He was driven from office [inaudible] [laughter]. They were getting together in advance to work it out, which youre not supposed to do. Lets remind ourself of who the players were. These were the top six. The folks across the bottom row, gordon lidy, general magruder and john dean, are the ones who committed the crimes. Gordon liddy mastmindded the breakin into the watergate hotel. General magruder was his boss and john dean ran the coverup. In his open words he was the chief desk officer for the coverup. The gentleman at the top or the supervisors, nixons top aides. John mitchell, bob hall haldeman, and John Ehrlichman. They were convicted on all counts but the question has always been in the minds of people who arent shoe we got the true story, whether the folks at the bottom were operating under the direction and control of the folks at the top. Go back a little bit further, ive outlined four of these people in a red box. And theyre outlined because they were present, the only people present, at two key meetings that took place in John Mitchells office, where they discussed gordon lidies intelligence plan. They didnt approve it but they discussed it. They reviewed it. And so you can see how after the breakin arrest where these people are arrested, these four people might believe they were at risk of prosecution because they knew what was started, what was under consideration. It wasnt approved but under consideration. And they reacted in different ways. Gordon liddy told john dean it was my team, my fault. And then he clammed up and wouldnt testify and wouldnt talk and wouldnt take the stand in the trial. General magruder decided that is would be better to lie and start a coverup, and he lied in his grand jury appearances. John dean ran the coverup. He in his own words became chief desk officer. John mitchell got out of town. He resigned as head of the Reelection Committee within ten days of the breakin. Now, we thought it was because of his alcoholic wife, martha, but that wasnt entire he the case. Whats the other two anymore what be been haldeman and John Ehrlichman. And what about the president . In the intervening 40 years since the watergate story broke, its never been shown that they knew about the breakin in advance or had any concept of gordon liddys Campaign Intelligence plan. Why have a reason to cover up . They had a rope to protect the president politically. No problem. But they had no reason to cover up. And what they did, the mistake of the century, they sent their lawyer, john dean, to protect the white house interests, the people hat crep were hopelessly lost but there was going to be a loan of demarcation between the committee, where crazy things might happen and the white house itself, and john deans job was to see to that. But dean was at risk of prosecution himself so he cast his lot with the people at the committee to reelect. And he engaged criminal conduct over and above just obstruction of justice. He rehearsed general ma god jeb ma godder for his purr erred testimony before two grand juries. He learned and then passed along to defense counsel the prosecutions analysis and concept of where they were going; which is totally improper. He destroyed evidence taken from howard hunts safe, and the only person in watergate who embezzledman. John dean embezzled Campaign Funds. He took 4,000 of Campaign Funds to fund his honeymoon. So, then you you have this coverup, and the coverup collapses. Were not really good at breaking the law. But the coverup changeses and john deans running it so he knows and he is the first to run to the prosecutors. And he says, i can give you a ma godder and mitchell. And the career prosecutors, the first team says, we got them. We dont need you. And he discusses it with his lawyer, and he does two things. One, he takes documents that he possessed as the president s lawyer, having nothing to do with watergate, and shared them with the prosecutors as kind of a down payment on his immunity. They wouldnt give him immunity, but he took what we could say were the family secrets, the things we didnt want to have out, and gave them to the prosecutors to try to buy immunity. That didnt work. If you look at his book theres a moment in his book where his lawyer the book will by john dean. His lawyer says they think youre guilty. Youre in real trouble. You better Start Talking coverup. To make yourself an invaluable witness. And he says, a couple paragraphs later, really like this coverup idea. And well, theres no direct proof that he was operating under direction and control of haldeman and ehrlichman, he was the only path. So you have this key government witness who changes his story in the hands of the prosecutors during the course of the interviews learning goes from the guys who did the crimes to accusing his superiors. You may not all be lawyers, and i feel badly for you actually feel good for you. One of the absolute requirements of the prosecution is if a witness changes his testimony in the course of talking to you, you must disclose that to the defense counsel, and they didnt do it. And the book will good into it in great detail, the documentation of his change of story, which they hid. So, those are the players. The watergate coverup failed, and people ran for cover and there were resignations, and two people moved to the fore and theyre in the next slide, and you may not be able to tell but on your left is itol richardson, name attorney general, and Archibald Cox, aspiranted prosecutor just for watergate. Elliott richardson is name as attorney general because he is not involved at all in watergate. He should be easily confirmed. But turns out he was a very poor choice. He dreamed some day of running for president himself. And he wanted nothing to do with watergate because to make a