tv The Presidency Watergate Judicial Prosecutorial Conduct CSPAN May 20, 2019 12:00am-1:26am EDT
memorial day, 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. watch online anytime at c-span.org and listen on the free c-span radio app. this august will be 45 years since president nixon resigned his office. next on the presidency, principal deputy to the president's lead defense lawyer makes the case for what he says was judicial and prosecutorial abuse in the watergate scandal that ended president -- and it's presidency. -- ended nixon's presidency. in his white house role he helped transcribe the watergate tapes. this is about 90 minutes. going to talk about today, we are going to hit think sledgehammer what i are the judicial and prosecutorial abuses that characterized the watergate
cover-up trial. i understand people were convicted. but you need to understand lawyers don't play fair, they argue two things. they can argue the person didn't do the crime, the person isn't guilty. politicaly in a scandal, the argument is, there wasn't enough proof to find them guilty without -- guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. very high standard. it is not that they were blameless. it's not that they were innocent. we say we would rather let 100 guilty go free than convict one innocent man. we are loading it to a very high standard. things that are -- that lawyers argue is procedure. that evidenceget into the court room properly, then it can't come in. exculpatoryt share
information properly with the defense, those are procedural violations, which can equally .nvalidate a verdict - i am happy to argue both. that is what we are going to go through. one word from last week, last week was the allure of the white house tapes. what i went -- what i find fascinating -- i transcribed them. i worked word for word for hours, tracing the points they were trying to make. her i give you that example of nixon -- i give you that example of nixon telling john mitchell stonewall to plead the fifth. he says stay the plan. i said, that is not what he is saying. he is sending his best friend out to walk the plank. he is making him go in front of a grand jury without claim of
executive privilege. way, toying, in his own say, "i don't care what you say when you go, but you have to go." he says, "i don't care if they by day, he means john mitchell -- "if they can cover it up." if properly understood, it would have been a very noble speech. it is followed by the paragraph that says i would rather the truth come out because it will be worse by leaks. it would be better if everybody tells the truth. but it is totally misunderstood mis -- transcribed mis-transcribed to say the opposite. he calls his staff together on
the long march and says goodbye. his family is up there. i was almost those that misunderstood the smoking gun. i thought he made his family come stand there with him. i thought it was terribly cruel. it turns out they demanded to be there with him. they were there with him to the end. he tries to explain to the staff that if you hit your enemies, -- hate your enemies, they win. you just can't do that. said, what a crazy thing to say. this is his quaker upbringing. this is what his mother taught him. he means it. he really means if if you're you hate your consumed by enemies, if you're consumed by a hate yourumed by -- enemies, if you're consumed by hatred, you lose. you should be able to rise above that. i don't think he hit this out of the park, either. 18 referenceseast
to alger hist. people don't understand what he is saying. he is saying hist perjured himself under of. that is why he was in such trouble. the statute had run. but where i nailed him was perjury. i submit to you that if anybody had asked nixon, it shows up on tapes, should we go down and lie to try to cover this up? he would say no. why would you do that? they aren't willing to give derek the benefit of the doubt. dick the benefit of the doubt. they think the reference is a man on man combat between two gladiators. that is enough for the tape. we will talk about special prosecutors.
we will go back to our good fan. a very liberal journalist who is on the house impeachment staff. and then she went to law school -- she wrote a bunch of stuff. her this is her comment on special prosecutors. "true conservative said from the first -- had always been a constitutional abomination. if nixon had not been in such dire straits, he would never have permitted such an office. the press loves special prosecutors. they can generate stories for each other. that something did not happen is not a story. that something does not matter is not a story. that an anecdote or accusation is unfounded is not a story. commonality ofr
interests. leaks, anonymous sources, informers, rumormongers appears to offer stories. the journalists exchange an attractive portrayal for a story. there we are. the reporter and the special as often theot genuine prosecutor, are in each other's pockets. i have been trying to quote from liberal people. it is not the bitter friends of jeff sheppard. it is liberals at the time, or shortly thereafter, who are complaining about how this was handled. the next one gets better. there is this guy, the legal commentator named richard harris. he wrote for the new yorker. he is a legal commentator. in june of 1974, that is after the indictment before nixon's resignation and the cover-up trial.
