helen: that was during the nixon administration, and president nixon was for it. it and i cannot tell you who else supported it, but we passed it, as i recall. didn't we? matt: it passed in the house and it went to the states. kathleen: but not enough states ratified it. helen: and the states didn't do it, yes. but we did do it, we passed it. what a bunch of bums. matt: where do you want to go to? kathleen: what were your feelings about the importance of women in leadership? when you are in congress, lynn martin on the republican side was one of the leaders. how important do you think that was? helen: i was very glad to see lynn there. again, it opened the door for other women, and i think that was important. she did a great job in her position, and she helped other women. kathleen: did you have any leadership aspirations? helen: no, i did not. kathleen: why is that? helen: too much work. i had enough work. kathleen: [laughter] matt: did you serve as a mentor to many women during your career, any of the younger members? helen: let me say this. no, not members here

chairwoman of the federal maritime commission, which made her the highest-ranking woman in the nixon administration. she also discusses her run for congress. much of her career is focused on before she won her election to the house. congresswoman died in august 2016, months after this was recorded.

friday including remarks from john dean who was the white house counsel during watergate in the nixon administration they adjourned early. according to the senate rules, after chuck schumer for the full senate to be able to stay in session when the committee hearing is underway. a reminder, if you missed any of the coverage, we are replaying each session of the >> well we wait for the hearing to resume we will show you testimony from earlier today with senator grassley and senator feinstein questioning brett kavanaughmest. >> following up on the wise words of senator sass yesterday on separation of powers your record includes more than 10000 pages of judicial writing over a dozen years. we have 440,000 pages o

talk about it, it seems to us, when we interviewed john dean, famous whistle-blower of the nixon administration, and we said what happened when president nixon started to get more paranoid, and he said they would deploy lie detector tests in the state department and the white house and where ever he could. and then in the afternoon within this was senator paul's suggestion. >> i think if you have a current claernts in the white house,. >> immediately after that he is saying old time rock and roll. >> i thought the best line yesterday was from senator bob corker, who is retiring, he said maybe the easier thing to do would be to find the people that disagree with the analysis. i think that david raised a very -- all of you have raised, a very legitimate question about whether to run a column that grants anonymity to the writer. because we're very careble about whether or not we will grant anonymity. that is a tough decision that we had to go make. i think we would all feel better if whoever was involved would step out and put their name to it. i think it would be more powerful. this thing that go

all of this by the law and order administration of richard nixon.d crimes. john arlicman, john dean and 16 others went to jail. >> you know, to this day i'm not quite sure when i entered the conspiracy to obstruct justice. that's one of it things i'm actually trying to figure out, when did i cross the line? when did i enter that illegal conspiracy? no question i went across it. >> there was a real major break down in personal integrity as well as organizational integrity on the part of us that were given those assignments. >> not quite sure where i'm going to be for the next few months, but i'm going to miss you all. >> also requires you to ask the ethical questions. is this right? is it respectful? is it responsible, is it fair? we didn't ask any of those questions. and we should have started with is it legal. we were so caught up in trying to serve the president's needs or desires that we did not ask those questions. >> i, gerald r. ford, do grant a full pre and absolute pardon to richard nixon for all offenses against the united states. >> presid

it drove the nixon administration almost insane. the same thing happened to reagan. the same thing happened to clinton. the obama administration very much cracked down and actually prosecuted people around this kind of thing. you can waste a lot of effort, the reality is we have an open political culture. the flip side is whenever administration wants to leak good economic numbers so the country can discuss it. the reality is it never works to try to stop the leaks. >> and you can be more critical of leaks when you do it on european union yourself. the president also this morning is taking to twitter and blasting the woodward book once again which comes out on tuesday, woodward will start a series of interviews on monday, i think you can sense the president's concern over this. let me read you what he wrote. i don't talk the way i am quoted. if i did, i would never have been elected president. well, you know what? we all heard days before the election, remember this? >>. >> when you're a star they let you do it, you can do anything. grab them by the [ bleep ]. you can