decision was to get involved in a controversy that could inhibit his own political dreams. So he didnt want to be a attorney general. Nixon elliott didnt want to be there. So he became what i would describe as the upon upon shoest of waterget. The turned it over to Archibald Cox, and he was senator kennedys choice to be special prosecutor, and theres a reason why, as it develops. Archibald cox was the triple crown winner of the kennedy political dynasty. Hed been a staff aide to jack kennedy since 1953. He toured women if on the 1960 president ial campaign. He ran the academic brain trust for president kennedy, and in the kennedy administration, he was named solicitor general at the department of justice. That the number three position. And make no mistake, he was a superb attorney general, but he was from the previous administration. And even when that was over, he was working with senator ted kennedy and helping to staff the senator on his opposition to president nixons Supreme Court appointment. And so what you have is the very heart of the opposition becoming head of the group that is going to investigate the presidency, and elliott did two other things. He not only gave full and unreviewed independence to the special prosecutor, but that included the power to investigate both sides. So you have this juxtaposition of them being able to investigate us, but us the duly elected administration had no power to investigate them. And they announced at their First Press Conference they had the intend of investigating every single allegation ever made against the nixon administration. So, this was not a happy development, and it got worse. I know you cant read this chart but i love it. Its reproduced in the back of the book but not glorious color. This is the kennedyjohnson department of justice, and all you need to understand is there are 17 names in red because they joined the special Prosecutors Office. You see, they only hired their friends, and by some fluke their friends all turned out to be partisan democrats who had worked in the previous administration. So, the top 17 lawyers in this supposedly independent and nonpartisan investigation, had all worked together before. Now, a couple of them were nominal republicans, and the press made a huge thing about this but they were safe republicans. They already knew them. They already worked with them. And what you have, if youre cynical and i have become somewhat cynical you have the previous Administrations Department of justice having used prosecutorial power against you and you cant investigate them, and they these were very good lawyers. Dont misunderstand. Im not criticizing their ability. Im criticizing theyre objectivity. So, here in the next picture, this is a group shot of the special Prosecutors Office on the courthouse steps. Its a big group. It grew to be 100 people. Okay . Now, only 60 count are turnover were lawyers, but this doesnt count the irs and the fbi investigators they could harness. We cant harness them because theyve got the investigatory responsibility. I would submit to you that no institution, no business, no charity, certainly no white house, could withstand a determined inquiry by their opponents without budget or time constraints. This is if youll forgive the analogy, this is like having 100 mothersinlaw who dont like you and theyre going through everything you have. They want your old love letters think want your bank accounts, they want everything that you have. And you have no place to hide no way to defend yourself. So, as you might imagine, i get some letters at this point. [inaudible] i have to duck soon. I didnt drop the microphone. So as you might imagine, the white house screamed foul. Ron ziegler, the president s press secretary, said heres zealots, people out to get us, and so what the special prosecutor decided to do was to write a public letter back to ziegler saying this is bad form. You shouldnt attack us, were just honest, forthright citizens, and ill read you the key paragraph in the letter, signed by leon joe war ski, the new special prosecutor would replaced are which bald cox. He said i had been for warrenned that there were those in the special Prosecutors Office who were zealots, determined to achieve their own end regardless of truth. Im not prepared to assure you after a month of Close Association with the staff this suspicion is totally unfounded. Ive worked daily with my principle subordinates, reviewing da to they aseptember bed. Recommendations to consider and action to be taken in my experience at the bar, i found no group who has a whole or more objective and fairminded and more dedicated to a search for truth than this Unusual Group of talented lawyers. Should any of should i find any among them who do not meet these qualifications of fairness and objectivity, i would not hesitate to dismiss them. We call this praise. This is high praise. For a group of talented people. But turns out Leon Jaworski didnt draft this letter. He had only been there a month. This was drafted for him by in the staff, and it turns out to be kind of a litmus test. Buddy, youre new, are you with us or with the opponents . We tried to do that to bill when he took over the foundation, but he wouldnt play. So this is the the public is assured, this is all on the up and up. Okay . Now, we ask yourselves, what did Leon Jaworski really think about this staff that was aseptember bedly Archibald Cox and other harvard law professors. What did he really think . I happened to find a document in the files that helps us. This is the end of an exchange of four letters between Leon Jaworski and his deputy, hank ruth, and im only taking one paragraph out of it but its key. This is how he concludes the memo. Now, let me address myself to the general tenor of your