>> look, when we represented spiro agnew, we represented spiro agnew, the guy exposed but the vice president, we didn't have to worry about children, sons, a pair of sons, a son-in-law who also had exposure. the longer this thing goes on, the greater that exposure is going to be. and if he's going to cut a deal, the farther down the line he goes, the greater is the pile of evidence the government gets, the tougher that deal is going to be. i happen to agree that i don't think he would do it because i don't think he's got -- this takes a lot of contemplation. it takes a lot of balancing. it takes a lot of consideration. i don't think he's capable of that. >> so to that point -- >> yeah. >> sorry, to cut you off, martin, i wanted to ask quickly, it's great to have two brilliant legal minds here, the issue of a president being indicted and whether or not he can face the trial being president. what do you think, what does the legal matter tell us in terms of a sitting president being indicted or at least facing trial? >> i think there are a couple of different ways to speak it. martin is far mor

and the principal lawyer for vice president spiro agnew. he wrote a piece in "time" magazine entitled, "i was a lawyer for spiro agnew. president trump should consider resigning." why should donald trump consider resigning? >> because it's only going to get worse. we already have everybody, you know, the rats are leaving the ship. he's lost gates, papadopoulos, cohen, flynn, now pecker. he'll probably lose others from the trump organization. and we don't know a quarter of what's in the pocket of the prosecutor. and if he has any interest at all in not only saving his skin but the skin of his child, his children, his son-in-law, his grandchildren, his daughter, this is a time when he's got to seriously think about it. now, is he capable of that, of serious thinking? frankly, i doubt it. if he's going to be advised by people like clown giuliani and people who don't know that truth is truth, then he's not going to get anywhere. the national interest is what drove the agnew resignation. >> so, did you push, aesthetic, i'm just curious, the joe

matthew dallek, as you hear that, what led to richard nixon selection of spiro agnew as his running mate? >> he would have to assure conservatives in the south that he would pick a vice president that was not romney. or rockefeller. they still didn't trust him. agnew could run as a moderate republican. but he quickly established himself as an anti-radical emblem. someone who repeatedly attacked longhairs and protesters, antiwar demonstrators, we heard a talk about anarchist by george wallace. agnew would engage in like-minded rhetoric. so, the selection of ag new in a sense was a shrewd one because it fit with the campaign themes that nixon was going to run on. especially the issue of law and order. later on it became -- it really was biting about the media. he called them the nattering nabob of neck -- negativity. nixon had a famously fracture his relationship with the media. he disliked and distrusted the media. agnew was a hard-hitting kind of a -- an attack dog of sorts. that's what nixon wanted him to play. >> who else did he consider? >> governor reagan was not on the list. he had

i got a picture of him and spiro agnew looking really chummy. he did not know spiro agnew. this is one of my favorite shots because of the men on the right, agnew ended up in the white house because gerald ford replaced him. that is how i became the white house photographer. randy is joining us from florida. good morning. caller: yes, hello. i wanted to respond to a couple of the black callers because they were saying white supremacy and all this other stuff. if you remember, starting when we only had three tv channels anchors, they would not tellyou that the democratic ones who were the segregationists, the ku klux them.like 95% of compared to the republican conservatives who were offering opportunity, but the democrats were saying that they hate you and don't want you to succed. -- sexy. s-- succeed. host: we are going to get a response. guest: it is a fact that most of the southern states after world war ii were represented by democrats in congress. at the time, there were some of the most antiblack writing and lynching taken place. one became associated with the other.

spiro agnew my question is because people assume in the case of articulate and erudite presidents like bill clinton and barack obama as you correctly mentioned, who speak , do they assume every speech is their own speech? but in the case of less articulate people like nixon, people say that can't be his words. my other question is, for a presidential speechwriter, is it more difficult to work with an articulate president who might nitpick and torture them to hell, producing draft after draft, where a less articulate president will take the speech hook line and sinker? june: i disagree. i think there are a lot of famous speechwriters. the whole obama team is famous. everyone knows john favreau, they have gotten plenty of coverage from the media. i don't think -- they have gotten their fair share of credit, i would say. i don't know about that. maybe there are more outlets now because they are all over the podcasts. sapphire had a column. there are more ways to get your voice out to claim credit and be famous, i guess. john: does everyone here know that chris matthews was a presidential

. -- who was criticized for negativism writing speeches for spiro agnew. because it is articulate and era died such as the clinton's and barack obama as you mentioned, they speak dutifully -- it's their own speech. in the case of people like president nixon and spiro agnew, are those his words? we have to find out. my question is, for a presidential speechwriter, if you have a nitpicking president to my torture you, is that better or if they preferred the speech hook line and sinker. >> the entire obama team, they are famous. they've gotten plenty of credit and coverage from the media. they have gotten there fair share of credit. i don't know about that. may be there are more outlet now because of podcast send things like that. now there are many more ways to claim credit and get your voice out and become famous. >> does everybody here know that chris matthews was a speechwriter for president carter? i'm thinking of a few. you mentioned bill pfaff tire -- bill safire who i knew who was a fine person in a presidential speechwriter for nixon and also did som