said obama was the most aggressive against reporters, len saying he was the worst since the nixon administration because he tried to use a physical apparatus of the federal government to go after journalists. we haven't seen president trump do that yet. >> no, we haven't. and that's the beauty of a president trump is he tells you exactly what he thinks and how he feels. he doesn't go behind the scenes and work with agencies to try to do things, not just against journalists. we're talking about the american people. the obama administration abused the power to the point of using agencies like the atf, the doj and irs and even osha in some case to go after christian groups, conservatives and journalists. elizabeth: democrat senator elizabeth warren saying it's time to invoke the 25th amendment and remo president ret trump from office, citing warnings from a trump senior official who evidently wrote that anonymous "the new york times" op-ed. here's mike buc huckabee. she's saying that idea is quote ridiculous. watch. >> how does elizabeth warren ever teach law at harvard which f she is this off of t

presidency of the united states to opera >> we have had cases in history, at the end of the nixon administration, when secretary of defense schlesinger issued an order that any nucmalear c from the president should be cleared thraw him first, i have also heard white house chiefs of staff lking abo slow-walking decisions they fement were wrong-- they felt were wrong or have been quick leigh, tooma quickl and hoping to give the president a chance to rethink it. e-- what is th difference between those things and what is going on now? >> well look, in a normal white house, there are always going to have to be, you know, thoseon kinds of relaips between the president, chief of staff and others within the administration. but normally this is worked out wiin the white house. through a process of policy making, of discussions, of being le to convey your views to the president. and being able to determine ultimately what the president is going to decide. because in the end, this has to be about the president of the united states making the decision on but in the past there has always been this tension in

you mentioned the nixon administration, but there's been abuse before. >> sure, goes way back. >> and there were some questions about presidents since president nixon. let's just leave that. but where is congress? where is congress's voice? and sadly, a lot of people conclude that it's more about getting re-elected than it is about being a check to things that -- you know, we can argue pro and con, but a check to things that some people feel very strongly are abusive. >> i agree. that's very appropriate way to put the focus on the founding fathers and what they intended with the congress, for sure. >> yeah, i mean, i think most of us have seen hamilton which is one of the great -- >> i love it. fabulous. >> and a lot of these issues in a brilliant musical score come up then. so this isn't all new. but let me mention one other thing because everybody wonders how this administration happened. did it fall out of the sky? well, i don't think it fell out of the sky. i think both parties ignored a lot of the anxiety in the middle of the country having to do with the total transformation of

you'd have to go back to the nixon administration to find anything close to what is happening today. back with us is someone very much in the middle of this -- understatement -- nixon white house lawyer and cnn contributor john dean. john, thanks for being with us. >> thank you. >> what does it take to be a whistle-blower? to an extent that is what you were and to an extent that is what this is. >> well, i tried within the white house to get them to end the coverup that was consuming the president and i not only got through the president to try to persuade him but his most senior aides, john erlichman, bob haldeman, and i wasn't selling it. when they started plotting to make me the scapegoat of the coverup and john mitchell the former attorney general the scapegoat for the break in i said that plan isn't going to work so i had my secretary put out a brief message but with identification, that let them know i wasn't going to go quietly and i wanted to understand. i thought we should go to the grand jury and admit the mistakes we'd made and the president might survive if we did that. >

>> yes, the nixon administration, but no other administration in the past. and i can guarantee you from my work with the times, i think it's virtually certain that whoever the person is who came to them, the times didn't seek out this piece, the person came to them, had to be a member of the cabinet or in the top inner circle of the white house. i just don't think "the new york times" would print something from somebody who's in a secondary agency far removed from the action. and the conversation itself has -- it seemed very centralized and people who actually work in the white house, it could be one of the intelligence agencies. it sounds like it could be national security why you but i can guarantee you it comes from someone with a lot of authority. the times would have had a conversation with that person to check out everything and to try to talk -- understand the larger scope and they published this because they understood it would be a bombshell because they're deeply concerned about what is going on. and i think that's the larger question here. we now

