investigator. [applause] come on up here. michael hirschman. deputy chief investigator. [applause] stephen leopold. the renowned canadian. and how did he get on there? investigator. [applause] i will never know how he got on. but somehow he snuck past. oh, he was one of those. ok. lacy, investigator.

[applause] jim stewart. investigator. [applause] assistant chief counsel jim hamilton. [applause] he was a neighbor from south carolina. i will started to say south america. [laughter] south carolina will be fine. [applause] gordon friedman. gordon has been so -- [applause] gordon has helped keep this thing together for so many years. we had a 20th watergate reunion in here. i remember smoking away on cigarettes, and running, jean and carl -- every time i saw her, she was running in high heels faster than i could run. gordon has been working on a watergate website called watergate.org, he's worked with the 45th and has been instrumental in the 50th.

is there anything more you need to tell us about how to get a hold of you? >> watergate.org. go there, because what happens here tonight is wonderful, but is what we do after tonight, to keep our eyes open and our voices in the public sphere about these issues. because they are not going to go away with the current situation. something we have to face. -- it's something we have to face. [applause] >> thank you. ok. let me just repeat that. what happens here tonight is important. what is really important is what happens afterwards. so we have to really be vigilant going forward. there are some loopholes in the constitution and in our judicial system. and really it's up to the public to be responsible at the end to be responsible and have a voice. watergate.org, we are going to start a little nonprofit to keep the lights on. thank you. [applause] >> rachel and judy dash.

please stand up and let us say hello to you. [applause] their father. sam dash was the real star of the show. he and i worked very hard together. he never quit to eat. i don't know when he ate. he was a fantastic chief counsel. there couldn't have been anybody better put there. [laughter] i will also say that we thank amy wright. her company has helped us with this. -- helped us put this on. [applause] her company is named newton street publications. and cheryl mattingly, my executor -- my executive assistant. [applause] yeah.

oh, is sissy baker here? [applause] that is mr. baker's daughter. oh my god! i loved your father. [applause] one time, sissy, i was running for governor, and he called me and said, i will come up for you or against you, whatever will help. he did -- is joy here? bob woodward is somewhere hiding. or did he leave? there's my friend, bob woodward. bob. [applause] i won't bother him to come up here -- but i've got to tell you

guys what to do for a change, come on up here. come here, bob. [applause] all right. you boys are added. three minutes. [laughter] >> we were not expecting to speak. i will just say the following -- this was a triumph for democracy, what occurred in this room. [applause] and every aspect of this country's great culture was involved. the press, the legislative branch, the judiciary, both

parties, the supreme court, and it worked. and i think, if that were to be the legacy of watergate, this would be a moment of greatness that we lack today. thank you. [applause] >> i agree. [applause] >> i remember, after carl and i had done our stories in the washington post, and most people did not believe them -- they thought it was inconceivable. and i got a call from the senator's office that said, come on up, i want to talk. so we went into his office. and he said, we are going to investigate watergate. mike mansfield had selected him, to do it. and he said, gee, would like to have your sources -- we would

like to have your sources. [laughter] and i said, gee, we are not going to give them to you. [laughter] because i think that would break down the barrier between the government and a free press. and he said, i understand, but we are going to do it anyway, and literally what he said -- maybe we will find out what mcgruder did. [laughter] he kept the bar really low. and then he conducted what is the gold standard of congressional investigations. nixon miscalculated, as many of you recall. nixon said, i'm going to invoke executive privilege and not let them testify. then nixon, in one of his many

delusions, thought, if i let them testify, they will help me. and of course, they came up and tore nixon apart. and then this led to the discovery of the tapes. and of course, irvin, i'm sorry to go over three minutes -- [laughter] ok. the great thing other than the investigation that senator irvin did is his final report. which is 4000, 5000 pages. and in it, he asks the question, what was watergate? and he answered it. and he said, watergate was an attempt to subvert and destroy the process of selecting presidential candidates and a president. exactly. then he goes through this -- you know, he never evaded the

tough questions. he said, why watergate? why did this happen? and his answer, it is the end of his report -- the lust for power. thank you. [applause] >> great. perfect. [cheering and applause] >> well, i mentioned a good friend of mine, the dean of the campbell law school -- dean rich leonard. i said, you need to go to washington. he said, ok. there is. dean rich leonard of the campbell university law school and former federal judge. [applause] and now, ladies and gentlemen,

the program i think you will quite like. i will make certain quivering moments if you start going over, richard. i will -- [laughter] he might just give me the finger. [laughter] jill weinbanks is on the next panel. jill, you need to come on up here. [applause] and to get off. in fact -- and take it off. in fact, i want to tell you about this lady. i think she explains complex legal issues better than anyone i've seen on tv. jill, come up, please come and convene your table. you have with you my friend richard b., the deputy chief

prosecutor of the special prosecution team and jim hamilton, who handled one of the issues of the three-prompt watergate investigation, a long time plan. -- three-pronged water gate investigation, a longtime plan. how are we going to handle that, amy? [indiscernible] >> and i want to call up also my congresswoman, deborah ross, from the second congressional district in north carolina, she is a brilliant lady. [applause] and that x panel will be -- and the next panel will be jean boyd.

