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. Im very happy i did have the opportunity. Host whod you know among the earliest recruits . Were some of your friends recruited . Ms. Winebanks yes. Wasirst boss, charles ross, one of my colleagues. He was on the Campaign Contribution team. In terms of the coverup 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 what was the state of the case . Do you remember . Ms. Winebanks there really was not much when we took over, but the hearings had started and john dean was soon to testify, shortly after we were formed, he testified. And his testimony
Them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Very high standard. It is not that they were blameless. Its not that they were innocent. But we say we would rather let 100 guilty go free than convict one innocent man. We are loading it to a high standard. The other thing that lawyers argue, which the public sometimes has trouble with, is procedure. If you need to get that evidence if you did not get that evidence into the courtroom properly, then it cant come in. If you did not share information exculpatory information properly with defense, those are which can violations equally invalidate a verdict. And i am happy to argue both. That is kind of what we are going to go through. One word from last week. Last week was the allure of the white house tapes. I went through a bunch of them with you. Perhaps too fast. What i find fascinating about this because i transcribe them. I worked word for word for hours in tracing what they were saying and the points they were trying to make. Trying to underst
A sledgehammer what i think are the judicial and prosecutorial abuses that categorized the watergate coverup trial. I understand people were convicted. But you need to understand lawyers lawyers dont play fair. , they argue two things. They can argue, look that the , person did not do the crime, the person was not guilty. But usually in a political scandal, the argument is, there was not enough proof to find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Very high standard. It is not that they were blameless. Its not that they were innocent. We say, we would rather let 100 guilty go free than convict one innocent man. Properly, then it cant come in. If you did not share information properly with the defense, those procedural violations can equally invalidate a verdict. I am happy to argue both. So that is kind of what we are going to go through. One word from last week, last week was the allure of the white house tapes. I went through a bunch of them with you. Perhaps too fast. What i find fas
Effective at noon tomorrow. Timothy hi. Im tim naftali. Im director of the Richard Nixon president ial library and museum in california its my honor and privilege to take you on a tour today of our now new watergate gallery. This was a challenge for us. I was asked to produce the gallery. It was one of my responsibilities when i joined the National Archives in 2006. Im a professional historian, but we professional historians write books. We generally dont do museum exhibits. So this is a challenge in public history. In other words, taking information and making it accessible to people who havent had a chance to prep for an exam before they walk into a new gallery. The other big challenge is we inherited the National Archives took over the private Nixon Library. It had been run from 1990 to 2007 by the private nixon foundation. We became responsible and one of the jobs was to make it a nonpartisan institution. We inherited a museum that was produced in the preweb period. So it lacked th
And what the tapes did and did not reveal. This is an hour and a half. Were not talking about current events. And were not really focusing on the chronology of watergate because what im trying to tell you is what went on behind the scenes, the back story, both of developments at the white house itself where i worked and the special prosecutors office, where ive done a tremendous amount of research in finding out what their thinking was and what the documents show. So its an insider ceas view, im the insider. So im responsible for all of the views. Lets take a quick review of the preceding nine presentations. So i can try to convince you this has all made sense. The first week we introduced some people and then we ended with three surprising revelations. There were secret meetings going on between the judges and the prosecutors, a lot of them. And you dont know which is the bigger surprise, that they were meeting in secret or writing memos about their agreements. I have the memos. John