Geoff Shepard, Nixon’s White House lawyer and tape transcriber, debunks Watergate myths on its 50th anniversary, revealing the break-in stemmed from CREEP’s reckless ambition—backed by CIA equipment—and Nixon’s dismissal of it as a "dumb shit thing." He exposes media bias, including Woodward/Bernstein’s alleged grand jury interviews and Judge Sirica’s secret meetings, while arguing prosecutors selectively targeted Republicans, sparing Democrats like Bittman. The scandal, Shepard claims, was a "deep state" coup using lawfare, a tactic now institutionalized, with parallels to modern DOJ weaponization. Nixon’s resignation wasn’t inevitable but the result of institutional overreach, he insists. [Automatically generated summary]
So the 50th anniversary of Richard Nixon's resignation as president is in August.
We're upon it.
It's right now.
Nixon was, by some measures, the most popular president ever elected.
And then into a second term, he was gone and lived the rest of his life in a kind of disgrace.
And so as the 50th anniversary arrives, you have to ask yourself, is everything that we think we know about Watergate true?
What did happen there, actually?
In retrospect, it looks very much like a kind of coup against a sitting and enormously popular president.
Was it that?
Well, there are very few people still around with their faculties who can answer that definitively.
And Jeff Shepard is at the very top of that list.
He graduated Harvard Law School in 1969 and went immediately to work at the White House as a White House fellow and remained there through the entire Nixon administration, pretty much, leaving only during the Ford administration in 1975. He worked as a lawyer in Nixon's defense and had a bunch of different jobs,
knew every single person around Nixon, and in fact is the person who transcribed the famous Nixon tapes, including the smoking gun tape, and in fact is the person who named it the smoking gun tape.
So probably the most reliable and certainly best informed narrator of that story, and we are honored to have him here to assess Watergate on its...
It is great, and I probably five years ago wouldn't have been anxious to do this because it felt historical and of interest to me, but maybe not of interest to a larger audience.
But given everything that we've seen in Washington in the past, say, eight years, I think people are reassessing their understanding of recent history, and that would include Watergate.
So, if you wouldn't mind just giving us, starting with an overview of what was Watergate, what was the scandal, just give us a very crisp timeline of what happened to President Nixon during that, and then if you would, tell us what you think actually happened, and then we can get into the details of it.
Five people were arrested on the morning of June 17, 1972, in the Watergate office building in the offices of the Democratic National Committee.
They had bugging devices on them.
They were photographing documents.
It turned out one of them was a former career CIA agent who was head of security for the Nixon re-election committee, the committee for the re-election of the president, whose initials spell the word creep.
So it's C-R-P, but it's pronounced creep.
The other four were Cuban-Americans.
And it then turned out that there were two masterminds from the re-election committee who were the overlords of the break-in.
So they were brought to trial, burglary trial.
They were all convicted.
Seven people.
And then it turned out that there had been an effort to cover up who else knew.
Because the break-in was planned by the re-election committee.
And if you knew about the planned break-in, you were in trouble too.
And there was a cover-up because very important people might have known about the planned break-in.
And we'll go into it in a couple of minutes.
But the cover-up ultimately failed.
James McCord, the CIA wireman, wrote a letter to the judge and said there's been a cover-up.
People have committed perjury.
And the cover-up came apart.
And people who were close to that or whose name figured in the press ultimately resigned.
And it turned out the cover-up was actually run by the president's own lawyer.
But it infected other people on the White House staff.
So I'll get into my point of view in a minute.
But the end result, when everything came out, and it turned out the president was taping people in his Oval Office.
There was a tape system that had run for two years.
So the public concluded, I think fairly, that if they got the tapes, they could figure out who knew what went.
And the most famous quote is from Senator Howard Baker of the Irvin Committee.
What did the president know, and when did he know it?
And you'll find that echoing in every scandal since, and popularly so.
As the investigation progressed, More and more people got caught up in the wrongdoing, and ultimately there was a tape that came out after the recommendations for impeachment, after the Supreme Court ruled the tapes had to be turned over to the prosecutors.
This tape came out that recorded the president agreeing with his chief of staff to get the CIA to tell the FBI that two people they wanted to interview were off-limits.
Because they were CIA personnel.
Now, I'm somewhat familiar with the smoking gun tape because I was the third person to hear it after the Supreme Court's decision.
I was the one who prepared the official transcript of it, first transcript, and I'm the one that nicknamed it the smoking gun.
And the reason I did that was because the president's chief lawyer When he heard it, he was the second person after President Nixon to hear that tape, the tape of June 23, 1972, six days after the break-in arrests.
He concluded, turns out wrongly, that the president had been involved in the cover-up from the beginning because he agreed to this idea to get the CIA to tell the FBI not to interview the people.
Nixon wins an overwhelming landslide by some measures.
The biggest landslide in American electoral history.
Yes.
And so he's the most popular president.
And then the Washington Post, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein being the reporters on the story, start to break a series of stories about the break-in and then the cover-up, etc., etc.
You get down to it, and there are all kinds of stories, Tucker, and I can't vouch for the stories, but supposedly Howard Hunt, who's a separate career CIA agent, he said, this is nuts.
Larry O'Brien has already left for their convention down in Miami.
This is high risk, low reward.
I don't want to go back in.
But Gordon Liddy...
Who developed the campaign intelligence plan was eager to show off.
Kind of a macho man.
No, by Jove, if that stuff isn't working, I'm going to send my team back in to fix it.
And then to fix it, he recruits the head of security for the re-election committee, who's James McCord.
So you're right, McCord is the senior guy on site.