he will tell you how he discovered the tapes. jill, you are the boss here. [indiscernible] >> hi, everyone. i know you all want to be mingling. so we are going to keep our program tight. but i am very happy to be here. can you all see, or should we move chairs? it's ok? good. we are going to talk about what watergate was all about. from both the senate point of the. -- point of view. and i'm sorry the former congresswoman is not here. i will speak in part for her. i've got to be friends with her. i will say some of the things i think she would've said. then we will try to finish up quickly. so with us we have richard, who

to me will always be rick, he's going to retaliate by calling me jillybean. and of course, mr. hamilton who will be wonderful and congresswoman deborah ross, who will talk about things that need to be done now, and maybe can talk about some of the things that we did after watergate, in terms of congressional legislation, that has been undone by the supreme court. let me start with you, jim. you have described the watergate hearings, having only seen them on television, but it was in this room -- hard to believe, because it seems so small compared to what i saw. you've described it as being the most successful, the most consequential, and the most riveting of all congressional investigations. it certainly is true. in american history, this lasted 51 days.

80% to 85% of all american households watched. and they were riveted. they didn't watch for an hour. they watched for a minimum of 30 hours. obviously we are in a slightly different time. but i want you to talk about maybe just quickly five reasons why you think that that was the most riveting and most consequential. >> is the microphone on? [indiscernible] ok. why don't you take one? >> maybe you should stand up so people can hear you. >> yeah. >> try this one. it is on. >> how about now?

ok. technology has never been my strength. you know, i think there are maybe five reasons why the watergate committee was the most successful, the most riveting, and the most consequential in history. and let me just described those to you very briefly. the first is the skunk of the wrongdoing that we found. because watergate was not only the break in and the cover-up. it was a series of noxious, dirty tricks. a lot of them aimed at ed muskie. because he was the strongest candidate against nixon. there were massive illegal campaign contributions. and then there was something called the response program which gordon friedman

found in the national archives which was his scheme to use the bureaucracy to reelect nixon. fortunately, a lot of members of the bureaucracy just barked -- they were not going to go along with it. another reason why watergate was so successful was the cast of characters. think about the people involved. for the committee, you had sam ervin. who a folk hero. you had norway, a war hero. and you had the other side, richard nixon. who, to be the best known man in america was one of the most mysterious men in america still. you had for cuban -- four cubans , who had bay of pigs and cia backgrounds who had done all types of nefarious things. you had gordon liddy and howard hunt, who never followed

the nefarious scheme, no matter how doomed to fail it was. and then you had the trio from the white house, chuck, john, and bob, who would make the hair stand up on the back of your neck when you heard them testifying. the third reason that i think watergate was so successful was, there was good staff work. let's give credit to sam dash. his daughter is here. let's give credit to sam. [applause] sam knew -- sam knew how to tell a story. and that's what he did. the summer of 1973, watergate was the best soap opera on television. it was appointment television, as the new york times said. one day, 60 million people heard

john dean talk about a cancer growing on the presidency. the fourth reason that i think watergate was so successful was that it was done in a way where partisanship was secondary. there was a legitimate effort to find the truth. let me give you just a few facts, that maybe today in the context of what is going on now seem incredible -- the watergate committee was set up by a vote of 77 to none in the u.s. senate. the decision to subpoena president nixon after we found the tapes, and then to sue him when he stiffed us, was by a unanimous vote of the watergate committee. the questions that were asked to uncover the tapes both in

private session and public hearing were questions by republican staffers. and the watergate committee report that bob referred to -- this huge report, which i think was 1200 pages of text, then many appendices, that was adopted by unanimous vote by the committee. if this happened today, gee, i don't think so. and of course the final reason that the watergate committee was such a great success was that we discovered the white house tapes that brought down a corrupt president. thanks, jill. [applause] >> rick, let me call on you to maybe talk a little bit more about the role of the watergate special prosecution office, and

why we were so successful both in the trial and -- >> i will sit next to you. >> awe. >> let me say a thing about watergate. yeah. let me do this. all three branches of government, the special prosecutor, and an implacable press, were responsible for the extraordinary result -- unique, i think, for every country in the world, to investigate itself and come to a conclusion that ultimately rid us of a corrupt president of the united states. and terminated his second term.

it was the result of the laws that were on the books being applied by extraordinary people. extraordinary people, who stepped up and did the work. now, that could have ended differently at any point if nixon had destroyed the tapes that we subpoenaed. even up to the moment that we were to get them, i think he would've survived -- served out the rest of his term. wounded, yes. but he would've survived. and let me suggest to you that this country would've survived nixon's second term. whatever you say about nixon,

and there is a lot to say about his criminality, and his penchant for authoritarianism -- he was an individual who had a sense of shame. at the end of the day, his sense of shame was on display. watergate did not pose a threat to the continuation of our government, as we see it. i cannot say the same about donald trump. [applause] donald trump was and is an existential threat to our democracy. short and simple. it was the individuals operating within our system who are responsible for the conclusion of the watergate saga. our ability to get the tapes and

to then pass them along to the house impeachment committee, along with the roadmap from mr. frampton, who is here tonight. stand up, george, say hello. [applause] we built on the great work that the senate committee did. and we expanded on it. and we were able to get evidence. and that evidence but the nails and richard nixon -- put the nails and richard nixon's coffin. let me conclude my remarks by calling out the names of the heroes of watergate, who are no longer with us. judge john jay circa.