we know there will be a trial but it has not occurred. he says the only way to punish corruption in the administration is to bring them to justice. it was also essential that the prosecution the conducted fairly. that has not been done. practicesany illegal employed by the prosecutors to reestablish the privacy of the law in this nation appear at this stage to have perilously subverted it. history may conclude that those guilty of crimes in the watergate affair were brought to justice did more lasting damage to the highest purpose of american law than the crimes themselves. there are two more on this. harry's -- harris i like. the use of generally discredited and unenforced laws, in order to
get someone who was probably or even certainly -- has probably or even certain the broken other laws, but could not be prosecuted for those crimes, the use of grandeur is to protect the innocent investigated into the prosecution rather than accusatory bodies. the use of plea bargaining in which a prosecutor arbors a -- prosecutor offers a defendant a lesser charge in exchange for either a guilty plea or information about crimes committed by others. the use of partial or total of prosecution in exchange for information. the use of selective prosecution in which one person is tried for a crime, although others who are equally guilty of the same crime are ignored. the use of conspiracy charges when evidence of the crime that is believed to have been committed is flimsy. the use of perjury charges for the same purpose. the use of criminal sanctions that can be applied against ordinary citizens but not
against government officials. and the unequal application of the law in general. it goes on. this is what they have been doing. this is talk about public perceptions. once a large majority had finally become convinced that serious wrongdoings had indeed been committed by some of the nation's highest officials, public demand for cleaning up the wreckage and punishing those who had caused it grew irresistibly. the press demanded that there was an urgent need. the prosecutors, with astonishing disregard for fairness fell back on all of the means that could be reasonably justified by the end. including using some of the same legal practices that had been so freely and prodigiously -- and perniciouslydy --
employed by the nixon administration. we are going to get to a slide that says how come we did not know this before? this stuff was out and around. it was being said but got no coverage. the new yorker is a liberal publication. this is a prestigious guide dumping all over the prosecution. i have complained that this judge met privately and secretly with prosecutors and with people with interests adverse to richard nixon. i have him in the center of the bull's-eye. i have six guys who are on the side. we are going to talk about three of them so i have more time to go into the specific things. we are going to start with a guy in the lower right corner at know.whom you don't
he was a reporter for the des moines register, graduate of duke law school. he was a licensed attorney in the district to the whole time. he was a confidant. when nixon got elected, clark went to him and said you need a whistleblower on your staff to warn you if your staff is not doing something the right way. i can think of a perfect candidate. i don't like you, but i can keep you out of trouble if you would hire me. so nixon goes for it and hires to his breast.er he wanted to report directly to nixon, but he ends up reporting to the council's office. he has the title of special counsel, because he is a lawyer. he stays for 10 months and leaves in discussed, because he did not have enough access to nixon.
he says, i want to discuss my issues directly with the president. we havechman would say, discussed it and this is the president's decision. clark says, how do i know if i don't hear it from the president? maybe the president didn't hear my point of view, so maybe his decision as relayed by you is wrong. that went down really well. after 10 months he leaves, but he leaves with the credibility of having worked on the nixon white house staff or the previous 10 months. he heads up the washington office of the des moines dean of and becomes the the washington-based investigative reporters. before woodward and bernstein, there was a glint in someone's i. but clark mullen off was big stuff. wrote two books, but one of
them had to do with watergate. here is a picture of clark and nixon in the oval office. nixon has his feet on the desk. this is what blew the tapes. when his feet clamped down on the desk, and supposedly he is listening to clark. clark appears to be left-handed. i look for people who are left-handed because i am. these are two books -- i will quote from the later books. -- book. he wrote a book about investigative reporting because he was the expert. , thexpert muck greater expert village's gold. nothing ever met his standard for propriety. the game plan was apparent. there would be the addition of some minor figures with white house conduction's, indicted to give the impression of an investigation, but even those indictments would be part of an obstruction of justice unless they concluded mcgruder -- -- included mcgruder. he had this interview.
as a result of this interview that occurs september 14, the day before the burglary indictments come down -- this is early on. because of the interview, i knew richard nixon was involved in planning and directing a cover-up that was being executed by john dean in the white house. so he is saying in his book that the interview was embargoed. he couldn't print it, he couldn't tell anybody. but he knew, from that interview, there was a cover-up, nixon is at the heart of it, john dean is running it. who could he tell? one of his best friends is judge soroka. and the judge just appointed himself to be trial judge for the break in trial. he says in his later book that he invited the judge down to have lunch when he was special counsel to nixon. they were close and he impressed
the daylights out of the judge. clark was an insider in the white house. this is the second book. it comes out first. i hesitated to write or speak of my conviction that the judge would be trustworthy and aggressive as a judge. despite long conversations with him in the fall of 1972 in which we talked about the importance of honest government and i expressed a belief in the eventual triumph of right over wrong. we did not speak of the merit of the case. but i was sure that he was lonely and in need of assurance that if he did precisely what he believed to be right, at least one individual were to remember it and to record it in historic perspective. they set their lobbying the judge in secret. judge, you are the only person that stands between this cover-up being successful and the truth coming out.