I remember walking down the hallway of the old EOB, the gorgeous marble squares, black and white, saying to myself, the day Gordon left, good heavens, he's been here, and he's left, and nothing's gone wrong.
And I pitched a hissy fit, they must think I'm a fool.
And then later it turned out that Gordon had run this whole thing.
But can I ask, so the CIA is an intelligence gathering agency whose main purpose is to collect information from around the world and give it to the president so he can make better informed foreign policy decisions.
Well, Howard Hunt was a career officer with the CIA. We got...
John Ehrlichman, the head of domestic affairs, to call Richard Helms or Vern Walters, one or the other, the head or deputy.
At CIA. At CIA. You need to help these people.
You need to help these people.
So they gave Howard Hunt, their former employee, a wig, a voice-altering device, something to put in his shoe to make him look like he had a limp.
So he wouldn't be recognizable if he was seen.
They give them a camera, a CIA-produced camera that only the CIA can open and develop, and they use it to take pictures of a break-in they're planning out in Los Angeles.
And then they come back and they say, well, we're going to show this plan, and Gordon talks them in.
Well, how it started from day one all the way back to World War II. And it was put together secretly.
Unpeer-reviewed by the three most senior doves on the war.
Paul Warnke, who was counseled to the Department of Defense, Morton Halperin, who was a national security officer, and a third guy, Les Gelb, who did most of the writing.
And it went on for a couple years.
Nobody else knew it was underway.
It wasn't even completed when Nixon took office.
So they took their study to Brookings and completed it in the next six months.
Nobody on the National Security Council knew.
Nobody on the State Department or anybody else.
Just an internal study by the Pentagon.
But one of the people who participated in the study, Daniel Ellsberg, originally a former Marine, originally strongly in favor of the war, had switched and was opposed to the war.
And felt this thing should be leaked.
And he worked very hard to get it leaked.
He offered it to William Fulbright, the chairman of Senate Foreign Relations.
And Fulbright wouldn't touch it.
He said, this is top secret.
You get it sent to me officially and I'll deal with it.
But I'm not going to touch it until it's official.
I don't want any part of that.
So ultimately, the New York Times decided they'd go with it.
And in June of 1971, they started producing excerpts.
And Henry Kissinger went crazy.
It didn't concern Nixon.
Nixon wasn't a part of the study, but it suggested the war was illegitimate from day one.
That was the purpose of the study.
And Kissinger said, look, I'm negotiating with three totalitarian regimes, North Vietnam, China and Russia.
If they think we can't keep secrets, they won't talk.
So you must do something.
So there was an all-out press to stop publication of the Pentagon Papers, and we lost.
But on the way to the Supreme Court, there were 29 injunctions stopping newspapers from publishing excerpts.
And then the court held no...
No prior publication.
You can't stop it until you can sue after they publish.
But you can't stop something before it's published.
That's freedom of the press.
It turned out Ellsberg had strong connections, worked for the Rand Corporation out west in Santa Monica.
And he had access, because Rand had access, to 54,000 other classified documents.
And so this unit set up in the White House to try to stop the damage from the Pentagon Papers and stop Ellsberg from leaking anything further, decided what they ought to do to possibly learn his plans was to break into his psychiatrist's office in Beverly Hills, Dr. Lewis Fielding.
They tried to get Hoover to do it, but Hoover wouldn't do it because Ellsberg's father-in-law was a guy named Leonard Marks.
He ran a big toy company, and he gave toys to Hoover at Christmas to give to underprivileged kids.
You know, you sit there and say, what goes wrong with our government?
Well, what goes wrong as we deal with human beings?
You know, so they got the bright idea to break into And they didn't use the FBI. Of course, they couldn't use the CIA. It could staff them, but couldn't take operations.
So they used Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt.
They said, we know who can actually do the deed.
We know these Cubans down in Miami, because when we were going to invade Cuba, I was their CIA contact.
I was the mysterious, this is Howard Hunt, I was the mysterious Eduardo, and they respect me.
So if I tell them this break-in is necessary because it has something to do with Castro, they'll do it.
So much poison now in our public square, and if you take almost all of it and trace it to its roots, you'll arrive at the same place, the higher education system in the United States.
This is coming out of our colleges and universities, and it's not an accident.
Radical professors and administrators have transformed higher education into this country into indoctrination factories specializing in teaching.
Anti-American, anti-human ideologies.
That's not an overstatement.
American universities, once the envy of the world, have become hostile, mediocre places.
But there's at least one college that stands apart and has for 180 years.
Hillsdale College has stayed true to its original mission, even in the midst of all this chaos.
Hillsdale is committed completely to sharing the best things from its classrooms to every person in the United States, every American who wants to learn for free.
And as part of that commitment, Hillsdale offers free online courses based on its core curriculum that every student there takes on campus.
That would include American history, politics, the Bible, classic literature, Western philosophy, music, foreign policy.
It keeps going.
And they're great.
More than 4 million people have taken free online courses with Hillsdale.
No charge whatsoever.
Check it out.
Go to TuckerForHillsdale.com to start learning about everything that Hillsdale offers.
Again, even if you're opposed to college, even if you're one of the many Americans like me who thinks, if I had to do it again, I would never send kids to college, Hillsdale is different.
So when this thing all developed, my immediate supervisor, Bud Krog, who was put in charge of the special unit that became nicknamed the Plumbers because they stopped leaks, he assigned Gordon Liddy, and this other gentleman who is a retired CIA officer, Howard Hunt, joined the team as a consultant.
So they were the two people who were planning it.
Gordon was on the staff.
He was paid as a staff member.