[applause] senators sam ervin -- senator sam ervin. [applause] sam dash. [applause] peter rodino. [applause] john door. [applause] archibald cox. [applause] kelly ruth. [applause] james neal. [applause] leon jaworski. [applause] and catherine graham. [applause] may we find those heroes to guide us through the troubling months and years ahead. thank you. [applause]

>> of course, richard meant to include senator howard baker. [applause] and he has captured something that's really true, which is, it was a time when there was bipartisanship, there were facts that mattered, all the networks had the same facts. it was an extraordinary time of compromise. democrats and republicans dined together and worked together and got things done. there was unanimous support for the legislation that followed. the trial and the hearings. and we are not they are now. and i think that is what is really so sad, that we don't have those people coming forward now, and we need that. but let's go on with the questions. i want to ask one more question

of you, richard. you are not done yet. come on back. one of the issues we were successful in prosecuting the aids -- we named richard nixon as a co-conspirator which was in part necessary in order to introduce the tapes into evidence in the trial. he had to be a co-conspirator. this was not a vindictive act. it was unnecessary act. it was also part of -- it was a necessary act. it was part of what the evidence showed. we worried about things like jury nullification. there was a big debate in the office about whether he should be indicted twice. once was as a sitting president and once the day he resigned. and in the period before he got pardoned. richard and i do not agree in

this -- i was for indictment both times, both as a sitting president and again after he resigned. and i look back now, and i was on a panel with gerald ford's son and becker, the young lawyer from gerald ford's office who delivered the pardons to richard nixon -- i was very touched by both of their comments. about the fact that gerald ford made benton becker make it clear to richard nixon that if he accepted the pardon, he was admitting guilt. and he carried with him a supreme court case that said that. and i soft and a little and thought, maybe it was a good thing to let the country move on into pardon -- and to pardon. when i look back now and i think i was right then because i think there would've been a difference if richard nixon had been indicted -- maybe a message would've been sent to future wrongdoers in the white house.

i don't know that. i can't say for sure that anything would've changed the behavior we are now seeing in the january 6 hearings. and because it is so contemporaneous, i think it is important that we look at that aspect. so would it have made a difference? i don't know. was it the right thing to do? it was certainly something the evidence supported. you want to say something about that? before you do, i want to say there's another 50th anniversary -- -- the 50th anniversary of a good thing that richard nixon did, which is title ix. which opened up opportunities for women. not just in court, but particularly in court. so thank you, richard nixon. [applause] >> so, let me unpack all of those questions and answer one of them. the decision to name richard nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator is an interesting

story and involves some insight baseball. we were the first to listen to the first traunch of tapes, produced after the saturday night massacre, incidentally the event that i think was the most responsible for the change in america's opinion about richard nixon. i think even after the spectacular hearings in this room by the committee, most americans were still prepared to give richard nixon the benefit of the doubt, all of his aides contradicted what john dean was saying. it was a he said-she said times through. without the tapes -- times three. without the tapes, i don't think richard nixon would've remotely have been forced to resign his office, in the way that he was.

but we listened to the so-called cancer on the presidency speech, in which john dean, who has great credit, attempted to get nixon to realize that the cover-up couldn't last, and that nixon ought to call an end to it, have the individuals responsible for violating the law already come forward and take their medicine, including dean, and nixon asked dean, how much would it cost to keep it going? dean said, $1 million, over the next two years. nixon said, suppose i can get the $1 million and you could find a way to deliver it to continue to keep the watergate issue quiet -- paying them hush money.

don't you think that makes sense? and dean, all of a sudden, nixon asks a rhetorical question -- don't you think you ought to get hunt paid the amount he is demanding, and get it done fast? and that was it. we looked at each other, and we said, nixon cannot survive this. he has in his own words, through his own mouth, irrefutably provided evidence that he has joined the conspiracy -- if he was not a member before, he sure as hel is now. -- sure as hell is now. hunt was paid, and off to the races. so we sent to leon --

we know you don't want to name nixon as defendant. we understand the constitutional process of impeachment. it is preferable. it is in the constitution. it is a remedy to remove a corrupt and criminal president. but on the other hand, we have evidence here -- it is right in front of us -- that richard nixon joined the conspiracy as a conspirator. we can't not use that evidence. and i know you don't want to get ahead of the curve and name nixon in the indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator. but how about if we put it before the grand jury to vote on who the unindicted co-conspirators are, and the

grand jury votes to authorize you, leon, to name nixon, at the appropriate time in the proceedings, as an unindicted co-conspirator. and he agreed. and in fact, it was at a very intense cocktail party at gerald's home, that we approached this question to leon, and leon agreed that it was the right thing to do. time passed, we kept it a secret. there were no leaks from our office and watergate. sorry, bob and coral. [laughter] the truth. [laughter] >> i didn't hear that. i'm probably glad i didn't hear that.

