of the vice president, ten days later, nixon, in fact, told attorney general elliot richardson that he should fire the watergate special counsel. richardson had promised in his confirmation hearings in the senate that he wouldn't do that without good cause and would protection from intervention like that from the white house or anybody else, so when nixon ordered richardson that he needed to fire the watergate prosecutor, elliot richardson knew he could not do that because he promised under oath that he would not do that. so elliot richardson resigned rather than break his word. in an immediate sense that elevated the deputy attorney general who it turns out had also made a very similar promise to the senate so he too resigned from office when nixon told him to fire the water gate special prosecutor. he resigned rather than break the word he had given to the senate under oath that that prosecutor would have independence and would be protected. nixon eventually did get the watergate special prosecutor fired. but boy did it cost him, right? it cost him an attorney general. it cost him

and elliot richardson had a remarkable tenure as attorney general. i did that podcast bagman about elian richardson's role in securing the resignation of nixon's vice president, spe spiro agonew, a total freaking crook, apart from watergate. nixon and his attorney general, they put together just an airtight slam dunk criminal case against agnew for bribery and extortion. elliot richardson took the lead, basically in the agnew case and used the threat of prosecution, he used the astonishing litany of evidence prosecutors had assembled against agnew to get him to resign. to get him out of the line of succession, and then ten days after that, ten days after richardson got agnew out of office, richardson's tenure as attorney general was over as well, although he at least got to leave with his head held high. after the previous bad endings of both of nixons first two attorneys general, elliot richardson had promised as part of his confirmation hearings that he would appoint an independent special prosecutor to oversee the watergate investigation, and he pr

senators asked elliot richardson what he would do if he disagreed with the special prosecutor. richardson testified to the committee the special prosecutor's judgment would prevail. does not we are saying? you have a difference of opinion with special counsel mueller, you won't necessarily back his decision but you might overrule it? >> under the regulations, there is a possibility of that. with this committee would not -- would be aware of it. a lot of water has gone under the dam since elliot richardson. a lot of different administrations on both parties have experimented with special counsel arrangements. existing rules, i think, reflects the experience of both republican and democratic in administrations and strike the right balance. they are put together in the clinton administration after ken starr's investigation. >> that's right. the current regulations on the books right now prevent the attorney general from firing without cost to special counsel. they require misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict. will you follow that standard? >> of course. >> what if

elliot richardson said yes, and he followed that commitment.exactly the sort of exchange i expect we'll be having tomorrow in the judiciary committee with william barr. >> by the way, in reference to that, nixon had the honor and respect for institutions to honor that deal. i'm not sure trump will. but let me ask you about this weekend's news. "the new york times" reported over the weekend that the fbi suspected that the president wasn't just covering up, he wasn't just obstructing justice to protect himself, but in furtherance of a soviet or a russian conspiracy. in other words, he was acting to protect them from exposure for what they did in the 2016 election. that's astounding. what do you make of that charge, that he was in fact an agent? >> well, chris, that's exactly why i think we need to have robert mueller's investigation proceed to its logical conclusion and then have those results shared with congress and the public. i don't know whether those allegations are well founded or whether they aren't. there certainly has been some troublin

>> you remember in the agnew/nixon era, elliot richardson was the grown up in the room who talked tohe young prosecutors and steered it through. who's the grown-up in the room now? rod rosenstein is departing, and by all accounts is a person devoted to justice. does he know something we don't about the state of this investigation right now? >> and jill, there's that quote that michael schmidt reported, right, about rod rosenstein, which was extremely controversial at the time. do you want me to wear a wire, basically, on the president? which in this context starts to make more sense. as a kind of remark of the absurd situation they then found themselves in. >> it definitely does. and i think to follow up a little bit on what lisa just said, in terms of elliot richardson, he was being confirmed by a democratic senate. and they were able to say you will not be confirmed unless you agree to allow this investigation to go forward and to have an independent special counsel. and the reason that he refused to fire archie on the request of the president on the night of what became the saturd