And Hunt was paid from a fund the domestic council had to fund operations.
It was government money.
So they do the breaking.
I don't know who paid the Cubans.
I'm unable to say that.
I doubt the CIA paid them.
It could have been private money raised off budget.
But I just don't know.
The break-in was not successful.
They did not find the file.
But since they couldn't pick the lock, Gordon ordered them to break in and make it look like a drug bus, like some druggie went into the shrink's office looking for pills.
They didn't get caught.
Fielding reports it to the police.
So there's a police record.
So when this all starts to come out later, they know exactly when the break-in occurred.
Now, assume for a moment, whether you agree or not agree, that the FBI conducted the operation.
It would have been successful, no fingerprints, no trace left behind.
So there could have been, oh, I think it was broken into, but no proof.
But because it was botched, there was proof.
They got back to the White House.
They told John Ehrlichman, Who had approved a secret operation, covert, not necessarily illegal, and they told him they'd broken in.
They hadn't been successful, so they wanted to go break into Fielding's house to see if the fire was there.
And Ehrlichman said, no, no, no, we aren't going to do this anymore.
Get Liddy off my staff.
Then comes John Dean, assigned...
To do a campaign intelligence plan.
Looking for somebody to recruit.
Talks to Bud Krog.
Bud says, have I got a deal for you?
Here's Gordon Liddy.
Gordon has handled sensitive items for us in the past.
So Dean goes for it.
And he recruits Gordon Liddy.
And promises him all this money.
I think the actual promise was a half million.
Possibly a million.
So Gordon shows up at the re-election committee.
I'm supposed to do this plan.
And Magruder, the acting chief, says nobody with authority to do this to approve the expenditure.
So they go over to John Mitchell's office twice to present the plan.
It's not approved at either meeting.
But later, when these guys are arrested and caught in the act, people who were at that meeting are at risk of prosecution.
And that's when John Dean, who was at the meeting, who had recruited Gordon Liddy, he starts running the cover-up.
Nobody on the White House staff, not Haldeman or Ehrlichman or Nixon, do anything about the break-in.
So can I ask, I've already said that I knew Gordon Liddy pretty well and really liked him.
I found him enormously entertaining and smart and interesting.
However, and he's gone now, so he can't defend himself.
But that's so crazy to do something like that, to break into the DNC for no real reason in the middle of a presidential campaign you're winning anyway.
If he drove that, and you're saying that he did, is it possible that he was working against Nixon?
No, he expected to get, based on his spectacular work on this campaign intel plan, that he would get a very high position in the second term.
That's what was driving him.
He has conversations with Howard Hunt and says to Hunt, you've played your hand.
You've retired, you're older.
I'm looking to impress these people so I get a more senior position.
And he had dreams of grandeur.
Now, the other issue, and it's in Len Kolodny's book, Silent Coup, he says there was a totally separate reason.
And the reason had to do with John Dean's girlfriend, his fiancée.
I know nothing about this story except to reproduce Lynn's work.
He says the CIA was running a honey trap in the apartment building next door, Columbia Plaza Apartments, and they were catching foreign diplomats in compromising positions with good-looking women.
And John Dean was dating...
The roommate of the madame, Heidi Reichen, that was running the honey trap.
And she was best mate of honor at John Dean's marriage to Mo Beiner Dean.
But when they were dating, Mo's nickname was Clout because she was dating the counsel to the president.
So she had clout.
And according to Len, this is not me, this is Len Clodney, John Dean became worried that Maureen Dean's picture was in the desk drawer where the diplomat, not the foreign diplomats, but the DNC field officers would come in to the campaign headquarters, and they were looking for a good time.
And what you would do, this is the allegation, what you would do is you sit at the desk, pull open the drawer, there's a picture book.
You pick out somebody you like, you call the number and say, I like 15. And a few minutes later, 15 calls you back and arranges a date.
Pretty good.
Unless John Dean's girlfriend's picture, Was part of that portfolio.
So according to Lynn, the reason for the break-in was to go back in, and if her picture was there, take it out.
Now, one of the Cubans has a key, and the key is taped to his notebook, and when they are arrested, during the course of his arrest, he tries to swallow the key.
Okay?
He's damn lucky he didn't get shot.
He's not successful.
They wrestle him down.
They get the key.
And then they try to figure out where it goes.
And I'll be a son of a gun.
It goes to Maxie Wells' desk, which is alleged to have the photographs.
And it was the only phone, because he was running field operations that was apart from the DNC. So it was the only telephone that didn't go through the DNC switchboard.
And she was his secretary.
For the conspirators among us, his dad worked for Mullen& Company.
Which was a CIA front operation in Washington.
So, again, there's a remote CIA connection.
Now, let me finish on that, because I don't disagree with this allegation that this break-in is just weird as it can be.
Almost as weird as the Trump assassination.
All these things should never have happened.
But on the break-in, The issue that is so strange, it has to do with John Dean's girlfriend and the stories that are told about it.
And that's why John Dean runs the cover-up, because he's trying to protect his involvement, both in the meetings with John Mitchell and in this involvement with his fiancée.
So it just gets weirder and weirder.
Mullen and Company, again, the CIA front, they hire the first lawyer to come down to try to bail the five who've been arrested out of jail.
His name is Douglas Caddy.
And he shows up.
They don't know he's—they don't think—they've never retained him.
He just shows up at the police station and says, I represent those five guys.
We want to get him out of here.
And the Cubans are saying to the police, You know we're on the same side.
You know there's going to be a phone call and we're going to be out of here within the next half hour.
Now, he doesn't say it, but, you know, we're working for the president of the United States.