me. Dumb which reflects an attitude, ive discussed with you before, the subjective conviction that the president must be reached at all costs. Now, its not in italics in the memo. Iwasnt topped be sure you didnt miss the phrase. Also reflected in your letters to the president s defense lawyer. He stated nothing that you should not expect in all fairness. What is of some concern to me are the discussions, plans and understandings had and reached between Staff Members prior to any discussion with me. This results in convictions being formed, and frankly, under these circumstances, the meetings are or no use to me. Its not even worth it for me to meet with the staff because you have had premeet examination have gotten together to decide what youre going to tell me. Im not getting opinions. Im getting conclusions that are all uniform. The fact remains we must be alert not to give support to whews charges leveled against the staff. Perhaps it ties late to get objective opinions from others. So ill do the best i can making the decisions for which i, not the staff, will be held responsible. Now, you couldnt find a clearer denunsation of the denunsation of the lack of objectivity of his staff. Im not making this stuff up. This is his own memo. This is a memo he took with him when he left so he public is told, reel assured, and the media jumps on, this is totally objective, all theyre after is a search for the truth, when their own leader confirms, i think the most dramatic language i couldnt have drafted better language of what is really going on. It is a bunch of zealots, they are tout get the president , and his top aides. So, what did they do . This is just the veneer on the top of what is going on. Well, there was Something Else going on behind the curtain, and i tried to el illustrate this in the slide. This is the trial judge, and he says his secret meetings ex parte thats the latin way to say secret meetings and these are six of the people he met with before and during the course of watergate trials. Three of them, all special prosecutors. The other three are interested parties with interests adverse to the mixon administration. On your left is sam dash, chief counsel or the irwin committee, not supposed to be meeting with the judge. On your upper right, is edward ben net williams, public enemy number one for the nixon white house. He is counsel to the Democratic National committee that is suing them for the breakin, and counsel to the Washington Post whose articles are ripping them from side to side, but he happens to be a close friend of judge sir rick. Now, theyll tell you if they come out to fight, theyll tell you that the judge was appointed by president eisenhower so he is a republican. Thaw woken tellout that william was his meant moore and were god parents to the judges daughter or that sirica was to close to him he wouldnt allow williams to argue cases in front of him as judge because they were so tight, but he can meet with he judge secretly to work out problems, and the final, clark, an Investigative Reporter before bod woodward and carl bernstein, and he is an interesting case. He convinced president nixon that what the Incoming Administration needed was an ombudsman. An Investigative Reporter who could smell out scandal before it blew up in their face, and white not someone who didnt like him, who could be there and warn him. And nixon hired him. And he became special counsel to the president. But then president nixon tired of him because clark had so many opinions on so many things that didnt have anything to do with the topics, and he about to frozen out and he didnt get to see the president as often as clark thought he should. And he blamed John Ehrlichman and bob haldeman for cut offering his access, and he leaves in a huff ten months later. Goes back to reporting and becomes the fiercest critic of the nixon white house. He happened to be a close friend of judge sirica. So if water gate starts to up wind, this man with the color of inside information, goes and meeting with siric a toll him how he thought things had come down. This is classic violation of due process. If you happen to find yourself in court and you happen to be accused of some crime, you accuser has to come into court and face you under oath. They dont get to whisper in the judges ear on the side. That is kind of what the six amendment says. Thats what not what clark did. He met with the judge on the side to convince him to do certain things. 0 the book details all of these secret meetings. Then we say, okay, the fix was in. What did they do to president nixon and what did they do to his top aides . You have to remember, president nixon never came to trial so they have to be divided in how you happen them. Heres what how you handle them. Heres what the documents show they did to president nixon, remember in jaworskis memo he says this effort to reach nixon at awful costs. At all costs. The prosecutors secretly assured the court and the congress that nixon had personally ordered payment of howard hunts blackmail demands. They secretly assured the grand jurors, and the grand juries promptly named nixon in their indictment as a coconspirator. They secretly assured the staff of the House Judiciary Committee and promptly recommended that nixon be impeached. Now, we didnt know they were saying this because they did it in secret. So, we couldnt rebut it. And you only learn about it if you go into the documents and you see the documents and you see what they were prepared to say to the grand jury and what they did say to the House Judiciary Committee staff. The difficulty is that in fact president nixon did no such thing. And when these people went to prove it remember, nixon is not on trial in the coverup trial. He has already resigned. But this was their