of watergate matters, specifically.act that there were money demands being made by the seven convicted defendants. he asked me how much it would cost. i told him that it might be as high as a million dollars or more. he told me that that was no problem. >> i concluded by saying this is going to take continued perjury and continued support of these individuals to perpetuate the cover-up and that i did not believe it was possible to so continue it. i told him that there was a cancer growing on the presidency and if the cancer was not removed, the president, himself, would be killed by it. and he said that it would be handled properly. >> now it is on the public record, john dean's damning, if largely unsubstantiated, testimony that the president knowingly participated in the watergate cover-up. nothing less than richard nixon's presidency may ride on whether the public believes john dean or not. ♪ peroni italia. (thud) (crash) (grunting) (whistle) play it cool and escape heartburn fast with tums chewy bites cooling sensat

it's called the watergate evidence. in any case you can listen to , this, but the key part is the president and haldeman talk. haldeman says, we probably don't have enough on the other side. let's go on trumped up charges and get some more. so in august, they are discussing the possibility of arresting people, indicting them and holding them so they can be released at the same time as the watergate burglars. thankfully this is another of bad ideas discussed in the summer of 1972 that is not realized. ok. now the cover-up unravels. so the last two sections of the timeline wall talk about the investigations and the public pressure and the work of the press that led to the unraveling of this cover-up. the cover-up succeeds through the end of 1972. only the five burglars are indicted. er, despite -- magrude the concerns, is not indicted, nor is john mitchell. but the burglars themselves would change the story. one in particular. james mccord. it's when james mccord tells judge siricha who oversees the grand jury for the wat

post watergate.been given a presumption of innocence. in the aftermath, they're almost presumed guilty. it dramatically changes the relationship of the news media with the president. >> the system had worked including the role of the press. but really, the idea that the systemea had worked in this amazing way that a criminal president had been forced to leave office. the principle that nobody in this country is above the law including the president of the united states. >> for nixon and the nation, one question remained unanswered, would the president now be hauled into court? uld the presie hauled into court? thousands of women with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole,

, in part because of watergate. so now we almost become immune to accusations of scandal. we see scandal every day. that there is something new going on. i think that also shows that the press is out there constantly looking for things. some of it is trivial, some of it is very serious. i think there is that challenge of navigating what sells for ratings and what is a serious offense. that is the challenge that we as viewers and readers needed to understand. but one thing that is very different today that happens in part because of watergate is the power of the conservative media. this is -- many conservatives felt that nixon was a target of what they called the liberal media. in the wake of watergate, conservative media activists worked for several decades to form alternative media institutions to get their message out there to the public. they really expanded those efforts. conservative media has become much more powerful today with cable television, with talk radio. that is something that it's a player in the rep

it was called the watergate class in november of 1974. it would have been far, far worse if nixon had stood trial running up to the election. i think there was a lot of pressure put on president nixon. i'm assuming that, i don't really know, to resign. in any case, he knew there was no hope. the impeachment process -- he was going to be removed from office. there was no question about that. there was no question in anybody's mind, given the fairness of the process, even without the smoking gun tape, you had huge public support for the outcome of the judiciary committee. a fair process that they could see on television. republicans joining with democrats in substantial numbers. it was not going to be easy to overcome that. but when you had all the republicans decide to join the democrats, there was no hope that he could beat this. timothy: where were you the day he resigned? rep. holtzman: i was in washington, in my office. i cannot remember exactly what was happening, but we all ran to television and watched his resignation and getting on

let me give you another example from watergate. in the watergate scandal they actually considered five articles of impeachment against nixon. the watergate equivalent of what we had yesterday and today in the house judiciary committee where they marked up and ultimately voted on the impeachment articles, back then 1974, the equivalent of what we just went through yesterday and today happened at the end of july. the judiciary committee met to mark up and ultimately vote on articles of impeachment against richard nixon. it was july 27th, july 29th, and july 30th. of the five articles of impeachment they considered against nixon they only passed three of them. there was a fourth one on nixon ordering the bombing of cambodia. that one didn't pass out of the judiciary committee. there was a fifth article of impeachment about tax fraud, which was basically about the taxpayers pay to renovate nixon's beach house. that one didn't pass the judiciary committee either. but three articles against nixon did pass. abuse of power, obstruction of