I think what happens, again, this is all speculation, is Howard Hunt, who's not caught, Goes back to the hotel room where the listening device is across the street.
It's in the Howard Johnson's Hotel across the street.
And tells the guy who was supposed to be listening to the wiretaps.
Get your stuff and get out.
Get lost.
And then Howard Hunt drives around Washington for a couple of hours.
And decides the safest place to put his stuff is his office in the old executive office building because he's a consultant to the plumbers.
So he goes in 2 a.m., 3 a.m., leaves all his stuff in his safe.
He's got too much stuff, so it's on the desk and in his safe.
And then you switch, and we didn't put this in our documentary.
All of this.
The part I have to play is in a documentary.
The FBI agent who is assigned, Angela Lano, who is assigned to the case from day one, he says, you know, the burglars had two hotel keys at the Watergate Hotel where they were staying.
So we went to their rooms.
I went to one of the rooms.
And all the evidence we could ever have needed is laid out on the bed.
Here's their ID. Here's their wallets.
Here's the sequential $100 bills.
Here's an envelope from Howard Hunt, nominally from Miami, to pay his dues to a country club so it looks like he's a non-resident member.
I mean, Howard's cheating on his dues.
So they go over and interview Howard Hunt that very day.
Now, Hunt doesn't talk to him.
Hunt bolts for the West Coast and hides out with an attorney friend waiting for word from Gordon on what on earth to do.
You know, they've been caught.
Gordon is over at the re-election committee shredding documents like there's no tomorrow.
He actually had stationery printed up with the name Gemstone because that was the overall code name.
Of his campaign intelligence plan.
And he's shredding documents, incriminating documents.
Like mad.
And he's not really...
He's fired from the FBI, from the re-election committee about five days later because he won't cooperate with the FBI. And then he's indicted on September 15th.
Breaking is June.
They're caught red-handed.
The prosecutors launch a huge investigation.
John Dean does everything in his power to thwart it, to coordinate the testimony.
He does incredible things in his cover-up.
He rehearses some of the people on what they're to testify to when they appear in front of the grand jury.
He destroys evidence.
Some stuff taken from Howard Hunt's safe he found dangerous.
So he peels it off, puts it in his file cabinet, and later admits he's destroyed it.
He talks the head of the FBI, Pat Gray, into sharing intelligence reports, prosecutive reports with him, so he can share them with defense counsel so they know where the investigation is going.
And Pat Gray testifies under oath.
He's put up to be head of the FBI permanently.
And he says, yes, I gave John Dean 81 investigative reports over time.
He told me he was doing this investigation on behalf of the president.
And I believed him.
Why wouldn't I give him the investigative reports?
But John Dean was giving them to defense counsel.
And John Dean is the only person in Watergate.
He took money.
He embezzled $4,000 of campaign funds to pay for his honeymoon.
It's all admitted.
It's all on record.
He's disbarred by the Commonwealth of Virginia, February 6th, 1974. And the court hearing, the New York Times article says he was accused of suborning perjury, all these criminal acts, and he's disbarred.
He's been disbarred through today.
He cannot represent anybody in court, give legal advice.
Most of us, well, actually all of us, go through our daily lives using all sorts of, quote, free technology.
Without paying attention to why it's, quote, free, who's paying for this and how?
Think about it for a minute.
Think about your free email account, the free messenger system used to chat with your friends, the free weather app or game app you open up and never think about.
It's all free.
But is it?
No, it's not free.
These companies aren't developing expensive products and just giving them to you because they love you.
They're doing it because their programs take all your information.
They hoover up your data, private, personal data, and sell it to data brokers and the government.
And all of those people who are not your friends are very interested in manipulating you and your personal, political, and financial decisions.
It's scary as hell.
And it's happening out in the open without anybody saying anything about it.
This is a huge problem.
And we've been talking about this problem to our friend Eric Prince for years.
Someone needs to fix this.
And he and his partners have.
And now we're partners with them.
And their company is called Unplugged.
It's not a software company.
It's a hardware company.
They actually make a phone.
The phone is called Unplugged.
And it's more than that.
The purpose of the phone is to protect you from having your life stolen.
Your data stolen.
It's designed from a privacy-first perspective.
It's got an operating system that they made.
It's called Messenger and other apps that help you take charge of your personal data and prevent it from getting passed around to data brokers and government agencies that will use it to manipulate you.
UnplugSkin is to its customers.
They will promise you, and they mean it, that your data are not being sold or monetized or shared with anyone.
From basics, like its custom Libertas operating system, which they wrote, Which is designed from the very first day to keep your personal data on your device.
It also has, believe it or not, a true on-off switch that shuts off the power.
It actually disconnects your battery and ensures that your microphone and your camera are turned off completely when you want them to be.
So they're not spying on you in, say, your bedroom, which your iPhone is.
That's a fact.
So it is a great way, one of the few ways, to actually protect yourself from big tech and big government, to reclaim your personal privacy.
Without privacy, there is no freedom.
The Unplugged phone.
You can get a $25 discount when you use the code Tucker at the checkout.
So go to unplugged.com slash Tucker to get yours today.
Out of nowhere, in 2014, he publishes lots of books, all on Watergate.
His wife publishes a book on Watergate.
He publishes one in 2014 called The Nixon Defense.
And at page 54 in his book, there's a footnote.
And the footnote says, you know, funny thing, the smoking gun tape that drove Nixon out of office, it's released on August 5th, he resigns on August 8th.
That's what knocked Nixon off.
That's been misunderstood from the beginning.