only effort to get him so they south d sought to prove this theory free coverup trial, and as you get into the book, it documents how their own witnesses wouldnt go that way. And the words out of their own witnesses mouths unproved this allegation. But we didnt know about the allegation. You didnt know about the allegation, because it was rendered in secret, so they traipsed off, had run him out of office and were none the wiser. Thats what they did to the president. What did they do to the staff . The president s resigned. The trial starts in october after the august resignation. This weekend is the anniversary of the resignation. The coverup trial starts in october. But the prosecutors know they need convictions because if somebody by some fluke gets acquitted, then there will be questions about what was going on, but if they can say, no, everybody was convicted, and these guys were convicted on all counts, then it stops criticism. It certainly boggled me up until a couple of years ago. So heres what they did to the staff. First, youll like the phrases the fix was in. Prosecutors met in secret with the jump to work out issues and procedures in advance of trial. Absolute nono. If any chance hint of this had come out the judge would have been off the case so fast it would make your head spin. It if it came out shortly theyre were convicted the conviction may have been thrown it. There may have been another trial but the convictions were thrown out. The dice were loaded. Any trial lawyer will tell you that a jury trial is a roll of the dice youch dont know what the injure might do. But this jury had loaded dice. It was both tainted by the massive pretrial publicity on watergate, and it was politically biased. This is the District Of Columbia, a very unique jurisdiction. The voter pool, the registered voters, which is where the jury pool is drawn from, kindly returns 80 democratic majorities in office. You cant take a group from there in a prominent republican case and expect a fair trial. But thats what they did. They fought and agreed with the judge how to do that. And finally the deck was stacked. This borders on inincredulity. The head prosecutor met with the chief judge of the Appellate Panel and explained how to stack the deck on the appeal so that liberal control would be maintained. You must understand that the judge was the most reversed judge in the d. C. Circuit before watergate and was reversed because he didnt seem to Pay Attention to defendants rights. Archibald cox became concerned that sirica would blow it at trial because he was so iger to assure a conviction. Archibald cox was right. So he went to the Appellate Court and said you need to maintain liberal control on the appeals. You have to read the book to see how that was done but that nothing short of incredible. Nothing short the corruption, the collusion, wasnt just at trial. It went to the Appellate Courts. What do we know . This where is we started. Much of what you have been told about water greatis untrue. President nixan was driven from office by false represents by prosecutors who colluded with both trial and appellate judge, john hadman, john mitchell, ehrlichman did not get a fair trial. The deck was stacked. So what . You know, its 40 years so they cheated. This is hillarys question on benghazi. What difference at this point does it make . Well, will tell you what difference it makes. They cheated, got redhanded and there has to be consequences and that is what the book starts. There have to be consequences because those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And this applies to liberals and conservatives alike, because if it was done to republicans in a tim of intense political conflict, if our bill of rights could not withstand political pressure, it could be done to democrats next time out. If the rules dont apply to some, then they dont apply to all. The theory of a fair trial most americans will tell you that even the most dispose dispeaced criminal deserves a fair trial. We try them and hang them but they get a fair trial, and these people were consistently denied a fair trial. So, what do wand . We want the comfortup verdict to be vacated. Theyre hopelessly tainted and it shouldnt be that hard, not after my book has come out. The second thing we want at the truth. Let get the truth out about watergate. I went to whittier college, fbi i together and hubert, 30 years apart. If you go in the Main Administration building theres a quote carved into the mantle. Thrilled within thy heart of youth, what and where is truth . That what were asking for, the truth about watergate. Now, harvard also, their slogan is truth. Being harvard, its put in latin. But we should join together in the search of truth. Theres documents still to come out. The irvinityee and he House Judiciary Committee sealed all reports. Its what you do in an investigation you. Because you dont want to ruin reputations of innocent people. So they seal the records for 50 years. Well, im not going to be around when these things get unsealed, and wed like them unsealed now so people who know what theyre doing can look through and see was the special prosecutor really giving grand jury information to the House Judiciary Committee . What the special prosecutor feeding can hes to the committee . We deserve to know that. Secondly, perhaps more importantly, we need a judicial investigation. Its the reputation of the d. C. Courts that so besmirched. John sirica is a disgrace to federal judiciary. The book documents corruption and collusion wince are within thecourt. Thecourt should be asked to investigate and clean up it own mess. There are people still around who were involved in those expart day meetings. They should be called to account under oath. Now when ted stephens was falsely