that was a feeling for many journalists during the nixon administration. nixon attacked the press. all of this is fairly well-known. had a contentious relationship with the press. i want to add a little to that, it is important not to get drawn into the caricature of nick's and. -- nixon. nixon was hardly the first president to go hard on the press. .ranklin roosevelt was stolen it at a reporter who oppose foreign policy during the war two, that roosevelt awarded him an iron cross, a metal you give to nazi soldiers. a of the journalists had that same reaction they were appalled. nixon was not the first to go after the press. was struck listening to nixon's tapes, how varied his approach to the press was. he bullied journalists, he attacked them, he railed against the press in late-night bull sessions in the oval office. he also flatter journalists. he courted them. he curried favor. his press strategy was far from one-dimensional. his administration also helped advance the most successful calendar to the object to the ideal that had been so powerful. conservative criticism of liber

taken down protections that were even part of the nixon administration. they are trying to undermine our leadership in california for protecting the california that even president reagan supported. so it is, they are going to an extreme place calling it deregulation. it is acting on behalf of their donors at the expect of our children and their future. so i don't see, their tax bill is not picking up. if it were a big political issue, they would stop doing their ads about me, and do it about their tax bills. now it is not working for them because people see it is not working. in terms of jobs and the low unemployment rates, people don't want to be told all of the indicators are great therefore your life must be great. people need bigger paychecks and bigger purchasing power. and they are not getting it from that bill. when you talk about the economy, you have to talk about many more people participating in the prosperity of our country. and crucial issues to people's own financial security is the health issue. it is the health issue and finance issue. and

is this the same "washington post" that decried the release of information during the nixon administration. lou: thank you for staying through the commercial break. that's it for us. andrew mccarthy and chris farrell among our guests tomorrow. thank you. good night from new york. see you

playing a role i believe in this administration similar to the way melvin laird played in the nixon administration. he is slow walking things, he is calming down the national security state because the president cannot be relied onto make smart national security or defense decisions. so one of the big windows woodward appear tuesday have opened in this case is the window to the dod, especially to mattis. >> and tillerson, and the assistant to the president, keep going through the list. >> let's talk more because, max, i want to bring you in. this is what chief of staff john kelly said, again according to the book, he's an idiot. he's gone off the rails. we're in crazy town. i don't even know why any of us are here. this is the worst job that i had. and kelly released a statement the idea i called the president an idiot is not true. it's another pathetic attempt to smear people close to the president trump and distract from the administration's many successes. >> maybe he called him a moron like rex tillerson. clearly when you get into a battle of credibility between bob woodward and this white hou

within the white house with this, but, you know, this really reminds me of back during the nixon administrationyou wouldn't want to use that phrase. but, in fact, it's very much like that. and we waited decades to find out who deep throat was, and then it was somebody that almost nobody had ever heard of. >> david, we were talking about the reaction earlier. you have people thinking it might be john huntsman, the u.s. ambassador to russia. you had his spokesman out with a statement saying it's not ambassador huntsman. come to find when you're serving as the u.s. envoy in moscow, you're an easy target on all sides. never send an anonymous op-ed. how much credence to-do you givo these denials? >> my overwhelming thought is what a waste of time. all of you people have important jobs. do your job. trying to think what would have happened in the obama administration, first of all, we wouldn't have had an op-ed saying the president is unhinged and not that bright. but even if we had, the president and the message we would have gotten is we have important work to do. and i know this is kind of funny,

and that is of deep concern for me given the history of not only the nixon administration, but what were seeing now that's in plain sight before us in his conduct and in all the reporting, bob woodward's book and the anonymous op-ed. although i wish that had not been anonymous, it is confirming that everything we've seen since the day of his inauguration. all of your reporting has shown that. >> jill winebanks, michael, thank you for your perspectives. joining me, republican ohio governor john kasich. joining us from new york where he is on official government business today. governor, thanks. i know you've been listening. we wanted to talk to you about what really seems to be a crisis moment. an historic moment with the president of the united states under siege, under criticism, internally and externally. republican leaders on the hill not taking stands and a supreme court confirmation at stake. an historic one. your views right now? >> well, listen, i haven't -- i've been busy. i haven't been following this -- the hearings. what i heard, the discussion, between senator durbin and ka