you have to use the trial in the pursuit of truth. you do that and i will write columns complementing you on what you're doing because i am so influential. long conversations with him in the fall of 1972. i don't care how good of a friend you are with a judge, you don't sit down with a judge and tell him how he should conduct a how you think he should conduct a trial. you don't do that. this comes out and no one seems to care because sirica was meeting with everybody. you saw the slide a moment ago. but you did not see number seven down there at the bottom. it turns out, fired from register for improper conduct, 1977. remember when we were talking about triggering irs audits?
john dean had 17 people. when that came out, it turned out another thing that was happening was the white house was asking to see irs returns on particular individuals. it turned out they were being requested by the council's office. it turned out that the individual in the council's office that wanted to see this tax returns, your tax returns, trump's tax returns was clark mollenhoff. there was a story about it. it was three years later, who cares? so it turns out the president of the des moines register said that is strange. he did some checking he found out which returns were requested.
he found out they were returns by people clark did not like. he had written articles about them. or the des moines washington bureau was writing articles about. you have this great hero of , when hetive reporting was in power, immediate abuse. and they fired him for it. they didn't make a big public thing about this. i covered this because the guy wrote a book about being the head of the des moines register, and he had this line in there that said, "i fired a pulitzer-prize award-winning ."porter i knew of only one. he said you are writing a book when ie mailed him. i said it is not about him, it is about this other stuff but this sounds intriguing. he sends me an email and describes the whole thing, says here is what i remember, he came and chat and pulled all these
irs returns without authority to further personal grievances. just illegal as hell. we go on. book.s from scirica's own he described his meeting with the first prosecutor. earl has 10 years of prosecution experience. scirica is approaching 70, so earl is young, but earl is hardly green behind the ears. he is the principal assistant u.s. attorney in the district of columbia. i like earl. i think he is a good or -- good lawyer. i wanted to share one of my experiences and give them guidance. this is the burglary trial. he was in my chambers discussing something else. i said earl, you have a great opportunity in this case if you go down the middle. let the chips fall where they may. don't let anybody put pressure
on you. before he left my office, i gave him a bound copy of the hearings. -- hearings, conducted back in 1944 by a select committee of the house. i wanted the young prosecutor to know just how white washers were engineered. i wanted him to know that i had direct experience with coverups while serving as chief counsel to that committee. the judge telling the prosecutor how to put on the case. it doesn't say it here, this is the judge's version. it is, "earl, go after the truth. don't let them confine it to the burglary. use the trial to figure out who was involved. that is what i want you to do. go down the middle." in the library of congress under judge sirica, there are six earlier versions of the book.