convicted, the lead witness changed his testimony in the course of the hands of the prosecutors. The fbi after he was convicted the fbi blew the whistle. The court looked into it and the Court Appointed its own special investigator, and he issued a 300 page report just rip the department of justice apart for the way they cheated in convicting ted stephens. They cant give him back his senate seat. We cant give president nixon back his presidency. But the court should be called upon to launch this investigation. And finally, the grand jury transcriptions. The grand jury transcripts are sealed forever but there are exceptions for historic purposes. And if you look back and i have julius and Ethel Rosenbergs testimony was unsealed. Algier his s testimony was unsealed by oater of the court. Richard nixons grand jury testimony was unsealed for historic purposes by order of the court. The court should unseal the watergate grand jury testimony. [applause] we should learn. I tell you the documents suggest what they said but what they said it on record. Its at the national archives. I cant get too it but the court can unseal. How did they convince the grand jury to name nixon as a cocon pier for . Theres a new articles from one grand juror saying they took a straw vote. Arent supposed to have straw votes. Same juror told the newspaper, a prosecutor was in room when they took the vote. You cant do that. Theres a lot of grand jury abuse that covered up because it stays sealed forever. Lets unseal the grand jury transcript and see what they did to our president and to our people. Finally and i warned me close friend, america owes Richard Nixon an apology. Applause. Im willing i was in there. Theyll way sale youre just a mix job apologist, but thats not true. Its nixon who should be apologized to. Im willing to debate anywhere, anytime, the stuff that is in my book. Lets see if somebody wants to come out and defend the indefensible. So, thats where we are. What should you do . Well, id like you read the book. Be nice if you bought it but you can borrow and it read the book. Dont just put it on the shelf. Theres all kinds of things in that book, and you can go on my web site, which is shown up here, jeff Geoff Shepard dome dome, and theres otheres i says about water gate and news about the book and i discovered additional information, and ill post it on my web site. Discuss this with your friend, dont let this good away. Tell your kids. Its not hard to understand what ive put in that book. If you know any lawyers theres lots of us around ask them about what ive disclosed. I dont think youll find even liberal lawyers coming out and saying, harmless error, dont worry him was guilty anyway. That is not our system. Our system is, come into court, prove your case we have rule of evidence, right of crossexamination. Let go see. When day tried it they couldnt do it. You have been very kind. I appreciate your coming. I thank you. I think i have time for questions before we go to sign books. [applause] we have our first question on the center left. Thank you very much. Enlightening lecture. Im a member of the media and also a volunteer dough docent here at the nixon library. I want to know what your thoughts are on the special prosecutor law that was disposed of in 1999 after the clinton follies and i want to know what you think about it being an answer to some of these really tough questions that we have, legal questions, with respect to corruption in government. I have three thoughts which arent necessarily consistent. Lawyers answer in thirds of the special prosecutor law, which was enacted as a watergate reform after nixon. Nixons was a special prosecutor. This is the independent prosecutor law. It was great fun when used against republicans. But when it was used against president clinton, under ken starr, turned out not be so much fun it was quietly allowed to expirement you dont have one today. I happen to think its unconstitutional. It is a gift of the prosecutorial power, and article 2 says the president is responsible that the laws be faithfully executed. And it doesnt have an asterisk that says except for criminal investigations of his administration. There is a right to impeach. The Supreme Court has ruled the other way. Theres this delightful indicate call morrison v. Oldson, ted olson, our solicitor general, and there was a special an independent prosecutor appointed, and ted said, unconstitutional. You cant ask me questions. And the Circuit Court its going to take a minute so keep well get to you the Circuit Court said, youre right, its an unconstitutional delegation. Brilliant opinion. And it was appealed to the Supreme Court and they ruled 71 against. And bill rhenquist, my bill rhenquist, wrote the opinion, and he said its not much of an intrusion into the president s powers. I happen to run into justice scalia, i worked with him when i was on the white house staff. Shortly after that decision. And i went up to him and i said, not entirely tongue in cheek, im really disappointed in the decision. And he said, i dissented, geoff. And i said, yes, but we didnt put you on the court for your vote alone, we put you on the court because you were supposed to influence other justices. He was not amused. He sat down. But in an interview, not five years ago, he was asked about what case in his interview career on the Supreme Court was he most disappointed in, and he said its the very obscure case called morrison v. Olson because it was so wrong i decided. If think if the court had known what is in my book, what is in the real watergate scandal, the decision would not have come down the way it did. So, i would love to have a special an independent prosecutor investigate democrats. Any democrat. You know. [applause] but its no fair imagine what we