you mentioned the nixon administration that there's been abuse before. and there were some questions about president since president nixon. viciously about. where is congress? where is congress' voice? sadly a lot of people concluded more about getting it then it is about doing things we can argue pro and con, but a check to think some people feel very strongly. >> i agree. that is a very appropriate way to put focus on the founding fathers and what they intended that the congress for sure. >> i think most of us has seen hamilton, which is one of the great -- >> i love it. fabulous. >> a lot of these issues in a brilliant musical score, then. everybody wonders how this administration have been in fall out of the sky. i don't think it fell out of the sky. i think both parties ignored a lot of the anxiety in the middle of the country having to do with the total transformation of work in the global economy. that includes the democratic party. most are many people didn't speak to the problems in the issues and didn't come up with good ideas. the people there

. >> of course you remember the nixon administration, and we know that there were discussions particularly in the final days about limiting his ability to launch a nuclear strike, based on your reading of the book and a relationship through the years, do you consider that ridiculous? >> i've known bob for a lot of years, he's a reliable reporter, well sourced. and if he says there was discussion, you better believe he's got it on some form of hard copy of digital recording or something that he has it nailed. opmarosa said they had code language, tfa represented the 25th amendment. and she had e-mails in which that was discussed. >> cnn had a poll out today including a drop on the president's approval rating. a majority of americans, 58% say the op ed writer should identify him or herself, only 30% say no, and it -- 36% say it was appropriate. 55 inappropriate for an administration official to work against trump's agenda. on this issue, at least. is the president more intune with americans? >> i think what you're seeing is how extraordinary that op ed was. this doesn't happen a lot about so

as we know in 1974, senior officials in the nixon administration and the campaign were on trial for crimes related to watergate. with so many former white house and justice department officials implicated in crimes, then president nixon felt threatened by the investigation. so special prosecutor archibald cox issued a subpoena for the tapes, reasonably believing that they contained evidence of criminal activity, the president acted. instead of supplying with the subpoena for tapes, president nixon had the special prosecutor fired. he fought the subpoena for the tapes all the way to the supreme court. i want to focus on the question of the president's action in firing the special prosecutor because that's what i think is a key issue here. judge, when president nixon fired special prosecutor cox, did he violate the law or the constitution? [protesters in the background]. >> i know the regulation in place for leon jaworski after the firing. i'm not recalling the specifics of the cox regulation in place at the time. >> i'll tell you there were for cause restrictions in place at the time. given

promise from president nixon that if he did this, run for senate, and it did not work out, the nixon administration would take care of him. george bush went to richard nixon and said, i think i would like to be treasury secretary. to which nixon replied, you are not qualified. nixon actually says something worse about him to one of his aides. he said the treasury secretary has to be president. a funny statement now. they found a different position, which was to be at the united nations, at which point it was pointed out that george w. bush had zero diplomatic experience. bush very wisely turned that into a virtue. he explained to the staff under nixon knowsince he did not anything, he would do exactly what henry kissinger said. that is exactly what henry kissinger want to hear. then: 1973, he began as chair of the republican national committee. there for 21 months. why? dr. engel: because the president asked. and if the u.n. experience was his happiest time of life where he discovered something that enthralled him, the time of the rnc was the worst time politically and his life. he did it because p

friday including remarks from john dean who was the white house counsel during watergate in the nixon administration. they adjourned early. according to the senate rules, after chuck schumer for the full senate to be able to stay in session when the committee hearing is underway. a reminder, if you missed any of the coverage, we are replaying each session of the hearing and primetime on c-span . we want to show you some testimony from earlier today. >> following up on the wise words of the senator yesterday on separation of powers, your record before the senate occludes -- includes more than thousands of pages of writing server the dozen years. we have over 440,000 pages of emails and other records from your legal service. you have written extensively on the issue of the separation of power among the three branches and a key component of the separation of powers is if the independent judiciary. obviously everybody learns in eighth grade civics about judges interpreting law. did you sure he must continue to be the least political and least dangerous ranch. the judges sole job is to find and apply the