he examined all of the principals of the watergate scandal before the various watergate grand juryie. a small exaggeration. this is a kid one year out of law school devoting two years to get the goods on chuck colson on some marginal issue. writeup, he was right there. he is like shepard. he was right there in the middle of it. now, hoover. hoover lies in state. hoover is buried at the presbyterian church. big presbyterian church in northwest. and nixon is going to speak. so i got to clear the speech for substance. because i am the law and order guy. the speechwriters write the speech, small stuff. everything he says has to be checked. this fact was checked. what he was going to say is that i will ask congress to name the fbi building then under construction the j. edgar hoover building. it is weak, but it is something to say. i knew from prior activity that the president of the united states can name or rename any federal building without restriction. the speech this to writer and said you can announce he is naming it. he is the president, he has the authority. well because we always

but what actually happened in watergate was nothing like that. less than a week after the judiciary committee voted for those three articles of impeachment that they passed against anything sonixon, less later nixon was forced by an order of the supreme court to release more evidence that pertained to the scandal, including a tape in which he could be heard ordering that the watergate investigation at the fbi be shut down. i mean, think about that for a second. less than a week before they had just voted on the impeachment articles in the judiciary committee, just like we had happen today. and everybody thought they gnaw how this was going to go in terms of those articles going the to the floor and the senate and the trial and everything. after they'd already voted on the articles in the judiciary committee and it's on its way to the house floor this new bomb shell evidence drops out of the sky, and politically it's just chaos. >> good evening, president nixon stunned the country today by admitting that he held back evidence from the house judici

watergate start to come onto your raters screen? -- windows watergate start to come onto radar screen -- when does what it is such come onto your radar screen? rep. holtzman: january. there was this little wheretemps in the court it was quite clear that judge's a rico smelled a rat, some -- that something was bizarre about these guilty pleas. and imposed very tough sentences and record indicated there were higher-ups involved and things unravel. i became involved -- i would not say in watergate, but in some of n a efforts to "cover-up" whe bill -- i should not say bill. let me restate that. i became involved directly in what i thought were efforts to cover up when the supreme court sent to the congress rules of evidence, proposed rules of evidence. it seemed to be very dry, , eyes glazing over, terrible. and i looked at it and i saw there were some pretty drastic provisions for preserving state secrets. ultimately it turned out they had been put in by the nixon preciselypartment for the purpose of allowing an expanding and strengthe

a special panel with watergate prosecutor and rob reiner also later. giuliani confessing to another part of the ukraine plot. why that could backfire. and a special guest later tonight taking us inside the trump impeachment defense plan and where we go from here. i'm ari melber. you're watching "the beat" on msnbc. msnbc. i like chillaxin'. the united explorer card makes things easy. traveling lighter. taking a shortcut. woooo! taking a breather. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. for a limited time, get a outb4-course meal your holidays even better! starting at $15.99. treat yourself to the perfect gift today, because the aussie 4-course won't last long! and now, get a $10 gift with every $50 in gift cards. at to cover the essentialsyou have in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you're ready for what comes next, the only direction is forward. ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪♪ we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home. steven could only imaginem 24hr to trenjoying a spicy taco.bur

this is at the outset of the nixon impeachment process and watergate scandal, 1974. they took a time out from just looking at the fact pattern around what nixon had done to take some time to review historically the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment and that included looking at the sort of exhaustive record of the country's whole record of experience with impeachment. it's fascinating stuff. and i'm telling you, it holds up. similarly, when president clinton was facing impeachment proceedings in 1998, in november of that year just before thanksgiving, 1998, the judiciary committee in the house also decided that they should try to cover some of those same bases that were covered by the watergate committee. the constitutional grounds for impeachment. and in the clinton impeachment, though, in the '90s they decided they wouldn't approach this issue just by doing a report on it the way the committee did in watergate. they instead decided they'd convene a public hearing on the matter much like the one we had today. and because time is a circle and dogs ch

when that watergate report came out in 1974, it included all of the amendments. it lists the poor drunk judge in 1873 and the hapless war secretary that gets caught taking tons of bribes and has to resign so he won't get in trouble. i mean, that appendix in the watergate report in 1974, that was the full history of impeachment in this country. there's not that many of them. and a lot of them are for small fries who got caught for doing small things. in the modern era there is one relatively recent impeachment case that turns out to be a weirdly perfect precedent for what happened today in the impeachment proceedings against trump. so perfect that i kind of can't believe it's real. i kind of feel somebody must have gone back with a time machine and doctored history in order to make this perfect for us today. but it did really happen. we've got tape of it. it was real. it was the impeachment of a federal judge, a federal district court judge in louisiana in 2010. his name was judge g. thomas porteous, he's been a state judge in louisiana, and in 1994 president clin