there wasn't a ghost writer, he really wrote the book himself. and you can trace the significance -- it starts getting reduced because their editors say, we don't need to know that. but it was huge, because sirica was counseled to this meeting and they were going to go from public hearings to executive session. sirica if they do that cover-up he will have to leave. he did that and he resigned. he was retained for the committee. he was in private practice. he felt this was one of the most significant things in his life that he wanted the truth to come out at the hearings. he wants the truth to come out at the burglary trial. what makes the burglary trial so unique is they were caught red-handed. nobody really cared why they were there. that was not the issue of the trial. i read this to you, earl's memo
the head of the criminal division of the day they came down with the , was, as trace as far as we can trace we can prove , these people. when they are through with the trial, we will see if the story changes. for now, we have these guys cold. that is who we are taking to trial. here you have scirica saying, no,, i have a higher purpose. and it corrupts the trial. now we go to the next set of prosecutors. we are going to talk about three key meetings. december 14, february 11 and march 1. the reason we learn about these later is jaworski took his files with him when he left. he dictated memos. there is that tantalizing woodward interview. i've shown it to you with two or three times, where he interviews jaworski after he resigns and jaworski says there were lots of
one-on-one meetings between me and a guy, nobody knows about him. he says we were staff on the house judiciary committee, and woodward doesn't follow on either one. so we did not learn about the secret meetings until they became available to me in 2013. we will start with the first one. this is a letter -- i know you can't read it. this is a letter to judge scirica. corner --upper left not quite, right below the -- it isng, it says filled. this means phil drafted the letter and his secretary typed it. it is not a jaworski letter. we are not even sure he signed it, because it is dated december 27, and he is in texas. and you read the first line, it is in bigger print. i met with you and the judge at
your request on december 14. the four top watergate prosecutor's meeting with the two judges who are going to do the watergate trials. is going on?" they can say anything they want. this is not a casual hallway conversation. this is a formal sit down. jaworski has been special prosecutor for a month. sirica calls him down. three days before this meeting, the meeting is december 14, sirica turned over to the prosecutors the transcript and tape of march 21. books, the prosecutors say, wow, nixon was tempted to pay blackmail. nixon says what the hell? $1 million? why not? it is a dramatic moment in everybody's book. you can't tell me that's why he
didn't call them down. he wanted to know his reaction. there is no legal reason for the meeting under any circumstance but the timing is suspect. this letter appears to be a cya letter. it is written two weeks later. nearest i can tell, jaworski and st. clair had talked. -- talked the morning of this letter. i think jaworski became concerned that the knowledge of this meeting would come out. i think this is a fake purpose. the letter, if you have the whole thing, does not make any sense. it says, we are going to predict what cases are coming down the line, but you can't tell from the description what the cases are, except for one statement. "i believe by the end of or the january beginning of february, we may have an indictment in the case that could take three months." that is the cover-up trial. he is saying we will have the
indictment for you at the end of january and beginning of february. this is terribly important. because sirica is going to turn on march 19. 70he is going to have to step down as chief judge, he can't appoint himself to preside over the trial. and he has made it very clear he wants to appoint himself. he did the break in trial, why not do the second one. he has been the man of the year, why not go for a twofer? the letter says, "worry not, we will get that's you in january or february." time passes. "i gave you a copy of this -- i give you a copy of this. i am going to read it, but you can look at it later. february 12, because it is talking about the meeting the day before, february 11. "on monday, february 11, i met
with judge sirica. many matters were covered. the indictments came down in time. he would take the case. he had been urged to do so by any number of judges. thatpressed his opinion these indictments should be returned as soon as possible. he also said that he was going to, henceforth, take all guilty pleas himself." that's because colson pled guilty in the plumbers case on the condition that he be sentenced by judge giselle and not judge sirica. judge giselle was due in the -- doing the plumber's case. he says you have to come to me. he rejected other plea deals. he rejected the howard hunt plea deal. rejected the cuban's plea deal. he wants to go to trial. we talked about the vasco case
ad expressed the thought that sealed indictment might be of some help. they are seating the jury in new york city in a case called the vasco case, where john mitchell and maury stands have been i indicted for seeking to influence an investigation for an exchange of a few hundred thousand dollars contribution. the jury has not been seated. what jaworski would have said -- i said this before but we will if thet again -- indictments come down in washington dc, mitchell's lawyers will say they have poised the jury so they can't try me in new york. we have to wait until the jury sirica is saying we need that indictment. why don't you issue a sealed indictment? i can name myself.
then he talks about this. at the bottom he says he has been invited to speak by the texas bar association. jaworski is the past president of the texas bar association. if you were some yahoo down in texas and you want to the famous judge sirica to come and talk, who would you ask him? you would ask jaworski. it was jaworski that arranged for the invitation. sirica loves it because he is famous. he gets to go. the whole second page starts talking about the roadmap. we talked about this.
phil says that if we can't indict him, we can take the grand jury information, send it up and get it to the house. we have to do it in secret, it has never been done before but we know we can because the fifth amendment talks about this. if we spring this on sirica he is likely to say you cannot do that. let's meet him in advance and informed him of his rights. here is the paragraph describing that discussion. and he is right, sirica says we can't do that. this material stays with the grand jury and this information stays with the house. jaworski is commencing him, you have the power, you are chief judge. this is his own writeup of what he is doing. in the end, he prevails. he said he should be informed of the discretion that he could exercise in matters of that kind.