congress has had a big voice in restraining executive abuse over centuries picky mention the nixon administration but there's been abuse before. there were some questions about presidents since president nixon. let's just leave that. but where is congress? where is congress his voice? and found a lot of people conclude that it's more about getting reelected and it is about being a check to things that we can argue pro and con put a check with things some people think very strong our abuses. >> guest: i agree. that's very appropriate way to put the focus on the founding fathers and what the intended with the congress, for sure. >> host: most of us have seen hambleton which is one of the great -- >> guest: i love it. sizes. >> host: a lot of these issues in a brilliant musical score, thin. this is an all new. let me mention one of the thing because everybody wonders how this administration happened. data fall out of the sky? i don't think it fell out of the sky. i think both parties ignored a lot of anxiety in the middle of the country having do with the total transformation of work and the global

. >> would you have said that in the nixon administration, there was a nervous breakdown in the executive branch? or does this -- i mean, obviously, it's apples and oranges, but is this worse than what you saw inside the white house then? >> well, it depends -- knicnixos a criminal. my colleague, carl bernstein, always says this and he's exactly right. it's the criminality. in the case of trump, we don't know. the mueller investigation is not over. and so we're going to have to wait on that. >> is there true allegiance to the president, among the people in the white house? >> well, it depends. you can't put everyone together. what i do is cite specific examples. and i think there are kind of three pockets here of people taking actions like gary cohn, the chief economic adviser, swiping, stealing something from the resolute desk in the oval office -- >> what he said he was doing for the good of the country. >> yeah, not just for the good, but to save the country, to protect the country, because if that had been signed, you begin the unraveling of our relationship with south korea. not just

that's what the nixon administration vote in their effort to block the pentagon papers and they got smackedtime by the supreme court. dissent, including and especially leaks, is domestic safety valve and at least one member of the administration is on record defending the free press. that would be mike pence. a media shield law as a member of congress in 2007 to protect journalists from revealing their sources. back then pence said, quote, it is imperative we preserve the transparency of the american government and the only way you can do that is by preserving a free and independent press. journalism's best ally in the fight to protect anonymous sources. but where you stand is often a matter of where you sit. just yesterday pence called the anonymous op-ed an assault on democracy. and that's your reality check. >> very interesting historical context for us, john. thank you so much. >>> all right. set your calendars. there's just 57 days until voters head to the polls for mid term elections. one key senate race is going from leaning republican to now a toss-up. democrat phil rettison is gain

is this the same "washington post" that decried the release of information during the nixon administrationnk you for staying through the commercial break. that's it for us. andrew mccarthy and chris farrell among our guests tomorrow. thank you. good night from new york. see you the conversation with the inmate. he said, they're laughing at us chs z. charles: thank you both. lou: good evening. republicans are demanding answers from deposit any attorney general rod rosenstein about reports he discussed taping the president in the white house and whether he was working with top doj and fbi officials in an effort to remove mr. trump from office. >> i think rod rosenstein needs to be in the witness chair this week in the house judiciary committee, he needs to go under hoat and explaioath and explaine circumstances. lou: mark meadows has been leading the charge on capitol hill trying to force rosenstein to testify or face articles of

david gergen who served numerous presidents dating back to the nixon administration and our chief analyst, gloria borger. david gergen, i'm not sure where to begin on this. what stands out to you? >> i think we ought to talk about the credibility issue. we go way back and it's true on a number of his books there have been questions and people refuted and said i never said that and so forth, but the look at the series of books, he has enormous credibility coming out of these. every book he has written to the best of my recollection has been proven in his essence. there were details he may have gotten wrong or mistold to him. his credibility is extremely high stretching back to watergate. far be it from an operative, asked bill clinton what he thought. i think i can hear carl laughing. he went after clinton and exploded about the stuff in there. a lot of people thought in his book about george w was sympathetic. i think the whole thing is we should not be questioning his credibility. we should be questioning what's in the book. what's in the book is a portrait of a guy who once again in a s