so, some six weeks later, james sinclair, the president's lawyer, is on a sunday morning tv show saying that our subpoena for 64 new tapes that included the so-called smoking gun tape should be denied, because all of this evidence was hearsay. it could it be admissible in trial. well, leon and i and rivera went over to the white house, we met with st. clair, and general haig, nixon's chief of staff in the map room, and we said, you know, you are not getting anywhere with this argument, though steps are coming into evidence -- those tapes are coming into evidence, because take a look at this. and we handed st. clair the transcript of the grand jury's vote to name richard nixon as an

unindicted conspirator. and that was the end of that argument. [applause] >> originally we were going to have liz here. she is running for office. she could it be with us. -- she could not be with us. i knew she would agree that the roadmap that we provided, that richard just mentioned, was very helpful in saving a lot of time for the judiciary committee, in terms of investigating what crimes might've been committed that were impeachable. she would also talk about the post-watergate legislation, as i mentioned, that really made a

difference. without thinking about how much money they were spending on it. whether it was a worthwhile camping expenditure. but what i want to talk about now mostly is, like -- like congresswoman ross stepped into quite a dramatic situation, she was any member of congress -- a new member of congress, and january 6 happened. she was one of the first people who propose impeachments, which liz also was brand-new and congress. had taken a seat on the committee, when she replaced congressman sellars. and was also involved in drafting impeachment. i want to have you talk a little bit about drafting the impeachment. and how you got into that.

and what you think. also addressed what legislation you think we need now based on the jan. 6 hearings and where we are. do we need to bring back some of the watergate legislation? it seems to me there's a lot of other things -- everything from the emoluments clause to the electoral college act. if you are worried about democracy, we need to take legislative action. i would like to have you come up. thank you. >> wlel, thank you -- >> well, thank you. it is a real honor to be here with you. and to just take a few minutes to tell you a little bit about what it was like to just be sworn into office.

we had not gotten to know each other or our colleagues very well. just to be very clear, because we are on the historical record, i did not draft the articles of impeachment. and to be clear, it was an article of impeachment. there was only one article. my colleagues did that. but the position that i was in was that i had surged in the state legislature and when the speaker asked me what committees i might be interested in serving on, i listed the rules committee. not knowing that once jan. 6 happens, the rules committee had to be quickly constituted. i was the only one who expressed interest. so the speaker's office called me and asked me if i would take that position.

i agreed. we had a zoom carcass. -- caucus -- caucus. was put into my position. they said welcome to the rules committee. you must be here tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. we are going to impeach the president. and so, my very first committee meeting and congress was to approve the articles of impeachment. my very first speech, on the house floor was to recommend impeachment. and to justify that by saying donald trump was unrepentant and he continues to be unrepentant for what he did go into your issue of shame. the biggest difference, as you have heard now, is, we do have a bipartisan committee, in that we have liz cheney and adam kinzinger doing the work.

i actually think that the hero -- and we all saw this today. was mike pence. mike pence saved our democracy. [applause] he risked his life to save our democracy. [applause] and he will go down in history as the most mitch mcconnell called us back into session to certify those electors and the speeches made on the senate floor by many republicans were some of the most profound speeches that i

have heard and gave me a lot of hope even though i had been locked in my office. i am, unfortunately, pessimistic about whether or not we will pass a raft of reform legislation like what came after watergate. we had not even been able to pass the john lewis voting rights act to correct what the supreme court has done to our voting rights, notwithstanding what president trump advocated for and so many of our legislators have done to diminish peoples voting rights. of course, we need to reform the electoral count act, the fact that we have to talk about the emoluments clause in the fact that a president would basically pimp out his office for his personal gain is a shame at a

tarnish on this country. i do want to say that, we are talking about watergate, but after bush versus gore, the country came together and passed the help america vote act and we did that under president george bush. so what we need, as rufus said, is a return to civility, a return to regular order, a return to comity. i am running again and i'm hoping to be here for a long time that we will learn the lessons from january 6 and people of goodwill across party lines will step up and do the right thing, and there are people of goodwill, they just need to speak out and get it done, as do the voters. [applause]

