embarrassed the u.s. government were in danger there, but i didn t think it was problem for u.s. citizens like me. i was wrong. she was right. on may 3rd, 1972, a dozen cia assets came up from my miami with orders to inca pass tate me totally, and those orders came out of the white house. so they didn t do it because they felt they were being set up as patsies. but that s why i say that this whistle-blower s safety is a problem, is being endangered just as it was then. you have an interesting take based on your own experience about one of the arguments being made against this whistle-blower, that this whistle-blower doesn t have any, quote, firsthand knowledge of the infractions that allegedly took place. is no firsthand knowledge, in your mind and based on your experience, actually a credible argument to make against a whistle-blower? that s an absurd statement. it doesn t have any legal bearing for whistle-blower
i was wrong. she was right. on may 3rd, 1972, a dozen cia assets came up from miami with orders to incap tate me totally. and those orders came out of the white house. so they didn t do it because they felt they were being set up as patsies. but that s why i say that this whistleblower s safety is a problem, is being in danger just as it was then. you have an interesting take about one of the arguments being made about this whistleblower, that they don t have any first-hand knowledge of the infractions that allegedly took place. based on your experience, is that a credible argument to make against a whistleblower? that s an absurd statement. it doesn t have any legal bearing, moral bearing, ethical, anything else. i had a lot of firsthand knowledge in vietnam. i saw that war up close and
a trump presidency it is ink influenced by a stone if philosophy rick perlstein and, nick, i want to start with you you encountered him as a water prosecutor. i did. under what circumstance to be precise, september 26th, 1973 i was investigating an incident that occurred on may 3rd, 1972 on the capitol hill where the white house under charles colson organized an event to try to maim or kill daniel elseburg of the pentagon papers. one said he was instructed by two operatives on the committee to re-elect the president they were to go for daniel elseburg and to maim or kill him and the whole idea was that they brought up the same cuban-americans from
has been so interconnected that it s hard to define what s roger and what s donald. it will be leclearly a trump presidency, i think it s influenced by a stone philosophy. you encountered roger stone as a watergate prosecutor. it was september 26th, 1973. i was investigating an incident that occurred on may 3rd, 1972 on the capitol hill where the white house, under charles colson who is the counsel to the president organized an event to try and name or kill the publisher of the pentagon papers. at least one witness told me he was instructed by two of the operatives from the white house and the committee to reelect the president that they would go for
and yesterday paul manafort who was also in court appeared before the same judge that will preside over the roger stone case, an undesirable reunion of sorts. welcome back nick, you have known or at least been aware of roger stone for quite some time, going back to 1973. i met roger stone in september of 1973 as part of an investigation i was doing on the watergate prosecution. he was a big player in an activity that was carried out by the white house at the time to try and maim or kill daniel ellburg, the individual that released the pentagon papers what they were going to do, he was going to speak on the capital steps on the evening of may 3rd, 1972 when j. edgar hoover s body was lying in state. they brought up the three people who broke into the watergate