It was really an effort to not have the FBI interview two people who might reveal the donation of significant Contributions to creep by Democrats, by very prominent Democrats.
So what appears to be Nixon agreeing to using the CIA to cover up the break-in is nothing of the sort.
Nixon agreed to use the CIA to protect the testimony against two prominent Democrats.
If Nixon had known this when this tape came out, When the tape was first heard, he might have lived to fight another day.
Those are quotes at the bottom of the page.
He might have lived to fight another day.
In short, the smoking gun was shooting blanks.
Okay, here's the guy who's at the absolute center of the alleged wrongdoing, saying it's all been a mistake.
Now, he testified at the trial.
And when you swear in as a witness, You'd swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
John Dean knew from the date that tape was released that it was misinterpreted, but he didn't say so at the trial.
When they were pushing on him, I mean, Bob Haldeman, his life is hanging by a balance, and he says that was the political decision.
And John Dean says, well, they were worried about Gordon Liddy's involvement, which is true, but a lie.
It's just interesting that Nixon was forced from office on the allegation that he was using the CIA to cover it up, when in fact the CIA had been involved in it long before Nixon even knew.
Bob Haldeman comes in and he says, the investigation is going in a direction we don't want it to go.
And Nixon says, what are you talking about?
He says, well, they're tracing the money.
And what he means is they're not tracing how the money got to the burglars, because it's clear that came from Creep.
It's how the money got to creep in the first place, and that will reveal these two guys.
So Nixon says, is it Stans?
Does this have to do with Maurice Stans, who's finance chairman?
And Haldeman says, no, it's somebody who works for Stans.
It's Ken Dahlberg.
And then one of the most famous lines in our history, Nixon says, who the hell is Ken Dahlberg?
And Haldeman says he's a middleman.
And there's another guy, a Mexican attorney.
I'll have the name for you tomorrow.
But John, they're going to reveal the identities of these donors.
And John's thought about it and come up with an answer.
And he says, why don't we, he's just been over to see Pat Gray at the FBI. And Pat Gray says they think it's a CIA operation because there's all these foreigners and all this foreign money and these Cubans.
So we'll just get the CIA to tell the FBI, lay off these two guys.
Okay?
Totally misunderstood by Nixon's lawyers.
They read it as, no, no, no.
The effort was to shut down the investigation.
But John Dean, who was there, John Dean is the one who came up with the idea.
He gets in 2014 around to saying, not so.
And even though he said that in his book, he'll sit there in meetings, he'll sit there in TV shows where people say, and Nixon tried to stop the investigation.
He won't say a word.
See, John's caught in a trap.
His interactions with Nixon, personal interactions with Nixon, they're on tape.
So he can't fudge much.
There's a memo, and I've produced the memo.
Written by one of the special prosecutors on February 6th, 74. And it lists the material discrepancies between John Dean's testimony before the Senate and what's on the tapes.
And there's 19 material discrepancies.
But the press doesn't care.
The press has got a narrative.
And the narrative is Nixon and his people are all crooks.
We don't have to look any further.
We don't have to read the transcripts.
We know what they say, but they don't say it.
That's what my work keys off of, and that's what we've reduced to in this documentary.
So this might be a good transition to the question of the press's role in this.
Now, from my perspective, the press drove it.
I don't know if that's correct or not, but...
From the vantage of 50 years, it looks like the Washington Post in particular, Ben Bradley, the editor, and the two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, drove the coverage with the New York Times and Time and Newsweek and the networks.
And so, just for people who weren't around 50 years ago and weren't working in government then, you're saying that those six news outlets, all headquartered in midtown Manhattan, were basically the sum total of the narrative machine in the United States.
The one thing I can assess, having worked in journalism for over 30 years, is it's incredibly weird that they got this story.
It just doesn't make any sense to me from my knowledge of how news organizations work.
So Woodward and Bernstein were really young.
Bernstein had been a reporter for a number of years, a few years.
Woodward had not been.
He was a naval intel officer working at the Pentagon, sent on a couple of occasions at least over to the Nixon White House to deliver things, to do briefings.
And then within, like, months winds up at the Washington Post with no journalism experience at all, and then winds up with the biggest story in the modern history of journalism.
It is a great app that I am proud to say I use, my whole family uses.
It's for daily prayer and Christian meditation.
And it's transformative.
As we head into the start of school in the height of election season, you need it.
Trust me, we all do.
Things are going to get crazier and crazier and crazier.
Sometimes it's hard to imagine even what is coming next.
So with everything happening in the world right now, it is essential to ground yourself.
This is not some quack cure.
This is the oldest and most reliable cure in history.
It's prayer.
Ground yourself in prayer and scripture every single day.
That is a prerequisite for staying sane and healthy and maybe for doing better eternally.
So if you're busy on the road headed to kids sports, there is always time to pray and reflect alone or as a family.
It's hard to be organized about it.
Building a foundation of prayer is going to be absolutely critical as we head into November, praying that God's will is done in this country and that peace and healing come to us here in the United States and around the world.
Christianity obviously is under attack everywhere.
That's not an accident.
Why is Christianity, the most peaceful of all religions, under attack globally?
Did you see the opening of the Paris Olympics?
There's a reason.
Because the battle is not temporal, it's taking place in the unseen world.
It's a spiritual battle, obviously.
So try Halo.
Get three months completely free at Halo.
That's Halo.com slash Tucker.
If there's ever a time to get spiritually in tune and ground yourself in prayer, it's now.
Halo will help personally and strongly and totally sincerely recommend it.
Halo.com slash Tucker.
So, it's the second part of your sentence that really gives me pause.
