the country had been obsessed with watergate for nearly two years it was obsessed with watergate and if nixon was then criminally prosecuted, ford feared that first of all, the country would be dragged through the mud for several more years and even more selfishly, he felt that he would never get any of his own policy initiatives accomplished. as president. so that's where this segment of this amazing story begins. gerald ford takes over the white house with only a day's notice. he is surrounded by aides and advisors who are nixon loyalists. those include the chief of staff alexander hague, general hague, the attorney general william saxby, nixon's fifth attorney general because they all kept resigning due to the scandal. in california, nixon's former press secretary ron ziggler is now acting as nixon's handler from afar. in the midst of this, a big issue arises. what is going to happen to nixon's records and tapes? these are key evidence in all of the watergate trials of nixon's co-conspirators in the white house. they are scheduled to go forward in a few months. there are only a fe

watergate, the cover-up of watergate, the attempted cover-up disintegrates and everybody is running forcover. so the aides start trying to shift the blame onto each other and finally they all start shifting the blame onto the president himself. it's a very traumatic. period, all of which is captured, or most of it is captured, on tape. so you could really if you just focus on that. back, i bring in other, a lot of background, but the narrative of the story is about that 100 days and it really allows me to do something that i don't think has been done before, which is to tell the story in a very intimate way. now, why did i call the book "king richard"? of course king richard is an allusion to shakespearean tragedy king lear. i see nixon as a tragic figure, but he was told another reason for the title is that his mother who was pious quaker out in california named all her boys after kings of england, and including richard who she named after the crusader king, richard the lion heart. so this title is very apt i feel. so the book begins the opening scene is between, is set in the lincoln

and it largely put watergate behind him. he was about to conclude in vietnam and hound of triumphs including the opening to china dÉtente with russia and so on. so he really was feeling sort of pretty confident and then within 100 days, it all falls apart and this very disciplined white house the aids start fighting with each other and watergate, the cover-up of watergate, the attempted cover up disintegrates and everybody is running for cover so they start trying to shift the blame onto each other. all of it is captured or most of it is captured on tape if we focus on that period, i bring in a lot of background but the narrative of the story is about that hundred days it allows me to do something that hasn't been done before which is to tell the story for the shakespearean tragedy but he was told another reason for the title is that his mother who was quaker out in california named all her boys after kings of england, and including richard, who she named after the crusader king richard the lion heart so this title is very a

watergate, the cover-up of watergate and the attempted cover up everybody's running for cover. the aid starts trying to shift the blame on each other and finally they start shifting the blame onto the president himself. there is a very dramatic period all of which is captured or most of it is captured on tape. .. right as i pulled the book king richard, is an allusion to shakespearean tragedy. i see nixon as a tragic figure. but another reason for the title is his mother was a pious quaker out in california, named all of her boys after kings of england. including richard who she named after the crusader king richard the lion heart. so this title is very apt i feel. so the book begins, the opening scene is between, is set in the lincoln sitting room as i said nixon's favorite room and the white house on the second floor of the white house in the private quarters. the smallest room in the white house actually. and nixon would go up there every night to listen to music and scribble on his legal pads. and on the night of january 20 covid 1973 at 1:00 a.m. among other things he had

to his aid so obviously there is conversations about watergate and it. a lot of conspiracy theory about what is in the missing 17 minutes. month doesn't actually reveal that nixon ordered the breaking of the watergate? i don't think it does because you have to sort of triangulate with other sources of information including the diaries so we know pretty much what was in those 17 minutes, i think it's just nixon trying to start to listen to these tapes, he started pressing all these buttons on the tape recorder and wanted to get rid of some that were compromising to him but they are not anymore compromising other things on the tapes. that's what most historians, including maple leaf but you could argue that. >> what you think we've learned from all this? >> nixon kept on saying the problem wasn't the original crime, it was the cover up what he experienced himself unraveling a cover-up an affair when he was a young congressman so he shows whatever you else you do, don't product because the cover and watergate came worse than the original crime. he could hav