is this the same "washington post" that decried the release of information during the nixon administrationthank you for staying through the commercial break. that's it for us. andrew mccarthy and chris farrell among our guests tomorrow. thank you. good night from new york. see you tomorrow. kennedy: it comes amid word judge brett kavanaugh's first accuser may no longer wants to testify and there will and committee vote friday morning. kavanaugh and dr. christine ford are due to speak to the senate judiciary committee thursday, but not together. her attorney said they do not like several of the republican conditions but the clock is ticking. there is a new accuser every day.

do not consider that hyperbolic the analogy between the saturday night massacre during the nixon administration some hypothetical firing of rosenstein by trump is not that much of a stretch. the analogy -- although it's the case the president has the ability to fire rosenstein without cause, if the reason was to obstruct the ongoing investigation, or to protect himself or someone close to him from having it, it would also, without too much of a stretch, be considered grounds for impeachment. recall that during both the nixon impeachment controversy and the clinton impeachment controversy the main ground for impeachment that was being discussed was obstruction of justice. >> steven, thank you for joining us by phone today and giving us some of that perspective, a lot of what ifs given all of the conflicting reports. a story we will be covering throughout the day the dow is currently down about 165 points we have so much more on this it's a very busy morning here on "squawk alley. ♪ ♪ our new, hot, fresh breakfast will get you the readiest. (buzzer sound) holiday inn express. be the readiest. i'm

bernstein and woodward fame, david gergen who has served numerous presidents dating back to the nixon administration, and our chief political analyst gloria borger. david gergen, i'm not even sure where to begin on this. what stands out the you? >> first of all, i think we ought to talk about the credibility issue. i've known and worked with bob woodru woodrow for 40 years. you look at the series of books, he has enormous credibility coming out of this series of books. every single book he has written to the best of my recollection has been proven in its essence. yes, there were some details he may have gotten wrong or something may have been mistold to him, but his credibility is extremely high, stretching all the way back to watergate. and far being from a democratic operative, just ask bill clinton what he thought about his book about the clinton administration. you know, i think i can hear carl laughing. he went after -- clinton just exploded about a lot of the stuff that was in there. a lot of people thought that his book about george w. was very favorable, very sympathetic. so i think this who

was deep throat, the source of the extraordinary reporting on the watergate scandal in the nixon administration. mark felt finally publically admitted he was deep throat because nothing is distrusted in washington more than the denial washington reporters actually invented a description for the kind of denial that they must transcribe and report in their newspapers, but they do not believe. they call it the nondenial denial. now that term could only be invented in a town where denials mean absolutely nothing. think of all of the washington players who had repeatedly denied that they were planning to run for president while they were planning to run for president. and there is a constant stream of policy denials that everyone quickly forgets, like democrats denying they were going to drop the public option from the affordable care act right up until the day before they dropped the option from the affordable care act or the endless recurring denials from republicans that tax cut wills increase the deficit and then tax cuts always increase the deficit and the denials are forgotten. what do we do w

. >>> the explosive eruptions in this book "fear" draw parallel comparisons to the nixon administration back in the day. that book was published years after president nixon's resignation. but this morning woodward told the "today" show that there is one particular issue that separates trump's presidency from all the others. >> you covered, i think, what, eight or nine presidents. were you shocked by what you uncovered in this book? >> well, i've never seen an instance when the president is so detached from the reality of what's going on. >> detached from reality of what's going on. with me now is presidential historian jon meacham, msnbc contributor and author of "the battle for america." i think you're the only person in america that i can find who thinks our democracy is in better shape than it was two or three weeks ago. why would you possibly think so? >> because knowledge is power. information is actionable. we know more today than we did three weeks ago about the nature of the trump white house. it's not surprising, honestly, to a lot of, i'll say, us who are not exactly knocked o