>> i don't want her to leave, she has one more good commentator and she takes a very difficult legal process and turns it into plain english. as does my friend deborah. you can see why we asked deborah to speak. this is one more brilliant individual who i have high hopes in her quest in the house still. i think this panel very much -- thank this panel very much and we are going to move on. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, i said in my opening remarks, i thought the most important part of the watergate hearings was the discovery of the taping system and i still believe that because others have had at a certain

point -- had nixon at a certain point been able to say in his own perverted way, i'm sorry, some of my people did bad things, i want to ask for forgiveness, the american people are forgiving and i agree he would have been president. he would have had some good remarks on his record, epa, which has been extra really helpful. we would probably be at war with china if not for him opening it up, he opened up dialogue with russia, but alas -- i tell young people coming in to see me, and i ran 11 times statewide, that the most important thing about public office and running for it is you must surround yourself with people who will not act stupidly. richard nixon had the most

stupid crowd around him that you could dream of. they could have won an award for it. jim, did you have -- some of the things, we never even mentioned they tried to do and why did that occur? that occurred because they had bundles of money that they needed to throw away at something. that goes back to my point. i want jean boyce, who was assistant counsel from north carolina, who by the way in a couple weeks on july 12 will be 90 years old. [applause] jean, i would like you to tell this wonderful gathering how in the world the tapes were discovered in that committee meeting. come up here, it is yours. [applause]

>> i am reminded first of all of monday morning when i came back to washington after discovering the tapes on friday, the day after my birthday on july 12. i'm a year older -- a decade older than rufus. but i will never forget walking up the hall monday morning after discovering the tapes on friday and reporting it to rufus and telling everybody to be quiet, don't reveal it, walking down the hall. a bunch of reporters came running down the hall, they said, what is going on? you know something, what is going on? i said, i told you good morning, i told you everything i know. they did not believe that.

but it went on. we were running late and i did not want to take up too much time, but i will do the best i can. all the things i would talk about take a long time because it is manly about circumstances but you know the one circumstance, one single circumstance, piece of duct tape . i'm sorry. second piece of duct tape. there wouldn't have been a break-in to start this whole thing if it had not been for the second piece of duct tape being put on the stairwell door. after taking off the first tape, seen someone put a second tape on. that is the circumstance that brought us all here. that is just one circumstance. i have gotten many more to tell but we don't have time. i'm always reminded being here,

after discovering on friday and reporting to rufus and everybody what had been going on and what the truth was and what we had discovered. i drove back every friday afternoon and came up every monday morning, i did not stay. i still have my diary of july 13, friday, and i wrote one thing on this diary, i still have a copy of it. it says, i'l be -- i'll be damned. i'm here now and my comment still is, i'll be damned. only because they had an address, no other reason. my friend who became a congressman said, i'm going to run for congress, i need a

campaign manager. he said, i want you to be my campaign manager. i said, what? i go to court before you all the time, i don't know anything about campaigns. he said, all i need is one thing , i need a campaign manager with the address because more voters in lake county than any of the other three. that one reason is why i gave in , became his campaign manager. i did not know anything about campaigns, i was a lawyer. came to washington. i went to cocktail parties because in january, there's not much else to do. guess who i kept running into other cocktail parties. a lawyer friend of mine, rufus, who said, i've got three attorneys on the watergate committee that none of them have been in court, none of them know about the investigation. please join us. we have so much going on. i came and joined you.

i don't think you are mad about that. that was the circumstance. life is so full of circumstances . there's a lot more i could say but we are running short of time. i'm going to quit. but i would not be here tonight with you had it not been one of those things. alexander butterfield ended up on my witness list. when i joined the committee, there were three lawyers who had not any investigative experience. rufus wanted me to fill in the fourth, to be number four attorney, in late january after they were really going. i gave in because it was so interesting and having a friend that asked me to do something, i cannot say no. i joined the committee. they changed the witness list. three lawyers meant 60 witnesses

on the list and that is published. when i came on number four lawyer, they moved the 60 witnesses and divided them up into 15 apiece. on my list, being added to the committee, being number four, come in they january, early february, who was on my witness list? alexander butterfield. that is the circumstance. that is an accident, was how that came about. i'm sorry. rufus said he got five minutes. a friend of mine wrote, rufus, you give gene more than five minutes. he gave me six minutes, i think. i have probably already taken up the time. >> tell them about what happened after -- what butterfield said after that. that is what people want to

know, what happened in that executive committee. you never put someone on the witness stand unless you know what they are going to say. no one appeared on the witness stand here [inaudible] tell them about what exactly happened in that committee room. >> the committee room, there's four of us, i was the chief counsel in there. i had my assistant counsel was a republican party minority counsel. i had an advance a gator -- an investigator and a young later -- a young lady who took notes. she made a mistake and misread the notes of that hearing, bless her heart. she'll be about them from memory -- she rewrote them from memory.

that is another circumstance. we went along. we had that energy, what happened -- i interviewed john dean and dean made a statement to me and i was over his apartment in alexandria, virginia and dean said, i did this, this. he said, i feel like i'm being recorded. that was just a comment. little things that stick to me. it felt like it. there must be something to that. i interviewed the aldermen over there and interviewed butterfield, reported to my minority counsel. i was a democrat majority counsel, but minority counsel, great guy, he died 20 years ago, bless his heart. i said, let's see if there is a

tape recording in the oval office. when his turn came, the investigator goes first -- i better not say what i'm going to say about him -- he went three hours and will be asked the right question. we got to don, don said, mr. butterfield, is anything about being a tape recording in the oval office? butterfield's comment, i was afraid you were going to ask this and i have been told that i have got to tell the truth. my memory is bad but those words stick with me. that is exactly what happened. he told the truth. not only was there a recording and the oval office, one of the executive building at another office and there was one at camp david in virginia where the president went on vacation. the thought occurred to me on july 13, 1973, oh my god, the oval office, that is one thing, executive office, that is another thing, but camp david?