>> on the development of the watergate conspiracy? assume they were very valuable but that really wasn't my hunt. i was not an article i man. >> what's the story with bert jenner and his sort of -- changes positions. was he forced out by the -- by the minority leaders? >> i don't know about forced out. he was one of the prominent lawyers in the united states, founder of jenner and block, the great chicago firm, so a person like myself, having begun to an ivy league law school, as spiring to be a kicker litigation partner, he was sky high as far as i was concerned. i remember him saying the president would be impeached. i remember him saying that to me and a couple other people in a car in march or april. that was not in the newspapers i don't think. he got there pretty quickly and he and dohr spent a lot of time together, and he would come and make presentations to the republican members. but i don't think they ever felt at ease with him. i remember at one point, he was testifying, dell latter from ohio says you say that, mr. jenner,

one of them was the watergate break-in.n 1972, nixon won reelection by a historic landslide. >> i, richard nixon, do solemnly swear. >> but the watergate story was still growing. so just weeks after the election inside the oval office, richard nixon declared war on the press. nixon hated the press because it was digging into the very story he was desperate to hide. that the white house was deeply involved in the watergate cover-up. his campaign seemed to work. early in his second term, nixon's approval ratings soared. but then came the first crack in the white house defense. in the summer of 1973, all of america was riveted by the senate watergate hearings. >> what did the president know and when did he know it? >> as the country watched white house counsel john dean turn on his president. >> i began by telling the president that there was a cancer growing on the presidency. >> dean testified that the watergate burglars were blackmailing white house aides. >> the white house was now being directly subject to blackmail, and

it's a modern-day watergate. then you have got democrats who are not even willing to look into that. that is the area we should be looking into. it's a modern-day coup, the closest this country ever came to. the only way you can compare it to watergate. they broke into his campaign bringing people into it. they had been trying to cover it up for the whole time. question rises just like watergate, when did they know about it and how high does this go up? maria: incredible that the democrats change the narrative on you and your colleagues over and over again. you exposed what took place in the 2016 legislation. you exposed how donald trump was framed, informants the leaks, et cetera, yet here we are talking about impeachment. what are you going to do about it? they keep changing the narrative and conversation on you? >> well they changed everything. they used adam schiff as being the chairman of intel to go out and write a fisa report now we saw from that report is totally false. evidence has indicated. house of re

how was it that you came to join watergate special prosecution force? ms. wine-banks: i was a prosecutor for the organized crime and racketeering section. then for the labor racketeering erytion, and had a v prosecution record, and they were looking for experienced prosecutors. i took a chance, because although now, we look back and say it is so obvious, at the time there was nothing obvious about it. it could have ended up being nothing, but as it worked out and turned out to be a very significant event. i'm very happy i did have the opportunity. host: who'd you know among the earliest recruits? were some of your friends recruited? ms. wine-banks: yes. wasirst boss, charles ross, one of my colleagues. he was on the campaign contribution team. in terms of the cover-up up, i did not know anyone when i first started. after the number of years of 24 hour days, seven days a week, i know them all very, very well. host: tell us about the state of the case. it was a long time ago. the you started your job, assistant attorney, assistant u.s. attorneys were working

you have known john dean for a long time with the watergate thing. >> they keep comparing to watergatehey don't say how compares to watergate. they don't say where the actual crimes of richard nixon. how this played out the way with richard nixon. they are not, they are not making the case. they are filling the air with hot rhetoric instead of facts. so the american people are kind of tooting it up as basically partisan politics and nothing more. >> laura: all right, gentlemen thank you so much. great to have you both on tonight. get out and get mary ball washington a phenomenal book by craig shirley. coming up the best moment from this weekend's football game didn't happen onto the field on t e alabama laws, don't rub it in. 20 yearsin ago, i will explain t in moments. st to you. >> customer: really?! >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace. >> laura: rivalry we can and college football it was an antidote from fox sports announcer gus johnson about ohio state running back j.k. dobbins. that provided the most powerful moment. >> what a day for j.k. dobbins. >> j.k. dobbins mother