but as in the case of people like nixon and spiro agnew, people say, that can't be his words. >> my other question is, for a presidential speechwriter, is it more difficult to [ inaudible ] draft after draft rather than the president to take sure speech hook, line and sinker? >> i think there's a lot of famous speechwriters. the whole clinton team has gotten 20 of coverage from the media. i don't think -- i think they have gotten their fair share of credit. i don't know about that. may be they -- there are more outlets now because there are more outlets. -- five had his -- william safire had his column. >> i'm thinking of william safire who i knew and who was a fine guy and a presidential speechwriter for nixon and also did some very effective speeches for vice president spiro agnew. another person on that staff was buchanan who had been with nixon. nixon himself hired buchanan on his reputation in the mid 60s when he was still getting ready to run again for residents and 68. i've heard pecan until the story that nixon who worked very hard on his speeches, probably as hard or harder than

many of you remember that president nixon told his vice president, spiro agnew, to go out after the news media. agnew called us nattering nabobs of nepotism. nixon had an enemies list. many of the people on that list were journalists. i was not on the list, but i was covering the pentagon during part of the nixon administration before i moved to the white house, and i found out that my phone was tapped, my work phone was tapped. i found out by calling my bureau and telling them something that was not true and seeing if it came back to me, and it did. there are other examples, but nothing compares with the present day. in the past, we have never had a president accuse us in such harsh terms. the other night, he said we might be responsible for wars. he called us anti-american. in the past, news organizations never had to hire security personnel to protect white house journalists at trump rallies. and never in the past have we had to figure out what to do with a president who tells falsehood after falsehood after falsehood. do we say he is lying, as the "new york times" did on a couple of

i photographed him with spiro agnew looking very chummy. this is one of my favorite shots. because of agnew, i ended up in the white house because gerald ford replaced him after he resigned in 1973. that is how i became the white house photographer. my first time cover was in the minority leader ford's first time cover. host: randy is joining us from clearwater, florida. caller: yes, hello. i wanted to respond to a couple of the black callers. they were saying, you know, white supremacy and all this other stuff. if you remember, starting when we only had three tv channels, with three anchors, they would not tell you that the democratic party were the ones who were the segregationists, who were the ku klux klan, you know, like 95% of them. and they, you know, compared to the republican conservatives who were offering opportunity. but the democrats were, you know, saying, you know, that they hate you. they don't want you to succeed. host: ok, randy. i'll jump in and get a response. guest: i don't want to get to the political side of it, but it is a fact that, for a period of

i chronicled in the book, beginning with spiro agnew. remember him being in some trouble? i remember my editor at the new yorker lamenting, very justly, legendary william shawn said what do you think of writing next? and i said, i don't know. i just have a feeling we are going to change vice presidents and presidents within a year. this is labor day. it was a very out there kind of thought at the time. and so, we agreed that i would write a journal. diary. i would watch the events and interpret them and talk about them. we don'tt the time, know how to change vice presidents. we didn't know how to do anything. to changeknow how vice presidents, how to impeach a president. we didn't know how to get another president. it was all kind of made up as we went along. one of the most distressing things about now is the loose way in which the word impeachment is tossed around. to this may not get later because i have so much to talk about, but if there is such the way richard nixon was almost impeached was really the model. it came from the center, was bipartisan. the country could

agnew. my question is is it okay to assume in the case of articulate and erue indict presidents like bill clinton who speak beautifully to think every speech is their own speech and that's less obvious in presidents like nixon and agnew, people say oh, those can't be his words. my other question is, is it okay to work with a president who nitpicks him and puts them through hell making you write draft after draft or someone who takes the first draft auto. >> the obama team are all excellent speech writers. they have gotten plenty of coverage are the media. so i don't think -- and it's -- you know, and they have gotten their fair share of credit, too, i would say. i don't know about that. i mean, maybe they are -- maybe there are more outlets now because they are all over in podcasts. sapphire had that column, but now there are many more ways to get your voice out and claim credit and to be famous, i guess. >> does everyone here know that chris matthews was a presidential speech writer? he wro

and that's how he got spiro agnew. >> we'll go to john in washington, d.c., go ahead, please. >> good morning. i have a simple question to ask both of you. what significant role, did the republican party play in the voting rights act, for the descendants of the american soul, past and modern-day term. were they embracing the idea of black american voters? and also, in the u.s. recovery act, which i'm asking for, judicial protection for descendants of american slaves. since we don't have that. here in america. >> matthew dawling. >> 1965, nixon couldn't have passed that without strong support of republicans there were republicans who supported the voting rights act. in 196 5 the republican party had a substantial moderate wing that was pro civil rights. some of it was in the midwest. in the northeast. and the party was head geteroge. but by 1968, even though it's three short years, that position was no longer viable in the national republican party. which was why i said earlier, it was hard to see a path for romney or rockefeller, given their pro civil rights view and given frankly the

we were down with spiro t. agnew to win that area. so i do think that hubert humphrey, if he had moved earlier, would have done better. and one reason is, his campaign from september to that salt lake city speech was bedeviled everywhere with dump the hump and obscene comments and he finally got to the point himself, he was denouncing fascism out here. they won't let me speak. teddy kennedy, he was being denounce. but it turned for humphrey and he began really moving up the hill at a tremendous clip. and i remember going to nixon and saying, we have to attack humphrey to drive the wedge back through the party, because it's coming together. >> we didn't do a thing. >> very quickly, who was george wallace? >> oh, george wallace, what colorful character. pat and i were talking before the show today, and he said he used to go speak with him. so we want pat to way in, but he was a populist, eventually, segregationist. so he was not in his earlier life in alabama, but he was a world war ii veteran. we look back now and realize he may have s