would uncover. Its really its unconstitutional. It shouldnt be done you could appoint a dedicated prosecutor under the rules of the department of justice, not one, with total and unreviewed independence. That was the key to the special prosecutor that did us in, and to the independent prosecutor statute. The attorney general could say, im too close to do a fair investigation. Im going to bring somebody in. But he still going to report within the department of justice. So i think i answered your question for you. Over here. Thanks, geoff. A great book, great lecture here. You have high praise for earl silver. I do. I have a question comes from that particular angle. Let assume that all of the prosecutors were earl silver quality, earl silverth that quality late assume all the judges up and up to were silver quality. Lets assume that house you dish Area Committee was earl silver quality ask there was no resignation no pardon. What charges, if anything, against president nixon would have gotten there impeachment and possible conviction, indictment, possibly conviction, against, assuming an earl silver quality situation . Well, early silver is the principle assistant u. S. Attorney in the District Of Columbia. He is a career prosecutor. Graduated harvard law school. Longterm employee of the department of justice and over trying cases. Prosecutor. He and his team did the original investigation of the watergate breakin, and they broke the coverup. And they got promptly fired in lieu of the special prosecutor, who was brought in by the democrats. So their reward for breaking the coverup and these are good prosecutors, and they followed the case right down the line, and i count earl as a close friend. One of the very few Unsung Heroes of watergate. Well, what if everybody had been objective, what if there were no poll ticks . Well good, luck. What if there were no politics in your family or in your company . Here human beings. We politics is part of the d. What if with got a fair trial. I could go there. And the answer and we died them you asked about nixon, i want to talk about those convicted in an actual trial. A fair trial would have been held outside of the District Of Columbia. You would move it to richmond or baltimore, and youd get a fairer trial. Get a different makeup of the jury. You would not have judge sirica. And you have to understand the District Of Columbia is this diamond ten miles on the side. Youre know place in the district where you cant walk five miles and across the state line but you also cross into the fourth Circuit Court of appeals which was a much more conservative court of appeals so you would have gotten a fair judge, you would have got fairway shot at appeal. Now, it comes down to john deans word against these other guys. And of course the defense would have learned he changed his testimony. I dont know if under those basis whether they would have all been convicted on all couples or whether one or more of them would have been acquitted. This is like a sports game where somebody cheated. You dont say, well, we are raleigh evident the record book because we think the would have won anyway. You drove it out because once cheating has been shown, thats it you dont inquire further. Its the same thing with the courts there would have been retrials but theyre dead. The only response is those verdicts have to be vacated. Now, quickly to the president nixon. Number you get down to the tapes, and i didnt talk about the tapes because you can get lost in tapes itch transcribed a whole lot of the tapes. Theyre ambiguous. If you will forgive the analogy, and im careful about using this theyre like the bible. You can take something out of the bible and prove whatever you want to prove. Watergate was a serious problem, and it grows, and there are discussions on the tapes. Theres clearly an effort to protect themselves politically. At what point does fighting to protect yourself politically slop over into construction of justice. If you go in the book, obstruction of justice is a thought crime, personalry is a thought crime. Conspiracy is a thought crime. Whats a thought crime . It wires the jury to get inside your mind to find guilt. If the injure doesnt happen to like you, that becomes pretty easy. But its almost almost impossible to defend yourself against those charges inned a adverse jury group. So take president nixon. He doesnt control the house. Both the house and the senate are about twothirds democratic, but lots of the people in the house are southern democrats and theyre conservative and happen to be Committee Chairman so he has fair shot. Jerry, who wrote one of the early books holiday without honor in the crimes of camelot and the impeachment of Richard Nixon, maintains if manny zellers, renowned congressman from new york, this never would have gotten off the ground. There was a very close question on whether they were really going to recommend impeachment. Even under the circumstances. I maintain and its not the time to go into it but i maintain theres nothing on the tapes that is up ambiguous that shows nixon knew. I dont like to cite john deans book, but it came out last year, and he says, look, theres hints but nixon didnt understand the problem until i went in on march 21st and told him what was going on. And even when he first approached the prosecutors, dean comes in and says, tried to tell him on march 21st and he didnt get it. So i think you could make a strong case that nixons he is trying to figure stuff out, and other stuff he doesnt want to figure out. He is running the country. But i dont think he knew what was going on until he was told about the blackmail, and then i believe his answer to the blackmail dish think its in the tapes other people read the words differently but he says the way to