six months ago, the premier of the soviet union stayed in camp david. when my turn came, i said, mr. butterfield, on this camp david thing, that bothers me because we have visitors there. he said, when the president is not in the room, the oval office, camp david, whatever, it is not record. it records automatically but only when the president is there. thank god, another world war was not going to come about. i hate to her yet but you have been here a long time. there's a lot more circumstances. i want you to think about your circumstances as well. your past life and circumstances that got you here today are really unique.

my general advice is be prepared for those circumstances, be careful how you handle them. they are coming and there are going to be good ones and bad ones and it is going to be your choice to proceed. if there are any questions, i'm not in a hurry, but he all have been here long. -- but you all have been here long. [applause] >> gene boyce does not need to be in a hurry. something else i must tell you about gene, he instituted along with the workers in the library of congress the first computerized workings of any committee on the congress, they worked out a witness system on computers and this man was responsible for it, right here. [applause]

>> [inaudible] >> steve has a question for you. speak up, stephen. >> [indiscernible] >> that is correct. don was great. the investigator goes first. he went three hours he did not ask the right question. when it got to the minority counsel, and i had prompted him on what i had learned from butterfield. i felt like i was being recorded. and butterfield, who do what was going on, he was there and don

asked him about it and don got credit for asking that question. i was involved, but don asked the question. >> [indiscernible] >> i suggested it, but he asked it on behalf of the united states of america. [applause] >> that is why gene boyce has lived to be 90 years old. [applause] >> did i grow up in raleigh? no, not yet.

>> ladies and gentlemen, we are moving along and we have had wonderful people tonight. mark is the richard easton chair on broadcast journalism at the university of maryland. there is marked. my friend larry meyer, former reporter and editor of the washington post who is here every day of the hearings. he said he has written a book and he has me in it as a character and will not tell me what it is. i see trouble looming. we also have a syndicated columnist. they are going to analyze the role in watergate of the journalism and the changing watchdog role and what is then and now. so i'm going to call right now, over here -- you come here and

take over. you will be better talking into this. >> mark, do you want to come up? thank you, i'm honored to be here. martin and lawrence both covered watergate at the time, including these urban hearings. i guess, marty, you had a brush with fame when you are booted off nixon's trip to china and the white house tape showed him making anti-semitic comments about you. we were going to have their assessment here, he agreed to appear and sadly, he passed away earlier this month. our condolences to the family, who i understand is here. larry, let me start with you. you worked with barry. could you tell ounce -- tell us

about him at his role in watergate? >> i do want to say a word about. -- about barry. barry was like the quarterback that every football team would like to have. he was calm, he was smart, he had great instincts, and he asked great questions. he did not give orders, he made suggestions. most of the time, had suggestions -- his suggestions were brilliant or at least very good. once in a while, like winston churchill, he had a bad idea. but when he had a bad idea, he was -- his ego did not get in the way and you could talk him out of it.

barry, unfortunately, until he died, did not get the full credit that he deserved for the role that he played. he really directed the post coverage in the early days and he may not get this in the movie , but there was a lot of resistance within the washington post and barry was there to make the case, argue for it, and present the evidence so that the story could move forward so that bob and carl and the rest of us could do our work. barry directed us. carl, jean, me in a lesser way. i don't know if the outcome would have been the same without him, but certainly he played an essential role.

he was my first editor, my best editor, and on top of all that, he was a first-rate human being. and i'm really sorry -- [applause] several times in the last couple of weeks since he died, there have been things that i have come up on and i have been dialing to -- i have been dying to call him but he is out of reach and i would give anything if you are standing here today instead of me. [applause] >> and barry was critical of the medium mythology that grew up around watergate. marty, can we talk about that a little bit? we sort of live in the shadow of

all the presidents men. and we have heard from bob and carl briefly. if they had not existed or if the media had been as deferential during watergate as it was in the 1950's, how would things have turned out? would it have been any different? >> things would have been different, but in the end, what happened would have happened anyway because someone somewhere would have stepped up to do what needed to be done. before i go into the rest of it, i want to say about the football analogy for barry, who was a friend of mine as well, barry was like having a quarterback who was also the coach and on the field. he was that good.

what i wanted to suggest to you was that, in the watergate era, there were a number of news organizations that were doing watergate reporting and doing some very good watergate reporting and bob and carl have always been the first to say so. but the one thing that was missing was, when newsday and the l.a. times and so many other organizations did some significant work, it was published but it was not published where washington was reading it and that was a significant fact that helped. it is ultimately the reason i eventually took ben bradlee's overture and left newsday and went to the washington post and became a colleague of bob and carl. that was one of the reasons why.