it further requested that i have a memo prepared for him that covers the subject. the special prosecutor in secret comes to the judge and says this will come before you for rolling but we want to have our side in first because we want to present you with the report and ask you to send it to the hill. if we get in an argument about whether the grand jury can issue a report and the white house gets involved, we may never have a report. this has never been done before. let's get our licks in early. i don't have the stuff but in the notes that are taken, the notes by james, it notes that sirica has approved the format of the roadmap. initially went further. they are further discussions. it is all worked out in the dance.
we go to the third memo. this is dated march 1. confidential fe jaworski. we are breaking and halfway through. on the morning of march 1, i met with judge sirica in chambers. the hearing was at 11:00. the judge wants a dramatic, newsworthy event. he asks the grand jury to come is where thed this roadmap goes. they go in, in secret. they rehearsed that you will say this and that. this is jaworski. i told sirica i asked the court to specially assign the case. that takes it out of rotation so that judge sirica can assign himself. if jaworski did not say this, it goes to the calendar midi and is
-- committee and is assigned by random. jaworski says this gets special treatment. that afternoon he appoints himself. they rehearsed this government briefcase. and the roadmap and how it will go up the hill. you have documented proof of totally improper meetings, secret meetings the two the prosecutors and the judge. you can't say this judge is fair and impartial when he presides over the trial. this judge is so dirty and so conflicted, he should be removed from the bench. the cannons of judicial ethics are so clear that you don't need one side without the other side being present. this was routine. sirica had an open door policy. we will talk about something else that is not a meeting. it is proof positive of
politicized indictment. what you want when the prosecutor is really bearing down on one side, you pray for an example from the other side in the same timeframe. the prosecutor did not do anything. that is what i have on the next slide. this is the special prosecutor's treatment of chuck colson. he was one of nixon's greatest advocates. he said i would run over my grandmother if it got nixon reelected. he is a notorious advocate but he had only minor involvement in the cover up. bill bittman is a democrat and he was counsel to howard. he got the money. he presented the demands, he got the money, he spread the money amongst the other lawyers.
he withheld evidence of hunt's blackmail. hunt wrote a memo that said if you don't pay up, i will start revealing stuff. he got a meeting so that the memo was not put forth. hunt sat in on all of the investigations. hunt is dirty as hell. hunt is a democratic icon. he secured the other conviction of jimmy hoffa. this is big stuff. the other thing he did was prosecute the bobby baker case. david baker was secretary of the senate. when lyndon johnson was majority leader. lyndon was his boss. robert kennedy did not like lyndon johnson as vice
president. he had triggered an investigation into bobby baker. that is why the department of justice was covering down on bobby baker. that was a slash on lyndon johnson. bobby could take a new veep. robert kennedy is no longer attorney general. they still have to prosecute bobby baker. bill bittman does it with such skill that lyndon johnson's name never comes up. that is talent. johnson was his boss. this whole time, he was taking bribes and giving orders and everything else. dirty as candy. leon jaworski is a johnson protege.
he does not want bittman to get slashed. this is the third bullet, there is an indictment meeting. there are two people taking notes. there is the recorder taking notes. then there is the james the set to write the report. the task force, the watergate task force comes in and does their presentation. they are line attorneys. there are five or six of them. staff attorneys decide and review about whether they will agree with that indictment. they ask this man on the cnn panel from last night. is the deputy of the watergate task force.
they ask him what the chances of convicting are. 50-50. at best the prosecutors have to have a high degree of confidence that the jury would convict what they would. if you flip a coin, it is 50-50. you don't have a high degree of confidence either way. you can't lawyer around this. the worst he says it is in the notes -- jaworski says it is in the notes. i am familiar with the facts. i met with colson and his lawyer. i am willing to sign the indictment. colson is so scared, he will work out a pleading with us. we don't have to prove the case in the first place.
notes hasset of doo jaworski saying i know the case is weak but i would like to nail colson. he is a flamboyant nixon supporter. we have the right. then comes bill bittman. he is as dirty as a person can be. there are 22 boxes of investigatory information on him. unanimous recommendation of the task force. jaworski will not do it. he says he is being of the defense lawyer. the person presenting the case is just jill.