in the nixon administration, that might have taken place on a saturday, but over the course of months a president removing people overseeing an investigation that he, one, is a party to, but two, strongly disapproves of. >> you know, jim, you're exactly right. this would be a momentous move in this investigation. certainly everything changes now, because this could likely become part of the investigation. if in fact what rod rosenstein, people close to him, and people at the department of justice have said, that the idea that he wanted to wire tap someone to record the president or record the president in some secret way was just a joke, if in fact that does come out to be the case and the president is just using this as an excuse to finally fire him, to finally remove him from this investigation, because we know, as you said, that the president has attacked rod rosenstein in tweets, privately has attacked rod rosenstein, and perhaps has been looking for this excuse to finally take some kind of action in this investigation against someone who is investigating his actions, the russians

we all know the history of the nixon administration. even during the worst of the watergate times, nothing even comparable to this. this is totally uncharted territory for us. and as a people, as a society, we better muster all of the unity we can because we're going to need it. >> not even so much about insanity. i think that's probably the extreme end of it, but just someone who poses a threat to our democracy, the person who's sitting in the big chair. >> well, and respect for law. let's go down the list. but, you know, i agree with you that, frankly, i've known donald trump for a very long time, sometime in the late 1970s. you can say he was an extreme narcissist but pretty smart in a crafty kind of foxy way. since he's become president, the question, it's deepened over the last few days with everything we've seen, the woodward book, the "times" op-ped piece, whether his deep extreme narcissism has devolved into a megalomania and if that's the case, then we better really -- >> you think that's even a question? i mean -- >> i do thin

woodward has reputation he has built up to my doing books on administrations all the way back to nixon's administrationwatergate story. there's general consensus in washington that is a goodidea consensus in washington that is a good idea to talk to bob woodward. you'd much rather be a source for one of his books than a target because you know that your enemies and your associates are talking to him and his computer side of the story out. i think those tapes the washington post released, i think i was a useful way of rebutting this attack that and started taking place against the book. it also reflection, the book says there is chaos in the white house and donald trump is confused why his staff members have not brought this to his attention before. kellyanne conway, one of his season —— senior advisers, barely not telling him. he does the sources on deep background heat records all the conversations and he and his books describes the events taking place mostly in the people's own words, the way he constructs them together using his source is. nonetheless, anthony, we've known for some time that things

. >> you cut your journal cystic investigative teeth, obviously, on the nixon administration. compare richard millhouse nixon's relationship with the truth to donald j. trump's. >> well, there was -- nixon was not a big believer in the truth, but as the tapes and the testimony and that investigation in the 70s established, he was a criminal president. breaking the law all the time, using the power of the presidency as an instrument of personal revenge to settle scores with enemies real and perceive. in the case of trump, there is the mueller investigation which clearly is important, but it's not ended and we don't know whether they're going to come up with information that establishes criminality. but what -- i thought the vacuum here in the coverage of trump was, first of all, excellent reporting by my newspaper, "the washington post," the "new york times," "wall street journal." but the focus was not so much on the mueller investigation. the question really is how does trump perform as president. and in the foreign policy areas, the handling of north korea, afghanistan, the

his investigative reporting helped bring down the nixon administration ... behind the scenes' book on donald trump ... stirring intense controversy .. details ahead. (pam ) veteran journalist and author bob woodward is releasing a book one week from today... called "fear - trump in the white house." some say it's the most detailed look at the trump white house so far - from the president's inner circle. catherine heenan is here with more.. (catherine) the book isn't even out yet..there's already a flood of reaciton.. woodward - describing chaos within the white house... saying president trump is notup to the job intellectually or temperamental ly. painting an account of a man gripped by anger and paranoia. woodward talked to a number of senior staff and cabinet officials.. he claims staffers regularly hid letters and other documents from the president - fearing national security implications if he were to sign them. the president was not interviewed for the book despite what woodward said were repeated attempts to do so. the washington post has released a re