beat hunt is us to disclose this first, then he cant blackmail me. And he tells this staff that very evening, youre going in front of the committee and im not going to claim executive privilege. Now, if that had happened, if john dean had not run off and switched sides, watergate wouldnt have been an issue. Beyond that we dont know. We cant replay the sport. I think you talk about reasonable doubt, which is the hallmark of our system. There will acres of reasonable doubt. Impeachment is a political effort. Would they really have voted to impeach nixon and would the senate really have convicted him . I dont think so. The two major problems remember, they were all against him, the press was against him. His ability to govern was the Public Opinion polls were down but he was named a coconspirator because the special prosecutor misrepresented to the grand jury, and the staff recommended impeachment because the special prosecutor misrepresented to the staff. Let me finish with one thing and then well i worry about this. I fight myself all night long on this theyve said nixon had personally approved the payment of the blackmail. Nixon knew he had not. If he had known that was the accusation, nixon was no quitter. If he had known that was the accusation, never would have quit. He would have stayed and fought that because the knew it wasnt true. I have to stop and go over here. We have time for two more questions. The first is from this gentleman here. What does it take for a court to unseal those documents that you referred to earlier . Funny that you should ask. Its in the book. The answer is in the book. So just read the book. There is a writ, an ancient anglosaxon writ, an appeal to the court, called coru mu subnobu hsu, roughly writ of error, and the deft or the defendants descendents can come into the court where they were convicted and say new evidence. Were not rearguing the case. We could not have discovered this evidence by Due Diligence at the time but this new evidence changes everything. The errors could come the heirs could come no and do that. I deliberately did not discuss that with them. Theyre read the book for in the first time just like you are. I dont know what their reaction is going to be. Theyve suffered a huge amount already. Be expensive, time consuming, anxietyfilling to come do this. But if i were to do it, if i were one of the descend accidents and know what i know descendents and know what i know i would file the petition and say to the court you investigate. This is your problem. You can get all this information that i cant get. You can put people under oath and i cant do that. If i could convince the court, then id be okay and the court could direct the department of justice. So thats the first step is you could the descendents could file the writ. Its the same thing on an investigation. That would be, theyre the only ones with standing to come into court to ask for an investigation. You asked about the unsealing of the grand jury testimony. When they sought to unseal president nixons i intervened and said this is unfair. You should never do this. The one thing the president new this is after he left office they went and questioned him for two days. I said he was sick, he lost the presidency, the only thing he knew under this questioning was it would stay sealed forever, and you just cant do that to the man. Besides i think it was a perjury trap. Perjury trap where is the prosecutor knows they cant charge you for the offense, statute of limitations, the main witness is dead. So, they try to get you to commit a new offense that they can prosecute. And it was candidate of a delicious concept. Nixon had been pardoned. They could go ask him in the grand jury to testify about the events, and he could do one of two things. He could sell out his friends or he could commit perjury and theyd have him. President ford did not pardon him for the future. So i entered and filed petitions to no avail. The court ruled against me and released the president s testimony, and we were here, ready to read it, ready to react, and theres nothing there turns out it was a spoof. Well in the course of my fighting, i amended my petition say, okay, turnbe is fair play. Arrest lee lease the grand jury stuff on how he was name as coconspirator, and that is presently before the courts. So, well see. Im i think of myself as a watergate scholar. Im not a litigating attorney. Im also not in a position to mount a fullscale attack on this, but you dont have to. You go in the book will be a huge help, and well see what the court does. Well see. Time for one more question . There you are. Right here. Sure. Thank you for coming out. Twopart question. John dean responded to your book and, number two, was judge sirica ever admonished or disciplined for his conduct on the bench following watergate . What a delicious question. John dean and i are not close. [laughter] john did this on my earlier book. He says i havent had a chance to read it but shepard is no go. Just a kid. I would be happy to meet with john anywhere, but he hasnt read the book, i can promise you. Dont know if he will. I wouldnt if i were john. Hes written his best shot courage in the can use called the nixons defense and its john deans defense. I wrote a critique about it on my web site. I dont know what john will write. Im eager to hear. I want to get off into the weeds and talk about this stuff. The second question was sirica. Was sirica disciplined . Well, no. He was named time magazines man of the year. He is a watergate hero. He was given honorary degrees. So was archie cox and elliott richardson. They are heroes of watergate. Now, wellll see. There was a vicious article by atler, a very liberal, great writer, and he wrote other book about the last days the new yorker and put