she is getting her head stuffed in. jaworski says you will never make a good defense lawyer. this is what they do. he just did the opposite to colson. they don't indict bittman. phil is the solicitor's council. a man with some integrity, he writes a two-page memo to jaworski. he says we cannot do this. the case is at best 50-50. those are not our requirements. we told colson and his people that we were adhering to the doj standard. it takes him a while to say it but every person in that room did not want to indict colson except for you. i happen to have the memo. you can't read it on the screen but it is short and sweet. it ends. i discussed this memo with peter. he was taking the notes. he was present at the meeting with colson and his attorney. he concurs henry ruth, his
deputy also recommended that for similar reasons that colson should not be indicted. everybody in the room except for jaworski. these notes say collect memo. they did not want this memo floating around. this is outrageous. they got every copy back except -- for what jaworski took with him when he left office. there it is, black and white, incredible difference tween colson, the republican -- between colson, the republican and bittman, the democrat. this just came out. i am still outraged. there is a commentator on msnbc named ackerman. he was a young lawyer. i don't watch msnbc.
he was a young lawyer. he graduated from harvard in 1972. he joins the prosecutor staff in may of 1973. he has done something for a year but he was not a prosecutor. he was just a kid. i was just a kid. we were all just kids. he spent two years, his entire time on the special prosecutor staff investigating and trying to prosecute chuck colson for the may 3 incident. hoover died. you're not supposed to read this yet. it came up too soon. j edgar hoover died. he lies in state at the capital. on that day, there was going to be an anti-vietnam war demonstration. the republicans were gathering a counterdemonstration.
they met and there was a clash. the police arrested three cubans who were trying to save the american flag from the antiwar people. what they decide is maybe colson is behind us and we can get him on this. they assign this young kid, nick akerman to do it. it does not quite work out but he spends two years working on it. he comes up with nothing. what does he do? he writes a memo. it is an 18 page memo documenting how hard he tried. as with other stuff that pops out, the purpose of the memo was not to document the
prosecutorial abuse, it was to say look how hard i tried. i did not get famous, my name is not in the paper but i tried. i did not come across this memo. he appeared on nbc, the 45th anniversary of something last year. he was discussing this memo. if the memo had come from the national archives, a bunch of names would be redacted. they are still alive and nobody got indicted. there is not a single production -- redaction in this version of the memo. it is nick's memo, his copy that he leaked to talk about how great he was. you read it and it is the scariest document i have ever come across. it says there is an investigation on this assault, and initial decision was made i
fill him in -- by phil hayman. they wanted to bag colson. hayman's desire to do this was based on the involvement of colson. colson became the prime target of this investigation. the evidence ultimately developed by this investigation would not be sufficient to indict colson for crimes related to the assault. he would be indicted for perjury if he denied this incident under all in the grand jury. this is if you study this like i do. this is reminiscent of george frampton's leap of faith in the prosecutorial admission on richard nixon. all the grand jury would have to do is to assume one little fact. that they send had ordered that the payoff be made on hunt's blackmail. then they could find him guilty
of participating in the cover-up. this is the same thing. we don't have enough evidence to indict him. if he could lie in front of the grand jury, we could indict him for perjury. no kidding. if you lied about the weather outside, we could indict you for perjury. this is a nonsensical statement, typical of 1972 graduates of harvard. i graduated in 1969 and the law still went down from there. 18 pages. then he starts describing how hard they tried. they started interviewing the demonstrators and then the counter demonstrators and the d.c. police and then the people of the republican national committee. then people on the white house staff. they are on this unrelenting search for colson. they concocted a hypothesis. this is their hypothesis. beginning in september, horwitz
and i created a working hypothesis. this was for the purpose of disgracing daniel. this hypothesis was formulated from two factors. first, colson's memorandum on ellsberg. this demonstration brought together two very explosive elements, the antiwar and the patriots. you might assume there could be trouble. on the basis of this hypothesis, it was decided that the interview members of colson's staff, counterdemonstrators whose nose might be important -- the employees included top officials, their assistance,
secretaries, counterdemonstration. we got people from the d.c. police have observers, fbi observers, we interviewed all of them. we started to focus on a couple of people from the republican national committee and karl rove. he was a kid in charge of students for nixon. his name is misspelled here. he is lucky he escapes. karl rove and one of the counter demonstrators are lucky -- fancy that, we went and put john under old and put him in front of a grand jury to find out what is going on. then we focus on key members of colson's staff. ratigan and howard. ratigan perjured himself.
it is hard to prosecute but we lean on him. we want him to flip and say that colson was responsible for not planning the town to demonstration but the assault that followed. we did the same thing with dick howard. we said you better get a lawyer, we are going to indict him. we told him we are going to indict him. ratigan's attorney was told we were contemplating indicting his employer for perjury. no decision had been reached. akerman and horwitz decided that prosecution might be enough to bring ratigan around. then they would go after howard. i am almost through.