does actually review nixon order to watergate?i don't think it does because you have to triangulate with other sources of information including bhandari so we know pretty much what was in those 17 minutes. i think it's just mixing being fisted and he started listening to the tapes and pressing all these buttons on his tape recorder he probably wanted to get rid of some bits that were compromising to him but actually they are not anymore compromising and a lot of other things on the tape. that's what must most historians, including me believe what you could argue that. >> what you think we've learned from all off this? >> well, nixon kept on saying you shouldn't promote the problem wasn't the original crime, it was corrupt and he had experienced himself the unraveling a cover-up when he was young congressman so he shows whatever else you do in cover-up because the cover-up and u watergate was worse than e original crime. he could have claimed watergate on various ordinance but covering up, covering it up obstruction of justice was

and also a robust society response in the watergate. which was to say, law and religious, there were leaders in those communities who join with elected officials and members of the bar, and with that the top. talking about the significance of an episode for understanding flaws in our constitutional government and reform. so for example, during watergate and particularly the national shock, the massacre when president nixon dismissed a special prosecutor cox and he was unable to do so followed by the attorney general the deputy attorney general essentially had to effective fire him. but the response there was not only congressional political response lives also a strong institutional society response. and justin smith president of the bar association and republican issued a statement not just in his own but the bar itself and it changed that no questions about the law. no man is above the law. but he pointed out that no american is above the law and the president is certainly not above the law. in other leaders of the institutions of imp

the book starts after watergate. i don't spend a lot of time. i think he dealt with it like any of us would. he wanted to be useful. he wanted a role to play with the rest of his life. the one thing he still had after he lost all the trappings of power, all the levers of power, he still has the power of his mind. we had something worth listening to. it's a remarkable achievement. i can't get inside his mind any better -- i think this book argues that he did. >> i like your shirt. >> it's not been studied that much, i feel that reagan's presidency is always not been studied. there's more to it than alzheimer's. it was in november of 1994 when he realized he released that letter. there's a lot of new material on the post-presidency. there's an amazing story about reagan's doctors coming to the house in bel aire to tell them the diagnosis. while talking with mrs. reagan and others, he gets up and goes over to a table and starts writing his letter. that's where he wrote the letter that was released to public right there after the doctor just told hi

and also a robust society response in the watergate. which was to say, law and religious, there were leaders in those communities who join with elected officials and members of the bar, and with that the top. talking about the significance of an episode for understanding flaws in our constitutional government and reform. so for example, during watergate and particularly the national shock, the massacre when president nixon dismissed a special prosecutor cox and he was unable to do so followed by the attorney general the deputy attorney general essentially had to effective fire him. but the response there was not only congressional political response lives also a strong institutional society response. and justin smith president of the bar association and republican issued a statement not just in his own but the bar itself and it changed that no questions about the law. no man is above the law. but he pointed out that no american is above the law and the president is certainly not above the law. in other leaders of the institutions of imp

watergate -- the book starts after watergate. i don't spend a lot of time focusing on that. i didn't want that to be part of the story. watergate's happened. we've had libraries of books written about it. but how did he deal with it as a man and a human. i think he dealt with it like any of us would. there were successes and failures along the way. he certainly wanted to reestablish himself. he never used the word "comeback" or anything like that with family or friends. he wanted to be useful. he wanted a role to play with the rest of his life. the one thing he still had after he lost all the trappings of power, all the levers of power, he still has the power of his mind. and the power of his ideas. and it's a tribute to how effective that mind was and how effective those ideas were that he was able to persuade presidents, including a president of a different party, that he had something worth listening to. it's a remarkable achievement. this is a person that no one would touch in 1974. by the end of his life, presidents are calling him, asking him what do you think about th

and this is why so many elements starting at watergate and managing this relationship has been done by norms rather than statutory reform. and bob and i have a series of reforms to basically a lot of this came up with the norm for cleared when they were not clear, the work disregarded or circumvented. a lot of instances, the norms were just missing. in a lot of instances the norms learned, they didn't have an enforcement. so there a lot of people are skeptical that reforms can be done, the norms that will be binding on a future president is left to hold into and that is certainly legitimate concern. but norms work even in the trump presidency. there's a lot that he has people wanted him to do but he didn't. now perfectly that they worked remarkably well we think are a lot of steps that can be taken special counsel regulations to make it clear of the prosecutions are not allowed and throughout all of the guidance and to how the fbi investigations of presidential campaigns and presidents should be conducted read into rethinking the relationship between the lawyers the white house and the