it was a mixed reaction as to how they reacted to watergate and his resignation. it was potentially going to be a real political problem for me. one of the things i have said, and i'm not sure i put it in my book, but it was certainly an interesting and trying experience, but for the next 35 years, it was all easy. after that, nothing was more trying and more disappointing than that experience. i went through a lot of things over the years, including the impeachment and trial of william jefferson clinton. timothy: i read those chapters. that sounded pretty trying. you almost lost your caucus. mr. lott: very trying. yeah, i did. i was always trying to find a way to deal with our constitutional responsibility. it was trying more in terms of trying to deal with the constitutional questions, deal with the scheduling, deal with how you set it up, how do we get through it in a timely way and come out the back end where you could still do some things for your country. but it did not drain me the way the nixon matter did, partially because i think i was a lot older and ha

on the development of the watergate conspiracy? i assume they were very valuable, but that wasn't rell my hunt. i was -- really wasn't my hunt. i was not in article one man. >> what is the story with bert jenner? he sort of changes positions. thehe forced out by minority leaders? i don't know about forced out. he was a prominent lawyer in the united states of the great chicago. a person like myself, having gone to a life school and aspiring to be a kicker litigation parker -- lawyer, he was skyhigh. he formed the opinion early on that the president was going to be impeached. i remember him saying that to me and a couple other people in a car in march. he got there pretty quickly and he and dohr spent a lot of time together, and he would come and make presentations to the republican members. but i don't think they ever felt at ease with him. i remember at one point, he was testifying, dell latter from ohio says you say that, mr. jenner, but i don't have to take your word for that. i saw the report you just filed about how prostituti

but there were claims of hoax and witch hunt during the watergate case. not all that different. i think the underlying crime here is much worse than the underlying crime in watergate, the threat to democracy, the threat to national security is much worse now and must be taken very seriously. >> do you understand, do you endorse the white house strategy of sitting out this round where a defense is concerned? >> well, i think that they lose a lot of credibility when they keep complaining about things that keep getting changed to what they want, and then they lower the bar and say, well, we're not going to participate. they complained they weren't participating. now they're invited to, and they won't. and i think that all americans can draw, as they would in their ordinary, everyday lives, a reasonable conclusion, which is that if they had something to defend, if they had some good evidence, something that would exculpate the president, they would be participating. and we all make judgments in our everyday lives based on circ circumstantial evidence and draw

it compares to watergate.hey don't say where the actual crimes are of richard nixon. how this played out the way with richard nixon.im they are not, they are not making the case. they are filling the air with hot rhetoric instead of facts. so the american people are kind of tuning it out as basically partisan politics and nothing more. >> laura: all right, gentlemen thank you so much. great to have you both on tonight. get out and get mary ball washington, a phenomenal book by craigal shirley. coming up, the best moment from this weekend's football game didn't happen onto the field. the alabama loss, don't rub it in. over 20 years ago. i will explain it in moments. boom! get free next business day shipping or ...1 hour in-store pick up shopping season solved at office depot officemax or officedepot.com. thousands of options nationwide from national insurance companies. don't miss the deadline. there are only days remaining in open enrollment. funny thing about health insurance, you don't think about how much y

-- peter rodino's watergate committee? >> i wanted to work on the project robert kennedy had started. i have been -- robert kennedy had been killed. i felt that i wanted to stay and carry on that project as best i could. i was there for six years. i got a phone call one day from yale law school. i have one question to ask you. if you were offered a job to work for peter rodino, we take it? -- would you take it? i said yes. he said that's all the questions i have. i got a call from peter rodino. washingtone down to to be interviewed. i went down. i was interviewed. we got along. he seemed to like me. at the end of the interview, he said there's one other thing. i have some speeches to write. i understand you can write. i want to know if you would be willing to help me draft speeches. i said forget about it. i cannot write. he said you are just being modest and he hired me. >> why did you take it? >> because it's a kind of a job do it fairlyy to was a great opportunity. for a lawyer. i have had the luckiest professional expe

york she was a member of the house judiciary committee that investigated president nixon in the watergate scandal and did vote to impeach him she's also the all through the book the case for impeaching trump she joins us from new york elizabeth. like the fact that they've held the 2 articles. bowls involving the ukraine well. the problem is that actually donald trump isn't gauge another conduct that could be called impeachable but the congress didn't really investigate that they were stymied so these articles represent sorrow action by congress in terms of investigating this conduct an abuse of power by the president but they also reference the fact that these abuses of power one is. the abuse with regard to ukraine trying to influence a foreign country bully a foreign country into interfering in our election and the 2nd trying to obstruct congress is investigating of that. there's a pattern of this of interference with investigations and there's a pattern of this kind of abuse of power that existed before so i think that the articles while they're narrowly focused do bring in at least th