we were dealing with howard colson and begin negotiating for a plea deal. the plea bargain was struck on colson's attorney commented that may 1. he heard we were putting dick howard.nic this was before this was finalized. shapiro asked whether howard would be indicted. they said no. he was not indicted for perjury because the evidence was not substantive enough. these are political pamphlets without naming an author. we basically lost, even though these may have constituted
violations, we lost all interest in howard after colson pled. they are hammering the staff to get them to flip on colson. they want colson. we started with robert jackson's admonition. you can't go after people, you have to go after crimes. this is an 18 page document, this is the opposite. this is the last paragraph. although it is clear calls and lied, we could have won. the problem with colson lied, we could have won. he lied to protect his staff. also to protect nation from indictment or impeachment. there is no way to prove it. there is no way to connect him to the assault. it is modeled by the counterdemonstration. this melding of the counterdemonstration had been a
problem throughout this investigation in charging anybody with a crime. two years spent on this came up empty. he still practices law. in his bio on his website in new york, nick appears regularly on msnbc regarding national issues. it goes back to his original work. he was on the special force from that 73-74. conducted investigations into federal agencies. could have full of may. this is all he did. no agencies involved. this was related to the break-in at the dnc. right this has nothing to do with the break-in. this is everything to do with
chuck colson. he examined all the principles of the watergate scandal before the various watergate grand jury's. a small exaggeration. this is a kid one year out of law school trying to get the goods on chuck colson on some marginal issue. to read his right up, he was right there. he was right there in the middle of it. now, hoover. he lies in state. he is buried at the presbyterian church. a big presbyterian church in northwest. nixon will speak. i have to clear the speech for substance. i am the law and order guy. everything he says has to be checked. what he was going to say is that
i will ask congress to name the fbi holding under construction the j edgar hoover building. it is weak but it is something to say. the president of the united states can name or rename any federal building without restriction. i relayed this and said you can announce he is naming it. he is the president, he has the authority. because we always want to show you that geoff was there, that resulted in the letter. i get another letter from the president. dear geoff. we are close. you did a splendid job on the naming of the fbi building. i wanted you to know that i appreciate your efforts in helping us honor director hoover. we go from this to the width of
the investigation. they announced they would investigate every allegation made against the nixon administration. you they have the 60 lawyers, all of the fbi, the irs. these are quotes from their final reports. they put out in october, 1975. this is a year after nixon resigns. this is a victory lap. they talk about how nixon resigned and how they convicted many of my friends. they did. but what they tried to do and failed. these were fully investigated but found no grounds for prosecution. the lawyers' role in white house tape transcriptions. they found none by democrats. any campaign dirty tricks by democrats. the itt payoffs.
the wiretap investigations. the irs enemy audits. the mistreatment of demonstrators. that is this. the 30 pay to play investigations of agency decisions. they said these people gave money because they wanted a regulatory decision. we did not prove one. we cannot find one. sales of ambassadorships. the hughes-rebozo investigation into the loan. finally, the national hispanic finance committee investigation. i knew nothing about that. we could not find anything in these areas. if we had 100 people, we could investigate temple and we would come up with more stuff then
they came up with. this is the comment after he had been cleared of all the finance investigations. they investigated several hundred. thousands of subpoenas, thousands of documents. he used his own service, the fbi, the computerized records of data gathered by the senate watergate committee and information from members of congress. after two years of ferreting out the facts, he announced in his final report that he could not find evidence adequate to take to court a single instance within the entire range of alleged corrupt practices. no favors granted, no contracts awarded, no case is fixed, no illegal attributions from foreigners, no overseas laundries, no illegal solicitations, no fundraising by governments. no intentional circumvention of the law. that is what the doj, the special prosecutor and the courts found. of course, he had to have his book published privately because nobody wanted to hear that side.
he is the one who said where do i go to get my reputation back? everyone of these things was featured in the newspapers. i don't have time to go into this. cox was so worried that sirica was pro-prosecution that they would go to trial and lose on appeal, he had a secret meeting with the chief judge of the appellate court. he said they should stack the deck on the appeals so the liberals, the five liberal judges could be sure that sirica was never overturned. there are 12 criminal appeals from judge sirica's trials. everyone is heard in court from the outset. this is on the exam. on at the same time, there are for criminal appeals from judge giselle. he is liberal but competent.