, he was a republican who really responsible for breaking the watergate case. he made stiff sentences to the burglars which forced them to talk and reveal that the orders are coming directly from the white house. i think -- look, we all have disagreements of the supreme court and in terms of certain issues that they do decide much broader issues and the lower court judges and a deal with a lot of cases or civil cases. but, for the most part when ever this comes up in terms of the 60 plus losses, on the third circuit, there have been judges appointed by donald trump stood up and done the right thing. >> yeah. i understand what you are saying. the space between the argument you guys are having of what's going on the courts is real, some of this has not been tested in a way that we would not want it to be. yes, our headline today about professor hassin talking about the preparations for the next trump coup are underway using state legislatures. all of this is a live issue. i want to thank nick and professor murray kicking us off. we have a lot more in the program,

we had experts from watergate. people in watergate telling us about the similarities.arning now about letters, pressure on the attorney general, the acting attorney general, letters potentially from the attorney general to the state of georgia to say don't listen to the will of the people. there was something wrong with your election. that becomes a little harder than that weird christmas-time phone call from donald trump to brad raffensperger. one thing i'm most worried about, we don't have guardrails to prevent against this happening. it depended on good people of goodwill to say i'm not doing this. >> it is frightening. we should all be frightened. i think it's easy to discount events when you're living through them. roland is dead on the money. we need to be very focused on what's happening now. i don't say that in an alarmist fashion, just pragmatically as an american. what trump and his cronies tried to do after this election with getting state legislators to throw the election to trump that's become law in a number of states. >> yes. >> for instance, georgia, wh

ford haven't mentioned watergate during this time but watergate begins in 1972. not for reasons related, but other reasons. president need to exercise a provision of the 25th amendment which was ratified in 1967 the lousy president to nominate a person to fill the vacancy of the vice presidency as a tribute but bipartisanship. while congress has a chance occurrence of voting in late december of 1972 this only 35 members of the house the vote against as much is your get on capitol hill. by december ford is moved from the house of representatives to becoming president of the senate and vice president of the united states. he holds a position for eight months. then nixon in august of 1974 sulfur signs and ford becomes president of the united states. like the french magazine that promotes a new america betty ross fashioned, not making the american flag but mending the american flag. above him are two images mrs. more about their new president against the world who wants to know something about this new president but they find out is he is not in michigan, he was not

in watergate, nixon never testified before the watergate committee but people around him did.tment did. people in the cia and elsewhere and we learned an awful lot about his interactions with people elsewhere in the government. for me, this is where people are underestimating the importance of having a select committee with the power to compel testimony. and a lot of people scattered around who will testify -- who were around the government between november 3rd and january 6th and incidentally state and local governments elsewhere who will testify truthfully. ing think of ukraine. a lot of people testified truthfully once called at the state department and national security council. so we can learn more. people assume this committee is just going to rehash the same old stuff. but look at that testimony this week from the police officers. that was some moving and gripping but in a way, i think the more important fundamentally more important testimony is from people still to come in the government. >> that were adjasant and involved in all of this watching it happen. >> do you t

this is pretty serious stuff and much u much worse than watergate.'m surprised they're doing nothing. >> ryan, we know they were supposed to interview jeffrey rosen with his former attorney done a hue. they are standing down. the january 6th committee is taking over. we don't know yet when those interviews might happen. when i layout their role, donahue taking note of some of these calls when trump says just go out and say there's fraud. go say it, say it was raid and i'll take care of the rest. lou important could the testimony of mr. rosen and done a hue be? >> so i think it can be incredibly important. the december 27th call he says, just say it was corrupt. he threatens them and says i have been told that i should maybe change the leadership of the justice department and put in jeff clark. so he's saying it all right there. that is coercion. that's pressure. i think the committee mostly wants to hear from those particular individuals on that call with trump and who are subject to the week's long repeated efforts by trump to get them to use the ju