elliot richardson, got dressed god rest him so, that's all fin and wonderful. bill barr has to deal with toda and right now he's going to be the next attorney general. the people in the fbi and doj who conspired to deny donald trump his civil rights to run the election, during the transition, and after he became president, when they committed those crimes, they are shaking in their boots at the thought o bill barr being the next attorney general of the united states. >> laura: why is it so important now that barr assumed the position of attorney genera given a live learned back durin the campaign to the dossier, to the media leaks, what we learne today and what we learned last friday. why is he really an ingenious choice at this point in the history of the agency? >> well, because he is taking over a justice department that had a large number of departure and an fbi were at least ten people have been reassigned, retired, or pirates of the agency has lost its reputation and so has the department of justice. more importantly,or his task is reestablish the test of

i watched with a great deal of interest the elliot richardson hearings, nominated attorney general. he made several commitments to the committee including appointing a special prosecutor and promised to protect his independence. i thought how important it was to have the same independence. mr. richardson said it was necessary to create the maximum possibility to create public confidence in the integrity of the process. i have never forgotten that. i think the integrity of our institutions is just as much at risk today. president trump views the justice department as an extension of his political power. he is calling on it to target opponents. he ubseszs over the russia investigation. he attacks the special counsel almost daily. he fired both previous fbi director and attorney general for not handling the investigation as he pleased. that tells me the rule of law can no longer be taken for granted. so fif confirmed, the president will expect you to do his pitting. i can almost guarantee you, you will cross the line at some point. that is why the commitments you make here today, just

and elliot richardson, god rest his soul, that is all fine and wonderful, bill barr had to deal with today and right now. he's going to be the next attorney general and let me tell you, the people in the fbi and the doj who conspired to deny donald trump's civil rights, both during the election, durind after he became president, when they committed those crimes, they are shaking in their boots at the thought of bill barr being the next attorney general of the united states. >> laura: victor, why's it so important now that bill barr assume the position of attorney general, given that all that we have learned, back during the campaign, to the dossier, to the media leaks, what we learned today and what we learned last friday? why is barr kind of inane and choice at this point in the history of the agency? >> because he's taking over a justice department that has a large number of departures, and fbi were at least ten people have been reassigned, retired, or fired. the agency has lost his reputation and so has department of justice. more importantly, his task is to reestablish the concep

that's why the commitment you make here today just like those i watched elliot richardson make years ago matter greatly. so will you commit if confirmed to both seeking and following the advice of the ethics officials on whether you must recuse from the special counsel's investigation? >> i will seek the advice of the career ethics personnel, but under the regulations, i make the decision as the head of the agency as to my own recusal. so i certainly would consultant with them, and at the end of the day, i would make a decision in good faith based on the laws and the facts that are evident at that time. >> same thing if you're talking about a conflict of interest? >> well, no. come conflicts, as you know, are mandatory. >> i'm thinking of what attorney general sessions and when asked a similar question he said he'll seek and follow the advice. seek and follow the advice of the department of justice of designated ethics officials. let me ask you in a different way. i know your problmise to not interfere with the special counsel. are there any circumstances that would cause you to term

commitment to do that the second thing is he should have made basically the same commitment that elliot richardson made which is that. he would basically resign if there was any effort to try to limit not just stop the investigation but to limit the investigation of mohler and the third thing is i wrote an op ed piece that appeared in the washington post earlier this week saying that he's tried to revise history to suggest that president trump can't be prosecuted for obstruction of justice and particularly he misstated the facts about the nixon impeachment that's totally unnecessary and the fact is how much room historical revisionism are we going to go through for the republicans to make their point to try to put the president above the law what that worries me very much what would be the reason for not making the mobile report public. well that's the only reason not to make it public well there could be a few legitimate reasons for example it could be grand jury material and there so you'd have to read back that there could be some classified materials there you have to redact that but other tha

if you watched all my questioning, i went back to 1973 when elliot richardson was questioned and he was asked very similar questions and he gave concise, unequivocal answers. i'm looking for the same precise answers. >> martha: chuck schumer said the democrats will oppose him, but i haven't done it count. are you under any pressure to not vote for bill barr given what you've said here tonight? >> no, i've had both pro and cons. it is my job as a senator to weigh all that and put into for my constituents. having a live hearing is to gauge someone's trustworthiness in their intentions in person. frankly that is why we had a very long hearing yesterday at a long string today. i think in the end i'm going to weigh all that input and reach a conclusion. i'm going to be sitting with my counsel tomorrow and going over the questions that i'll be sending to mr. bill barr. >> martha: thank you. good to see you tonight. isis kills four americans in the white house and the vice president are holding firm on getting out of syria. >> the caliphate has crumbled and isis has been defeated. ♪ oh no, no,

