first, the judge's name was walter nixon. he's the other nixon. that can be very confusing. he's not at all related to richard nixon. but, because he's nixon, he's ungoogleable even all these years later. guess what comes up when you type in nixon and impeachment and what turns up is not walt. the second thing to notice is the guy that started this whole saga by looking extra cash, he did get impeached. initially, he was put on trial and he was convicted and he got sent to prison. he got sentenced to five years of prison. after he got out of his sentence, they impeached him and ensure that he will never be a judge again. >> the vote was 14-0 in the house. they voted in the senate to remove him from the bench. >> after carefully investigating the facts and hearing all the evidence, the house voted 17-0 to in favor of the three articles of impeachment. accordi accordingly, you must now grapple of the same question, faced by the house. a man who repeatedly lied, is he fit to hold the high office of the federal judge. i hope you a agrgree and the an is obvious. judge nixon must

when judge walter nixon had taken all of that money, when he got that call asking him to help the guy out, help out that guy's son with that drug smuggling case, judge nixon might have really wanted to help. he might have been constitutionally inclined to do anything he could for that guy who in effect had given him all of that money and for his family and for anything else he wanted him to do. he might have been innined to do it and done it happily. if he wasn't inclined to help, if it struck him as wrong as a federal judge to weigh in on somebody else's case and use his influence to get the prosecution of this unrelated case quashed because he knew the guy, if he really -- if that made him feel oogie and knew it was wrong, was he really in a position to say no? once he had taken the money? once he had taken that supposed investment deal that he knew was too good to be true where he didn't actually have to put up any of his own money? what was the bigger risk? somebody exposing him for that bribe or somebody finding out that he might have helped quash that case quietly? what is the b

nixon. >> walter cronkite news, march 18, 1975. >> according to pentagon sources, the north vietnamese haveles east of the provincial capital of ban me thuit which fell over the weekend. >> the cease-fire which wasn't a cease-fire involved a lot of bloody combat, and for the first 11 months the south vietnamese fought quite well. but by 1975, it became more and more clear that the north vietnamese were building up a formidable logistical system that portended real danger for the south vietnamese. >> the communists began the first major attack of their offensive. saigon's troops made a stand. it was a vital one. the entire central highlands might be lost, and south vietnam could be cut in two by the north vietnamese and the viet cong. >> the plan that the north vietnamese conceived would be a two-year plan. what happened was that when attacking the central highlands town of ban my thuit the thieu government lost its composure. >> government troops were secretly ordered by president thieu to pull out of the central provinces. >> the withdrawal became a rout, civilians and soldiers fleeing in

walter -- was one of the worst americans ever. >> guest: i was thinking about his famous obituary of nixon which, and obituary contribute interesting thing to write. i remember but he said he was so crooked that he needed people to help on screws pants in the morning. is trying to do something similar for roger ailes. but to me roger ailes was the main driver of this phenomenon. let's target the demographic and give the news that they like and forget about the other people. he talked about it and said my audience is age 55 - ted. they don't even want to hear about working women are liberals, they don't want it to exist. and they crafted a program that started us down the road of this divided media landscape where a population is split into camps and we each have our new sources of and don't agree on anything. i think he was a pioneer that factor. >> go back to the 70s when we all listen to the same news, was a good that nbc, abc and cbs controlled what we heard and saw? >> no. it was an information monopoly. i read manufacturing consent when i was young person and i agree with the premise of the book which is that it's very easy to

counsel that presidents receive and walter shaub, who was an ethics official, he tweeted "in 1974 the justice department's office of legal counsel explained that nixon could not pardon himself but never underestimate the willingness of olc which issue it had torture memo plus nuclear weapon tiesed white house to revise its views when the white house finds the rule of law annoying." so whether or not the constitution says donald trump could do it, do you have confidence this office of legal counsel, which is a trump era office of legal counsel, wouldn't tell donald trump yes you can? >> no, partially because we don't have a senate-confirmed head of olc, we don't know who that person will be or what their views will be. itch confidence in the career people atolc but they're not the ones that decide. it's the head of the office which will be someone trump appoint sod there's a question of what olc would recommend and the question comes down to what would people like anthony kennedy and jobt decembhn rober? this is a question that would go to the supreme court. you look at those two as likely being the deciding votes to say whether the president has thi