watergate feels like an appropriate back story, we can get back to that, that four years ago i felt like as a journalist i had to do something differently. i felt like it was so easy as journalists to make our political conflicts worse, even if you didn't intend to. some people intend to but most don't and yet here we were. it felt liked there was somethig relevant understanding what was going on in the country and that's a problem. i spent a lot of time with people who study conflict of all kinds, personal, political, professional, at scale,h individual.so and the study of conflict as a system, particularly intractable conflict, for me really clicked everything else into place. there's a lot of forces that got us where we are but that as a sort of overlay suddenly made everything makes sense in a distorted kind of way. so then the question became all right, what can we learn from people who have been through really a good conflict and got into a better place? i followed a handful of people including a politician in california, a former gang leader in chicago and environmental activist i

watergate feels like an appropriate back story, , wee cn get back toy that, but i mean four years ago i just felt like as as a journalist i to do something differently. i felt like it was so easy as a journalist to just make our political conflicts worse, even if youou didn't intend to. some people intend to but most don't, and yet here we were. it just felt like there was something i wasn't understanding about what was going on in the country and that's a problem, right?t? of time with people who studied conflict of all kinds personal, political and the study of conflict as a system for me clicked everything else into place. there's a lot of forces that got us where we are but that as an overlay made everything makes sense in a distorted kind of way then the question became what can we learn from people that have been through these conflicts and have gotten to a better place, so i swallowed a handful of people including a politician in california, a former leader in chicago and environmentalist in england regular frustrated the democrats in new york city and republicans in rural mich

you're just a kid, but i'm old enough to remember the saturday night massacre during watergate when one department officials resigned rather than allow -- rather than follow the orders of richard nixon to fire a special prosecutor who was looking into the watergate break-in and was pursuing subpoenas against the white house. and that ultimately led to the unraveling of richard nixon. richard nixon was a choir boy compared to this. this was an attempt to essentially steal an american election, an election for the presidency using the justice department as a front to do it. it's the most appalling, disturbing thing you can imagine, and the only thing that disturbs me more is that the architect of that is currently the frontrunner for the nomination of his party to run again. imagine if donald trump got this power in his hands again. you know, he was frustrated that he couldn't get justice department officials to heed to his wishes on . i don't think he'd make that mistake again, and that's a very disturbing prospect for this country. >> very disturbing, indeed. carrie, house investigators

drew pearson served as a link between the progressive error and the watergate investigative reporters. his willingness to break secrets and reveal what was really happening behind closed doors ruined countless days for members of congress and drove several precedents to apop lexy. going back to the recent talk about fake news, my own research has sought to determine the accuracy of his exposes for readers at the time and for researchers today. first, they ought to answer the question, how is it that a sad historian comes to write a newspaper column? it contemplated making us a public information office. then it thought twice and decided that every senator was going to be their own public information officer. but it was a 200-year-old institution that operated on precedent. so many. questions that came in were historical questions. when we historians were questioned, we tried to stick to the past and place current events into historical perspective. the media eventually determined that we were a neutral factor institution and they labeled us straight shooters. the one year that i tried

he focuses on the watergate investigation and questions of control over president nixon's secretly recorded2020 is courtesy of due cane university. >> okay. guys, we're ready to start. thanks for your patience and for logging into class again today remotely during this unpleasant

he focuses on the watergate investigation and questions of control over president nixon's secretly recorded

that's what happened in watergate.d to avoid. >> i wonder what the implications are going forward because we don't know of any criminal investigation into what donald trump did behind the scenes with the justice department there. we know there is the house select committee investigation. and there's that phrase, leave it to me and the republican congressman. that seems to implicate these republican congressmen in this scheme to try to overturn the election results. >> i think they were willing participants. the other thing worth remembering about this conversation with the u.s. justice department is that he was doing the same thing in georgia with the georgia officials, saying, say it's corrupt. continue to do the investigation. that is now under investigation criminally in georgia because even if the contacts with the u.s. justice department don't violate any law, it's possible they violate some georgia law. >> top doj officials, jeffrey, said to the president in these notes we've seen, much of the information you're