a sentence in about judge sirica that was not pleasing. She said was corrupt, tool of organized supreme no good and there was a reaction from organized crime and there no good, and there is a reaction from the other side she was carpet bombed by in the New York Times for saying this. So, she licked her wounds and then she published an article in the magazine, thats reproduced later in a book called canaries in the mine shaft pie that just takes sirica apart and goes through all the stuff and what a terrible judge he was ask all this terrible record, and i was trying to find her. She is something of a recluse and i cant get her address but i want to send her my book for free. For free. Because it will confirm her worst thoughts about this judge. I dont think judge sir rick coulds reputation can survive this book. This is a direct frontal attack on a judge who is a disgrace to the federal judiciary. And i think thats where the battles are going to be fought. That and with the special prosecutor. Thank you again for coming. This has been really pleasant. Thank you. [applause] geoff will be available in the book store. In the lobby to sign your book. Few. Please check back for future events on the web site. Thank you. Every on monday, as the Supreme Court start the new tomorrow, cspan debut its new series, landmark cases, historic Supreme Court decisions. We take a look at the real story behind the famous pa mar berry versus madison case. John marshall established that the court as the. Translator pretor of the constitution the interpreter of the constitution. Marbury and madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. Joining the discussion, Yale Law School professor and author, and author cliff sloan. Landmark cases, exploring 12 historic Supreme Court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people who their plaintiffs, lawyers and justices in the cases. It premieres live this monday at 9 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan, cspan3, and cspan radio. And for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of landmark cases companion book. Its available for 8. 95 plus shipping at cspan. Org landmark cases. Booktv covers run of author programs through the country all year long, and heres a look splat of the events well by taken can this week now on booktv from last Months National book festival in washington, dc, elizabeth seven fenn sundays her book about the history of the man dna people. Im pleased to introduce to you today elizabeth fenn, author of encounters at the heart of the world which won the Pulitzer Prize for history in 2015. As americans living in a very modern era, and what is still a young country, we dont often think about the fact that we are resting upon centuries of other human cultures and civilizations. In her history of the mandan people, fenn brings to life the culture and challenges faced by this Indian Nation that made its home along the Missouri River in north dakota, from 1100 to 1845. It was called an engrossing original narrative showing the mandans as a people with a history. Hurt 2,001 book, the great smallpox ike smallpox epidemic 1775 on earth to the devastating effects of a smallpox epidemic that coursed across the American Continent during the years of the american revolution. She revolution. She is now at work on an extensive biography of sacajawea, using her life story to eliminate the wider history of the Northern Plains and rockies. Fenn is also the author of native and newcomer, the way we lived in North Carolina before 1770, aa Popular History of early North Carolina which appeared in 1983. And with no further ado, i would like to welcome elizabeth fenn. [applause] well,well, thank you all for coming today. It is a privilege to share this most american of stories with you. Some of you may feel a little bit disconcerted as you look at the title of my book because you are not quite sure who the man the indians are. You know, mandan doesnt have that familiar ring of cherokee or comanche or seminole, but i want to put you at ease because, in fact, you do know about the mandan. The reason you know about them is because the explorers lewis and clark spent the winter of 1804 and 1805 among them on the outbound portion of there famished wants to have transcontinental journey. So they lived on the Missouri River in the middle of what we now know as north dakota and continued to live there to the present day. The mandan and their ancestors had made their homes at what they called the heart of the world, the confluence of the Missouri River since around the year 1300. The mandan occupied a distinctive eclogue ecological niche. They grew corn and tremendous quantities despite living beyond the hundredth meridian, the widely accepted western boundary of non irrigated agriculture. Now, the mandan also harvested meet, especially bison to complement the grain and the vegetable yield of their gardens. In the summer my slides have jumped way ahead, havent they . In the summer they hunted on the planes that extended in all directions around them. In the winter they hunted for bison and the river bottoms where the animals took shelter from the cold and the wind. And then in the spring, the mandan harvested delectable float bison, these seasoned, drowned animals that drifted by their towns when the ice broke up. Now the village is also villagers also acquired bison products by training with itinerant visitors to the town. You might not think that the reliance on agriculture and orlando sparse rain, intense rain, intense cold, short growing season, you might think this is a tenuous choice. But when hard ship is threatened, the villagers are more precisely those women had a backup plan. They turned to vast underground caches of dried corn, beans, squash, sunflower seeds