the develop and of the watergate conspiracy? i assume they were valuable but that wasn't -- i was not an article one man. what is the story with bert jenner, he changed his position. ? was he forced out by the minority leaders? i don't know about forced out. he was one of the prominent lawyers of the united states, the founder of a great chicago firm. myself, having gone to an ivy league law school , he was skyhigh as far as i was concerned. i remember him saying the president was going to be impeached early on. that was not in the newspapers, i don't think. he got there pretty quickly and he spent -- he and john doerr spent a lot of time together. he would come and make presentations to the republican members. i don't think they ever felt at ease with him. at one point, he was testifying think one man from ohio said you say that but i don't have to take your report -- word for that. howw the report for prostitution should be legalized and that is not more binding on me the. a democrat said i hope the german from ohio will refle

of representatives going to the senate is a different story but here's a just to go back to the watergate impeachment nixon impeachment there were 3 articles cover up abuse of power and obstruction of congress so there are 2 of these articles that really resonate with watergate in the sense that richard nixon tried to obstruct the committee's investigation into his abuses of power during watergate that was an article of impeachment then so there's a historical precedent for that secondly abuse of power watergate was about the president's using the power of his office to cover up a his effort or as campaigns effort to influence the his presidential reelection that's really what this is about abuse of power to try to influence the outcome of the 2020 presidential election by donald trump so we have precedent for both i think the constitutional scholars made a very clear case that there's a constitutional back up for these articles and the factual. predicate for them well there were 12 witnesses who testified you should understand that nixon bailed for all of this because they had him on tap

watergate may television a much different thing.so seeing the loss of face in the presidency and pardoning richard accent, he opened himself up to that at a time when there was money to be made by really making fun of presidents. so it comes off for comedians to make fun of presidents in a way they had not before watergate. >> one thing about ford. he was the first vice president in history who was elected neither president nor vice president. he became president through this new process in the constitution. the significance of that is that prior to becoming vice president, and not too long a while, president, was that the largest constituency in which he had ever had to run for office was a congressional district in michigan. a rocksolid republican congressional district in michigan. so to translate that experience into the presidency, especially in a time in the aftermath of nixon where people were looking to the presidency for some sense of reassurance and that things will be ok, he was in a difficult situation. on top of that, n

he is also not coated with watergate. he escapes the two traumatic moments in the american politics of the decade and emerges as -- i'll call it he is dry here, not in a quagmire. he makes this pivot and attempts to move america to a post vietnam period. this particular cartoon is not about vietnam. but i see the shadow of vietnam right there in the background of several of the reagan cartoons here. >> one of the great frustrations of reagan's acting career was he wasn't able to get the parts that went to john wayne or gary cooper, the heroic western parts. and i think one of the satisfactions of his political career was that he did get to play those parts as a leader first in the conservative wing of the republican party, then as candidate for president and finally as president. >> do you want to start. >> go ahead. >> one thing that cartoonists are seldom credited with is graciousness. and i think this is just a very gracious farewell to ronald raying. . by the end of his term he was able to claim a great deal of succes

if you read "the washington post" between 72 and 1974 between the time the watergate scandal broke out and the time president nixon resigned, you opened the pages to see 174 cartoons attacking the president on watergate alone. he had drawn nixon coming out of a sewer during the eisenhower administration and with the exception of the free shave he gave him as a newly elected president which is now in the collection of "the washington post," he never relented and he did not see a good side to richard nixon which doesn't mean that he attacked him blindly. it meant he had real issues with some of the things whether it be corruption or wiretapping or things he just liked and he felt it was his job as a cartoonist to express his opinion and to share it with others, and that's the basic role of an editorial cartoon is to express an opinion and persuade people to your point of view and a good cartoonist does more than just illustrate the news, he gets his point across or she gets her point across. so here we have nixon throwing some tapes to an investigator who is represented by a hound dog, a