it's not the first time it's happened in the dying days of the nixon administration, james schlessingersecretary of defense, told military leaders not to follow through on any nuclear orders that came out of the white house without first checking with him. the question is, is this a -- some sort of conspiracy to -- to block the president from carrying out his duties? >> i think that's probably an overstatement but it's wrong nonetheless. the president, like it or not, was elected. he was fairly elected. these are his decisions. they are not other people's decisions and he's going to make them, good or bad. and then the people will have an opportunity to either re-elect him or not. >> right. >> so i don't -- the person who wrote that op-ed, by the way, probably not very senior probably a junior administration official he or she should step forward and they should resign. >> my question for you is that if this is perceive d by the justice department or people on capitol hill as some kind of active conspiracy, that would put the individual who did the writing in some sort of jeopardy it wo

of his administration is without parallel in modern history maybe with the exception of the nixon administration. this is crazy, unlike anything we've ever seen. to your question, though, i think he or she would have achieved more if they had simply come out publicly and said i resign and protest, this president is unfit for office. you need to know what's happening and i'm going to tell you. >> matt, as crazy as this is, do you see any real impact on policy >> well, it's a good question. with allthe tumult around president trump, right now for example he's trying to cut a deal with mexico and canada to redo nafta he'll need congressional approval to do that. with a dysfunctional administration that's going to go from very hard to probably impossible it could have impact or it could be more of the same trump lunacy >> matt, what do you make from the push back from the president and administration officials against "the new york times" in particular and a further question, if the anonymous writer had come out today to deny publicly it was them, would "the new york times" then have an obligation t

certainly we saw that in the latter year or so of the nixon administration as well. jimmy carter and his administration during the days of hyper inflation and the iranian hostage deal. but this seems to be a separate drama. how do you rank this? >> yeah, i guess i look at this white house event as a relatively modest event. it's a matter of degree. it's certainly outrageous in its own right. a president deserves the loyalty of the people around him. i guess i would look at it and say this person as a matter of honor simply ought to resign. if you can't work for a president or frankly, any cabinet member, and as a matter of conscience you feel that way, then you need to resign. i think they have every right to find and fire him. or her. neil: what if there are others like him which seems intimated in this piece? it actually says he's not the problem, either he got rid of them and by the way, they seem to say it's a he so i will take it at face value, that there are plenty more like that and the president has that to worry about, and that is something the woodward book,

the only thing remotely comparable, it seems to me, would be during the darkest days of the nixon administrational hague, the chief of staff, and james schlesinger, the secretary of defense, took care to make sure that any military commands that were issued by richard nixon who at that point was walking the west wing corridors and talking to the oil portraits and obviously a desperate man, when they took precautions to make sure that no military orders would be given that didn't go through them. this kind of defiance by an anonymous high-ranking staffer is pretty extraordinary. >> the president has faced many attacks since he took office including very often from "the new york times." how much further does this go to hit his, whether it's credibility or his ability to continue operating >> well, you know, again, i don't want to play armchair psychoanalyst but anybody who knows, who has been following this white house for any period of time, knows this kind of thing is really the sort of thing that might completely drive him crazy. it seems like the kind of thing that would make him furious and i

he spoke in glowing term of the court's experience during the nixon administration in u.s.n. he has been in that white house and outside the white house. now he has been a judge and he has been considering presidential power in a range of cases and come to a range of conclusions including ruling against the president who appointed him to the circuit court. i'm sure he will rule against president trump from time to time. that is not how he thinks b he is not going to the court to think for him. he is going to the court to serve the constitution and the american people. he clearly demonstrates his ability to do that. arthel: greg, before you leave if you could give us a brief explanation, when you were chief nominations council to the senate judiciary committee, what were your responsibilities? >> it's a terrific job. you of course, the confirmation process that everyone is familiar with is these hearings, which is just part of it. for every judicial nominee the senators and their staffs review their backgrounds in detail. they have the opportunities to get to know the nomine