we talked about how during watergate era there was a proactive press that was investigating fraud and miss doing. and there wasn't part of this for me or event problem. yeah. and so now during this current, russia gate hoax, the, even if there is forthcoming report showing the misdeeds of insiders and law officers there it's already been forgotten and there's no, no press there to report on it anyway. it's already part of the, you know, i think it was garvey doll, referred to america as the united states of amnesia. right? we can't seem to remember 5 minutes. so this is all, this is a lost cause. this is gone jim. it's one possible explanation for it. i don't happen to subscribe to it. i think that it's still very much alive out there. and you can tell the behavior a lot of the, a lot of the actors involved because they slunk off into their burrows and you know, they're not being heard from. and they're keeping very quiet. so i think some things up. right. and finally, you know, in the last minute here as we are about to approach this, our 50th anniversary, the, the most book of these

>> most of the research on polarization roughly on the eighties and the aftermath of watergate and that which brought down the trust level and so many reporters still think that there is this adversarial us versus them and then you find there are media outlets like fox news to not target the whole country that mine chat the time to come back that niche has grown and other outlets have figure that out so a lot of our institutions to incentivize high conflict. they are not a guide we can incentivize them but we have all worked at places a church or synagogue or neighborhood thee culture dealt with conflict differently maybe where people word avoided that doesn't work great usually but also that where conflict is combustible and out-of-control and destructive that it is supposed to be about. and those that have traditions and rituals to make conflict healthier so it is possible to tap into just as we are hired on —- hardwired to avoid conflict most of human history is about good conflict a week would not have gotten to this point. host: you talk about breaking out of the binary with the id

>> it dates back to roughly around the 80s in the aftermath of watergate and other things that brought down the trust level of a lot of our institutions. and also i would say that it boosted the adversarial positions of the news media. many reporters still think they are so there's a kind of adversarial and then of course you find that there were media outlets and things like fox news they could not target the whole country. much of the time to get a niche on the coming back would grow and grow and other media outlets have figured that out and have social media platforms, so we have designed a lot of our institutions to incentivize the high conflict and the important thing about that is we can design the two incentivize good conflict and we see that. we've all worked at places where in a church or synagogue or neighborhood where there were cultures that dealt with conflict differently. maybe some places people avoided it and that's top-down how the leadership deals with it. but also it's very common and other places where conflict is combustible and destructive. it is possible to tap i

when nixon was downed by watergate and was an ex-president the chinese warmly welcomed them and had them come over so that's their tradition. they are very good at doing this, and they also play on that. they play on your friendship to try to get you to do favors for them. it's part of their very stillful diplomacy. >> we have a question right here. >> what subtle differences are you noticing in terms of the approach to foreign policy from the nixon administration to other republican administrations since then? >> how many hours have you got here? that's a huge question. i can't do justice to. i mean, look, what i say is self-serving because i served in this situation but i also served in many other areas, republican and democrats. i'm not saying we didn't make mistakes or did couldn't slersor version then, they weren't human, the strategic approach el has never been replications ever since. you certainly don't need -- when the inherit the -- we had a tense nuclear standoff with a another nuclear standoff and no be in the most. you had to have a grand strategy to get of that in my opinio

i mean we helix has always said, look, we're doing what journalists are supposed to do, you know watergate kind of things. what do you make of the possibility that governments may say, i know there's a simple way to avoid the kind of legal problems that they're having to try and imprison, assigns for a 175 years, make the kind of thing the wiki leaks do illegal per se, a pro. all right, well i mean that is exactly what the is the essence of the incitement against julian space. if you criminalizing journalists and what should be of interest, rather than people in britain back during me at the tradition hearing, we saw an attempt to read the fine or, or define the official secrets act in the same manner. so as to just look, sample is being sucked because that has to be a jewel criminology. it has before the last time somebody, what is alleged? indictment has to be a crime in the u. k. so basically what, what the, what was merging out of the tradition process was a redefinition of the journalistic alignment. and basically yes, publishing and classified information coming from a li is a crime.