>> people just got over watergate and vietnam. be a big shot and get the pro motion. >> the dialogue pretty realistic because the plot was realown to the tense moments where the handlers get into place where everyone knows something legally dangerous is happening. >> excuse me. excuse me. i'll handle that for the mayor. >> no. it's for the mayor. it would be a sign of disrespect. it's for you. >> in real life, those exact kind of sing operations have led to a series of these indictments. >> five members of the house have within implicated in the fbi's scam bribery investigation. >> today another trial got underway involving another congressman. >> the fbi's investigation today resulted in the indictment of a member of the united states congress. >> justice department rules allow for indicting members of congress while in office. that's different than the president. there is no first step of impeachment. bribery can get you indicted pretty quickly. and in this case there were fbi tapes showing the congressman taking bribes, which i

to gather evidence in the watergate scandal, right? they got to issue subpoenas, testify in front of a grand jury, and nixon figured out a way to fire archbald cox and leon jaworski. when they finished their work, they compiled all the evidence that they and the grand jury had obtained over the course of their investigation. they compiled it all into a confidential report. they then went to a federal judge with the support of the justice department and asked the judge for permission to please convey that information to congress because congress had a judicial proceeding under way. congress was considering articles of impeachment, so the justice department and the special prosecutor went to a federal judge and said, please, can we convey this grand jury information to congress so congress can make a decision as to what's been turned up in this investigation and whether it amounts to high crimes and misdemeanors for the purposes of impeachment. and the judge said fine and that was conveyed and that became the basis for the articles of im

hank: i started in the pentagon, and april of 1972 six weeks before the watergate break-in.ike he did not understand the implications at the time. i was there through the election, it was a landslide victory and i got a big promotion. erlichman'sto be deputy for economic policy. ,hen watergate hit and blew up and i watched these people at senior positions get carried off . erlichman got convicted after i had left, but i looked at a number of people there in deep trouble. it made a huge impression on me. the positive impression was george schultz was secretary of the treasury, he had two guys who worked for him that i had a good working relationship. david: you went back to chicago and joined goldman sachs. how did that come about? hank: careers are a funny thing. i have never been big on career engineering. when i graduated from dartmouth, i did not know what an investment banker was. government that i like multitasking, i liked economic policy and financial issues and problem-solving. that investment banking might be a good thing to explore. i also determined i never wanted

you know this is almost like watergate in reverse in the in the case of nixon who's the one president who was actually forced from office when he was on the verge of impeachment. you had a year and a half of investigations that led to the smoking gun tape that put matters over the edge and forced nixon to resign in this case the smoking gun it started with the smoking gun and that was the transcript of the call with zelinsky you know so the shock value seeing the president's own words making that request of zelinsky that's what triggered the process and that was arguably the strongest piece of evidence that began it's it was at the beginning of the process it didn't build to a smoking gun at the end of the process the way watergate did and i think in some senses that has hurt the democrats here you have the shock of that transcript and then 2 months of hearings and debate that had other witnesses but nothing as strong with what as with what we started with and i think that's one of the reasons that the democrats have not been able to build momentum in terms of public support for what

so 100 years later, you have a crime, the break-in of watergate. you have a very vigorous investigation going on through the congress already, through the watergate committee. and so we were trying to impose an understanding of the law and the history combined with a process that would be viewed as fair, providing due process, to the president, if articles of impeachment were decided. so we were trying to rely on precedent as much as we could but we were kind of making it up based on our best understanding of the law as we researched it. timothy: secrecy was important. sec. clinton: totally. timothy: how did mr. doar enforce secrecy? sec. clinton: i think that, first of all, there were no cell phones. that makes a big difference. but i think he, by just force of character, made it clear to all of us. we did not know where this was going to end up. i certainly didn't. i didn't come in to it with any preconceived notion that, ok, this will be easy, we'll lay out this stuff and the house will be impeached and he'll be convicted in the senate. i certai

o 100 years later you have a crime, the break in of watergate. you have a vigorous investigation through the watergate committee. we were trying to impose an understanding of the law and history combined with a process that would be viewed as fair providing due process to the president, if articles of impeachment were decided. we try to rely on precedent as much as we could, but we are making it up based on our best understanding of the law as we researched it. >> secrecy is important. >> totally. doerr enforce secrecy? >> first of all r, there were no cell phones, that makes a big difference. i think by force of character, he made it clear to all of us, we didn't know where this was going to end up. i didn't come to it with any preconceived notion that this was going to be easy, we are going to lay the stuff out and the house will be impeached and he is convicted in the senate. i certainly didn't do that. i don't know anybody who did. because it was such a historic experience, we all felt the weight of that responsibility, and john made very cle

how was it that you came to join watergate special prosecution force? ms. wine-banks: i was a prosecutor for the organized crime and racketeering section. then for the labor racketeering erytion, and had a v prosecution record, and they were looking for experienced prosecutors. i took a chance, because