i also turned down john ehrlichman who asked me to represent him. or represent a committee he was forming for something. i can't recall. but i didn't want anything to do with it. i did agree to represent ed morgan who was, you may recall, ultimately indicted for backdating nixon's deed, papers, for tax purposes. i cross-examined morgan for two days and i was absolutely convinced he was innocent. i largely had gotten him off and i went in to justice and i'll come back to why i went in to justice and i passed him to dick van dusan who was somebody he also trst usted. and after i was deputy attorney general, dick van dusan called me and said after the special prosecutor had determined not to proceed against morgan, he went in and confessed and turns out he was guilty, and i realized afterwards that i should never represent a friend in a situation like that because both van dusan and i were convinced he was absolutely innocent. in any event, so weimer had come after he a couple of types to come back in because during the watergate hearings all of my bat

. >> was it at this time that you had that meeting with john ehrlichman where he talked about colston? >> no, it was later that summer, later that -- i think it was june. i became increasingly concerned about colston's talk with local unions about cases that the labor department had. i was perfectly prepared to do all i could, and i did do a great deal, to gain building trades and other union support for nixon in '72. george meanie, for instance, was appalled at mcgovern. and so there was a richfield to reach for union support. but i would never under any circumstances touch political discussions with a law enforcement case. and the more colston would do that, the more concerned i got. so i went to ehrlichman, i think it was in june, to ask for his intervention in stopping colston from interviewing with law enforcement cases. and i remember his -- at this point i had not the slightest idea, i had never seen john ehrlichman do anything dishonest and had a high respect for him. of course, i knew nothing about watergate. and john in response to my concern said, you know, i have just had

dealing with cabinet officials, people like terry hopkins in the roosevelt administration, john ehrlichman the nixon administration, henry kissinger in the nixon administration roger porter in the george h. to the bush administration. but i also want to note that this discussion within the executive branch wasn't happening with it judicial backing. you look at the midwest or the case in 1915, curtiss wright, these cases almost household names for most of us are to reflect a judicial recognition of the special role of the executive in both domestic and international affairs. i will end by noting the passage of time matters and that to the extent of presidential powers change in nature, i would argue that it's partly something that is being driven by congress. and in part it's being driven by a competition among different congressional committees, to enlarge the jurisdiction of particular agencies and resulting in a executive branch that often involves agencies with overlapping jurisdictions. these overlapping jurisdictions often plays the president in a strange quasi-adjudicatory role where