i would like to tell you about what it was like to be in the press corps in that era. i happened to experience firsthand some of the excesses of the nixon white house and it was written about in a number of books. this had nothing to do with watergate, it was before then. bob halderman was called into the oval office by richard nixon and it sent told him, newsday is doing an investigation on me on our finances. pb raposo was his best friend baker. halderman said, who is doing the investigation? nixon said, those jews. it is on the nixon tapes. halderman said, you mean marty schram? nixon said, yeah, he and some gay -- some guy named greenberg

or greenbaum or something like that. at that point -- the other fellow leading the investigation, in fact, and had assembled a team was bob greene , a 350 pound irishman who is now buried in the catholic church in long island. as far as nixon was concerned, if they are messy getting him and his finances, they are jews. that it's what he felt. eventually, the investigating would have been done, but what bob and carl did and the genius of what they did was to be ordinary, old-school reporters. that coupled with their own instincts really helped. they went and knocked on the doors and did not go through secretaries to try to set up interviews. they went to people's homes at night, which i always understood

was the only way you are going to get a lotta people to talk if they don't want to be seen talking during the daytime. that all made a big difference. bob and carl had a whole series of fun stories -- fine stories that other people had snippets of. i had some as well. but nothing compared to the best work they did, which was just shoe leather and the courage to keep at it when he refers turned down and turned it down again and this did not work out and that did not work out and they kept doing it. that was the strength. they would also be saying what larry said. there -- barry dealing with them and others, that made a huge difference. that was a great combination. the rest of us were pretty much

one or two low reporters doing work. bob and carl were the core of a team and that helped make their assignments clear. [applause] >> i want to reiterate or put it somewhat differently, something that richard said earlier. for all this -- i envision a three layered stool -- three-legged stool. there was the press, media. there was the judiciary, the legal process. and there was the legislature. and we all did our jobs and functioned as we should have. at one point, i was kind of

accosted by an fbi agent who was one of the investigators of watergate and he said, you know, we had all that. i said, yeah, but we did not have it and the public did not have it. you knew it, we got it out there. that, to the credit of bob and carl and barry, was that we did get it out there and we had two important readers at least. john, who was indignant during the trial, which i covered, and kept pestering the prosecution to get answers to who did this, why did they do it, where they paid, etc., and kept asking the same question. we have a reader on capitol hill, sam ervin, who was also

interested. it was that combination, any one of those legs failed, we wouldn't have had watergate. as other speakers have said before me, i am really fearful for what the future has. the media will still be there. the judiciary may still be there. i'm not so sure about the legislature. the culture of this country has changed and changed in ways that are not necessarily for the better. i think the public has become jaded or indifferent. and we can put it out there but if people don't respond and take action, then it is all for not. [applause] >> so if watergate happened in

today's media landscape, social media, mainstream media, fracture, all the rice, partisan, local newspapers dying , how would it be covered today? >> unfortunately, i think it would be covered two ways. first, there would be some journalists who learned from carl and bob and who went about doing the legwork that needed to be done. and if they got their story published in the los angeles times, the chicago tribune, or newsday, you would be able to see it and that is a huge difference that did not exist before because i felt like when we did our exclusive some --

exclusive, sometimes it was like doing a story in a bottle and tossing it into the sea. our readers, and there was a huge circulation, did see it, but others did not and sometimes they would get an associated press summary of what you wrote, which nobody likes that. we like to have our own words and our own insights, but mainly our own facts laid out for all to see. but the other way watergate would be covered if it happened today, unfortunately, is the way it happens on television, which is where shows are not based on reported stories that are carefully put together and assembled. on air correspondence working on a package so you can get it in a clear and logical way. that does not happen much anymore.

msnbc, fox especially. it happens that you bring someone on who investigated the matter and wrote about it and record a sentence or two and then you ask them questions about what they think about what they wrote and how they feel about what they think and so on and so forth. we are not going in a good way when it comes to that. it would be better if reporters did real reporting and the stories spoke for themselves, including television reporters who are excellent sometimes and great producers who can put together the package and you would understand it more clearly and you don't get people summing up how they feel about what they think. [applause] >> i think there is more consensus than about fact and truth, which you need as a

common currency to go from. >> [inaudible] and an understanding about what is truth. we cannot figure out what truth is. we have divided segments. let me add one more thing about that because it is also true that, now, if you ask a reporter to do something and they get it done, it is great, but when you have it in a media where it clicks on the internet or what its governing things, you sometimes lose the contacts that you need to pursue what needs to be pursued. >> thank you. i am going to wrap this up with one last question and then an observation. for there your marty -- four

larry or marty, how has watchdog journalism changed in the last 50 years? >> i think, as marty has indicated, one of the critical ways it has changed is that there are so many elements in the media now and, as i was thinking about this event and thinking about the changing role of the media, one of the most crucial things, and in washington you may not appreciate this, is the decline in death and a lot that -- is the decline in depth in a lot of local cases in newspapers.