. >> let's go back to elliot richardson. he promised to the judicialry committee that archibald cox would have free independence. turned out he didn't and that was a political firestorm for the white house. so i think they have learned again from history. he will let hip finish his investigation but then what? what will he do with the record? we don't know. that's up to him. let me quickly say, in fairness to the president, the president has a right through his counsel to have his counsel see the record report, to determine if they're going to assert privilege. we don't know what will happen with the report despite transparency, disclosure. we don't know. it's up to mr. barr. >> neil: so once we have a report out, a lot of american taxpayers will say we footed more than $25 million for this so far. we have a right to know what is in it. is there any possibility from any of the comments you heard from mr. barr today that would indicate he might hold a great deal back? >> i think he could hold it back on a legitimate basis. an

guarantee it except his own integrity, but i think that part did shine through and just as with elliot richardson, i think he was persuasive in making it seem like if he makes a promise, he's not going to break it. on the other hand, he wouldn't make a promise to surrender his a.g. powers. that was also a common theme. >> something i heard you say over and o'ver and over again today, he's asking us to trust him. >> exactly right. he came in here and put his reputation on the line. the fact he's been attorney general before, the fact he's very well respected, the rule of law and someone who respects the department's independence and its traditions. the last same, the last democratic questioner in the last round, kamala harris, illustrated this really well. on the question of whether he would recuse himself, there's really to reason for democrats to trust him because he wrote this memo and it wasn't -- he tried to describe this as a usual thing for past attorneys general to do. it's not usual. i remember when it first came out, i asked my former boss and a bunch of senior official if they recalled

president nixon appointed former pentagon chief elliot richardson to be his attorney general in 1973.ng to james doyle, an insider who worked on the watergate prosecutor's staff, nixon cast richardson as a symbol of integrity to save the administration in a time of crisis. richardson was nominated to run the doj at a crucial time for watergate. the question was whether the doj would really be allowed to probe into that white house. now, today barr's nomination comes at a crucial time for the russia probe. the question is whether the doj will really allow mueller to follow the facts he finds. now, back in '73, the senate didn't simply vet richardson, it used those hearings as a high-stakes opportunity to extract a binding arrangement under oath to protect the special prosecutor's watergate probe. demanding that the watergate prosecutor would get final authority, which richardson initially objected to. saying he needed the ultimate responsibility for matters in the doj. the senate stopped him right then and said they wouldn't even hold a hearing until he committed to more independence.

i watched with great interest at the elliot richardson hearings.had been nominated to be attorney general in the mid of watergate. he made several commitments to the committee, including appointing a special prosecutor. he promised to protect his independence. as one who had total independence as elected prosecutor in vermont, i thought how important it was to have that same independence at the national level. mr. richardson said it was necessary to create the maximum possible degree of public confidence in the integrity of the process. i have never forgotten that. i think the integrity of our institutions is just as much at risk today. president trump has been declaring views of the justice department to the extent of his political power. he has called on it to target his opponents. he obsesses over the russian investigations which looms over his presidency and may define it. he attacks the special counsel almost daily. he fired the previous fbi and attorney general for not handling the investigation as he pleased. that tells me the rule of law ca

reading the transcript of the confirmation hearing for attorney general during watergate of elliot richardsonssion that richardson had with the committee was to the confirmation proceeding that's going to happen tomorrow. i would just say a few things that he said. one, it's famous he said he would only dismiss the special prosecutor for extraordinary t second guessing the judgments of the special prosecutor to not review of "vice" was one of the funniest we've ever read. that is next. i hear it in the background and she's watching too, saying [indistinct conversation] [friend] i've never seen that before. ♪ ♪ i have... ♪ from capital one.nd i switched to the spark cash card i have... i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. what's in your wallet? touch shows how we really feel. but does psoriasis ever get in the way? embrace the chance of 100% clear skin with taltz, the first and only treatment of its kind offering people with moderate to severe psoriasis a chance at 100% clear ski