It's like, the FBI is a law enforcement agency.
Their job is to investigate crime and to, you know, help prosecutors punish the guilty.
Yes, but it also undermines the narrative, the popular narrative, that it was Nixon and Nixon's people, somebody on Nixon's White House staff, who was leaking to Woodward.
Well, and not just the narrative, the story against Nixon, but it would also raise questions about who runs the government.
Yes.
I mean, the promise of our system is that the people rule.
It's their country.
And in order to enact their will, they elect their representatives up to and including the president.
And the real story of Watergate tells a very different tale about who runs the country, which is that the people with permanent jobs, accountable to nobody, unfireable, have all the power.
So the reason that you don't interview Not allowed to talk to grand jurors is because it can influence the process of indictment.
So, what you have here is a news organization, the Washington Post, Ben Bradley, Woodward, and Bernstein, not only lying about what they did, but inserting themselves into the legal process.
He's an utter fraud, and it's proven that he's a fraud.
So how, you know, why is every, I think every president since Nixon, maybe not Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford, but the rest, have all sort of sat with Bob Woodward, talked to Bob Woodward.
When the cover-up trial is still going on, but the jury has been sequestered, he tenders his resignation.
He saw it through Nixon being named a co-conspirator, Nixon resigning, Nixon being pardoned by Ford.
Time to go home.
The first interview after he leaves is with Bob Woodward, and we have Bob's typewritten notes of that interview.
And in the second sentence, I happen to have it with me right here because I work off the written record, the second sentence of his notes says, quote, says there were a lot of one-on-one conversations that nobody knows about but him and the other party.
Well, that's a bizarre thing for the special prosecutor to say.
How did you succeed?
Well, there were a lot of one-on-one conversations with somebody that nobody knows about.
He was talking about the multitude of secret meetings he had had with Judge Sirica.
If you're caught, if it becomes public, you met with a judge without the other side being present, you are off the case, you might be disbarred, and the judge will be prevented from hearing that case, and he may be impeached.
In fact, what happened was the three top prosecutors left early.
They left before the cover-up trial was over.
And they took their records with them, their sensitive files.
And they didn't start to surface until 2013, well after these guys died.
And they ended up at the National Archives.
And I happen to be researching.
I've spent 27,000 hours researching the Watergate prosecutions.
Reading every document, pursuing every possibility.
And I was the first to see what turned out to be Leon Jaworski's confidential Watergate files.
And they describe unbelievable things.
They describe secret meetings with the judge.
They describe political decisions that were going to indict Republicans on very, very flimsy evidence and not invite Democrats.
On super strong evidence, because if you invited Democrats, that would ruin the narrative.
I mean, the big case, if I could, just two names, Chuck Colson was perhaps Nixon's fiercest defender, but he wasn't involved in the cover-up.
So the prosecutors come in for a review, and the lead trial guys, who want to indict everybody, They said, we want to indict Colson, name him in the comprehensive cover-up indictment.
And the question is asked, well, what are the odds of conviction?
Well, he's not that involved.
The odds are about 50-50.
And one of the other lawyers says, well, you can't do that.
That's not the standard for indicting somebody.
That's the standard for saying there's probable cause.
But we don't, we at the Department of Justice, do not let people get indicted.
Unless we're very confident that a jury, knowing what we know, will convict.
50-50 is not good enough.
And then they go on to a guy named, but they indict him anyway.
So they always tell you it's the most important election of your lifetime.
But of course, this one actually is.
That's demonstrable.
And it's also, because it is so important, being censored at every level by the tech companies.
So we were thinking about this a couple of months ago, and we thought, why not get on the road live in front of actual people, live audiences, coast to coast, a nationwide tour where we can't be censored?
That'd be good.
It would also be fun.
So we're doing it.
We're going to be on stage with some of our friends, some of the most fascinating people we know, the most recognizable people we know, responding to what is happening in America this September in real time.
It'll be just like the podcast, but it's going to be live.
So we're excited to announce our friend Larry Elder is coming to join us in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Our friend John Rich will be there with us in Sunrise, Florida.
We're adding more stops.
We just added another stadium show in Reading, Pennsylvania.
We'll be joined on stage by Alex Jones.
They tell you what Alex Jones is like.
Have you seen him in person?
You should.
Make up your own mind.
It's going to be fun as hell and interesting and intense, and we hope you will join us.
Go to TuckerCarlson.com right now to get your tickets.
See you there.
Lowell P. Weicker, my former neighbor in Washington, and Howard Baker of Tennessee.
Well, yeah, but see, you would be making points nobody would believe.
I mean, as we started out this discussion, the special prosecutor, the top 17 lawyers.
All worked together in Robert Kennedy's Department of Justice.
This was a constitutional inversion where the people who lost power with Nixon's election, 1968, suddenly are in charge of investigation and prosecution.
They announce at their first press conference they will investigate every allegation of wrongdoing about Nixon since he took office in 1969. So what we originally characterized as a third-rate burglary, maybe so, suddenly had been used as the bootstrap to launch investigations of every aspect of the Nixon administration.
The reason I was able to piece it together is they show in their report the names of the staff, but they don't include whether they were a lawyer or not.
So you've got to Google each and every name and see if you can come up with.
Well, except Phil LaCovara was number one in his class at Columbia and is coming from the Solicitor General's office and is ranking number two and a half in the Special Prosecutor's office.
He takes his files with him when he leaves.
Now, he's still alive.
He quits flamboyantly over the Nick over the Ford pardon.
And he says, I will not be a party to prosecuting Nixon's staff.
When Nixon got off scot-free.
Now, that's a man of principle.