the warrior for a paper used to say if there was not a fiber -- not a fire to cover, we would like one so we could fight about it. there was some truth to that. we were aggressive. my second job was with other we will times -- the louisville times. we were the afternoon paper. they did not take us seriously but we took ourselves seriously and we were aggressive and always looking for an opening where we could squeeze our way through and get something on the front page. though the we will times does not exist anymore -- the louisville times does not exist anywhere. i am not remembering the name of the paper or the congressman, button or 15 years ago, there was a local paper that didn't

expose of aggregate congressman -- did an expose of a crooked congressman. they are not there anymore. that is a real loss. we are going to pay for it literally as well as figuratively. >> will said. -- well said. larry took the place i was going to go to. but i will take it from a different perspective because i have a different sense of what will be covered and what want to be covered. what will be covered is the next watergate. what will be covered is the next series of trump scandals or whoever makes them and that sort of thing. what will not be covered unfortunately are those same

scandals, small, where everybody lives, city hall, the zoning board, etc. that is not going to be happening as much now. bob greene, who i mentioned, newsday's investigative reporter , did his best work for local investigations where the newspaper backed him up and if he was going to get in trouble and the people would come at you to try to make trouble for an investigative reporter and if they took you to court, you would have a team of lawyers standing up there for you, the newspaper paid for it and that is the way it went. i don't see that really happening in local coverage as much as before and we are all going to pay the price every time we go home to our homes on the cul-de-sacs or downtown or

rural areas or wherever, we are all going to feel that. [applause] >> to wrap up here, you all are heroes to me when i was a kid in high school watching the watergate hearings and impeachment hearings. you won. watergate has a happy ending. but nixon got a kind of revenge on also. fox news, that was nixon's idea. he wanted a conservative network where they could get their message out and it was his acolyte, roger ailes, who made it happen. nixon started this whole notion that the deep state, the cia was really behind watergate, the liberal media, this was a coup to oust him from power, and waterstone, who cut his teeth in the nixon -- roger stone, who

cut his teeth in the nixon campaign, would bring that to fruition today. there is a clear road from nixon to trump, from june 17 to january 6. thank you. [applause] >> we have had a fantastic education tonight from wonderful people and thank you all so much and thank you for the sponsors again and i hope that we will live to see another reunion of all of us here. let me tell you my biggest pooh-pooh and watergate. after the tapes were discovered, a senator met in his office with the committee and i was in there and they said, how are we going to get the tapes? somebody said, i don't know, i guess we will have to subpoena them. the congress had never subpoenaed a president before.

all of a sudden, the senator said to me, go get the president on the phone, like at a loaf of bread, like that. i dialed up the number that i knew and i said, this is the deputy chief counsel calling on behalf of senator irvin and he would like to speak to the president. you have to remember, nixon thought everybody was out to get him. so i'm waiting on the phone for rosemary what to respond and here comes this voice. hello, this is richard nixon. i was so taken aback i said, hold on, senator irvin wants to get you. [laughter] [applause] i never thought i would be told that.

so i have to confess my big booboo. but everything worked out and it is funny how each of the speakers told you that the three branches of government where like a team up beautiful horses working together. there were conflicts, of course there were, but it shows that when people decide to be civil to one another -- i was here 10 years before watergate occurred. people stayed in washington then. they went to parties together. they ate together. we had all sorts of things. now, what do they do? they come in on tuesday, they leave on thursday. what did they do when they are gone? they raise funds. it is never ending. it is all about the money chase. let's be aware of anybody that tells you that money does not corrupt politics.

thank you and good night, we love you all, see you again. [applause]

[indiscernible] chatter] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> former president trump spoke at the freedom gathering in tennessee. that one day after the january 6 committee held a hearing on his

effort to persuade former vice president pence do not certify the 2020 election results. watch tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or any online at c-span.org. >> the january 6 committee day four of public hearings as they continue disclosing evidence gathered in their investigation. watch the hearing tuesday at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3, c-span now, or anytime online at c-span.org. you can also visit our website, c-span.org/january6, to watch videos related to that day. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span's the weekly podcast brings you 40 years of audio recordings from our video library, comparing the events of

the past two today. on this episode, watergate and g gordon liddy. >> the break it happened 50 years ago. police arrested burglars in the democratic national committee headquarters at the watergate complex in washington, d.c. first, we remember g gordon liddy in this episode of c-span's the weekly. g gordon liddy helped plan the break in, went to jail, and served five years of a 20 year sentence, then reinvented himself as a radio talkshow host. he used his show to offer provocative history and memories of watergate. >> it occurred to me that they might have me assassinated and i did not want some amateur doing it with a shotgun on a sunday morning to the kitchen window, they would take out not only me but also a couple of the kids. so i said, if they wanted to go that route, i would stand on some remote street corner and get it done without harming the taxpayers.

the comment was, i don't think we have gotten to that point yet. >> you can find the weekly on c-span now or wherever you get your podcasts. >> there are a lot of places to get political. but only at c-span2 you got it straight from the source. -- c-span do you get it straight from the source. 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. >> president biden spoke briefly to reporters about his upcoming trip to saudi arabia, americans in ukraine, and gas prices.