But he's the one that wrote the memo that said you can't indict Chuck Colson on a 50-50 assumption of conviction.
He's the one that writes a memo.
I have all these.
Because he gave them back in 2020. Gave them all the files he'd taken with him back to archives.
And I happened to be having lunch.
With the archivist most responsible for the prosecutor's documents.
And he said, oh, we got Phil Lacavar's papers.
And I said, do you need a FOIA request?
I'd love to look through them.
He said, you don't have to.
He just gave them to us.
We've got them.
Now, when you look at them, and you get to look at the originals, you know, I'm not going to destroy anything.
It's obvious they've been stored in the basement somewhere because the staples have rusted a little bit and stained the paper.
So they've gone through it, and they've made photocopies, so you're not looking at the actual originals.
But he has one memo in there saying, we just got the dissent on the effort to get Sirica thrown off the case.
And it's a good dissent, and I'm really worried about that issue, the issue of recusal.
We should never have let Sirica name himself.
To preside over the second trial.
But since we've crossed that bridge, there's no turning back now.
So you can say, in writing, even the top prosecutors knew Sirica should not have been allowed to appoint himself to preside over the trial.
When he did, we objected.
We took it up on appeal.
He's too tainted.
You can't use him.
And the ACLU submitted an amicus brief, the American Civil Liberties Union, and said, we put this brief in because the defendants deserve an unbiased judge.
And they've asked for a hearing on whether Sirica has met privately with the prosecutors.
Now, we know he'd met at least seven times with these prosecutors.
He'd met with Cox, he'd met with Silbert, he'd met with Jaworski.
Well, it's absolutely crazy that they wrote memos about it.
And we went up to the court and said, we've got to have this hearing.
And the court rules, this is the D.C. Circuit, without allowing the opportunity for oral argument, in a per curiam, that's unsigned, one sentence holding, motion denied.
Cannot have an evidentiary hearing on Sirica.
The fix is in.
You know why the fix was in?
It gets worse and worse.
Archibald Cox, the first special prosecutor, became so worried that Sirica was doing these crazy rulings on behalf of the prosecutors that they'd win at trial but lose on appeal.
He was the most reversed judge on appeal because of his ignorance.
Unacceptability of defendants' rights.
So Cox goes to see the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit, David Bazelon, and he says, I tell you what, there's five liberals on your court, and there's four non-liberals.
It's a nine-man court.
The normal appeal will be heard by three judges.
That's how we do appeals.
You're guaranteed an appeal, but it's three judges.
We could end up with Two Republicans.
And maybe Sirica would be overturned.
These are crazy rulings.
But if you hold all hearings on Sirica's cases in bunk, the whole nine judges, then you'll always be in control and Sirica can always be upheld.
So I put the comment in the book without attribution that the fix was in.
Years go by, and my third book comes out, and I go down to see Larry.
He's a good friend.
And I say, Larry, what I want you to do is call up Merrick Garland and tell him I know what I'm talking about, that the Department of Justice ought to look into this stuff.
This stuff I've uncovered is incredible.
He says, I'm not talking to him.
I don't like what he's done.
But I'll tell you what I'll do.
What you ought to do is have the Federalist Society put on a seminar about this, about what you've discovered.
And he's on the board.
And I said, will you participate?
And he looks off and he says, yeah, I'll participate in your seminar.
So we get ready, and it's on film.
It's available.
And he says now, What do you want me to say other than the Bazelon event?
He's now eager to get that on the record.
And we have it on film, and he describes just what I told you, that the clerk was there, the setup, Cox went in, the setup.
And then he says, now I've asked today's clerk of court, for the record, you don't just move to go and bonk from the beginning.
The book is called Without Honor, The Crimes of Camelot and the Fall of Richard Nixon, written in the 1990s by the former chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee.
And he describes terrible things.
About Hillary Clinton.
And the one that I find the most interesting, she's a very recent graduate of Yale Law School, Hillary Rodham.
And he says the staffer running the impeachment inquiry, John Doerr, was beholden to a professor at Yale Law School, Burke Marshall, who was going to be Ted Kennedy's attorney general if he won.
Okay?
So...
Hillary Rodham was a recent graduate of Yale, and she was a go-between.
She was carrying messages back and forth between these two people.
And she did things that were hugely political.
For example, the Republican minority on the impeachment inquiry kept demanding comparability.
What about acts by other presidents?
You say Nixon abused power.
That he's responsible for abuse of power.
What about other presidents?
How did they respond to allegations of abuse?
So Hillary's assigned the project.
She goes back up to Yale and lines up the chairman of the Yale History Department, C. Van Woodward.
And he gets four other history professors, and they work round the clock to research and write up Every president from Lyndon Johnson back to George Washington and how they interacted with the Congress.
And, of course, there's always tension between the two branches.
Allegations of abuse.
Thomas Jefferson won't build the submarine.
Well, that's abuse.
We gave the money.
You can't sequester.
He wants to fire somebody.
Well, we like that body.
We don't want him to fire them.
So they produced this manuscript, which looks too good for Richard Nixon.
It says these tensions between the two branches have gone on since its founding.
So they suppress it.
They do not share it with the Republican minority, particularly Congressman Wiggins out of California, who was Nixon's principal defender on the House Judiciary Committee.
Technically, she reports to John Doerr, who is the head of the combined impeachment staff.
I think there were 45 lawyers on the combined impeachment staff.
I think they were specially hired by Doar.
The person you want to read is a lady named Renata Adler, who was on the staff at the time, then went to Yale Law School, and then became a writer.
And she wrote one article about the first-year reunion of the impeachment staff.
And she said, you know, it seems to me, in retrospect, It was something of a cover-up.
Nobody told us about what came out under the church committee.
The church committee was a Watergate reform to look into the abuse and misuse of the CIA and the FBI. They looked at international and domestic.
And she says, the only thing I can think was we were part of a cover-up because we weren't told about any of that.
And that would have changed everything.
And then there's another article she did.
When she was editor of New York Magazine, and she wrote a book about the last great days of the New York Magazine, and she said in the book, I refuse to run a review of John Sirica's book because he was so corrupt.
And his son was working for Newsday, and the New York Times and others responded badly, and pilloried her.
As you've watched the criminal prosecution of Donald Trump, as he becomes a Republican nominee, have you noticed similarities between what you're seeing now and what you saw 50 years ago?
They've misplaced or lost records that would appear to be helpful to Trump people.
But, oh, they're gone.
We don't have those interviews.
The charges, this is, I think this is astonishing.
Just astonishing.
Trump is tried in New York.
And they got to get a felony in order to have an extended statute of limitations.
You know, the fix is in from the beginning.
But defenders don't know the charge against Trump until the prosecutor's summation at the end of the trial.
Yes, you faked your accounting, but there has to be another felony.
And they didn't name the other felony.
So today, it's one of three.
Doesn't have to be a majority of the jury.
That's why it's on appeal.
The prosecutors decided in a secret meeting with Sirica that the law was too unclear as to whether you could indict a sitting president.
It's assumed today, but there's no decision.
So they decided, rather than litigate that, let's take all the evidence that we've gathered to indict Nixon, Send it to the House Judiciary Committee so they can impeach Richard Nixon.
Now, there's different standards on indictment.
Only prosecutors have access to grand juries.
Grand juries are something like a star chamber.
It's conducted in secret.
Your attorney can't be in the room with you.
You can't put on your own evidence.
You can't cross-examine witnesses.
You don't know what they said about you when you get there.
You don't know what they said about you when you leave.
So it is a horror show if it becomes used for political purposes.
Congress doesn't have access to a grand jury.
So Congress in its investigations is limited.
Here's these specially recruited special prosecutors, and they say, what we know the House judiciary can't find out, we could only do it with a grand jury.
Now, parallel to your grand jury operating in secret, and it's got to stay secret forever, what the witnesses say, you know, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
But when you go to prove that in court, same evidence, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments come into play.
Got to be sworn testimony, got to be evidence, got to be cross-examination, got to be a public trial, got to be a jury of your peers, all this stuff.
So it balances out, even though the grand jury is a holy terror, particularly if you're called.
I don't know if you have.
I've never been called in front of a grand jury.
But terrify you.
What the prosecutors worked out, brilliant, was let's send our evidence up to the House Judiciary Committee and we'll call it a presentment.
Because the Fifth Amendment says you can't be charged a federal crime except by presentment or indictment of a grand jury.
Nobody's really sure what presentment means.
Let's call it presentment.
We'll send it up.
Now, just for a second, assume...
What the grand jury knows is garbage.
It's untested, okay?
It shouldn't be and should never see the light of day.
If it's gonna, it's gotta have the counter tests.
But they sent it to House Judiciary and they say, oh no, gotta be secret.
Can't be revealed to anybody.
So Nixon's defenders don't know what he's been charged with.
Kind of out of nowhere.
He's charged an unindicted co-conspirator in the Watergate cover-up.
Both special prosecutors said publicly, we would never do that to Nixon because he's named, but he can't come into court to defend himself because he's not charged.
He's unindicted.
But they did it anyway.
And they sent it up there to the Hill.
Secret accusations of what Nixon did.
To cause them to name him a co-conspirator.
That document is called the roadmap.
Now, the roadmap is an outline of 55 pages.
Fact.
John Dean is named counsel to the president.
Underline.
Citation.
John Dean's grand jury testimony.
Okay?
Fact.
Citation.
Fact.
Citation.
55 pages.
But if you print out the citations, Mainly to Watergate tapes or grand jury testimony, two reams of paper.
I tell you, nobody read the citations.
They just took the facts as facts.
They couldn't prove Nixon had done anything wrong.
They couldn't prove that Nixon was personally involved in the cover.
Okay?
So they lied.
They lied about it.
They faked.
And it wasn't until 2018, as a result of my court petition, that Beryl Howell, then Chief Judge, unsealed the roadmap.
So for the first time in 45 years, we could learn what Nixon was accused of having done that justified his, then his removal, but at the time his indictment.
Nothing short of incredible.
And I'm the only one, you know, you get the impression I've drilled pretty deeply in this stuff.
I'm the only one that had the knowledge to go back through and check all the citations and uncover way down in one of them, they fake it.
But what's so interesting is, like, they removed the President of the United States and nobody thought to demand an answer to the most simple question, which is, what exactly did he do wrong?
Watergate Secrets and Betrayals, Orchestrating Nixon's Demise.
And it's narrated by John O'Hurley.
And the genius is the guy who wrote it, George Bugatti, because he took my hugely detailed legal expressions and he put him into...
Language that Americans can understand.
Hit the high point so you can get an appreciation of what was going on.
Now, we got there.
This is funny.
We got there because he wanted to produce a play on Nixon's impeachment.
Okay?
And here's the playbill.
It played off-Broadway in August of 2021. And if you think about it for a second, you reduce all my books.
To an hour and a half play, you got to pick out the highlights and the words and be persuasive without taking up too much time.
Now what we've done, same thing, same people, is produce a serious documentary on those documents.
And we started with a set of 24 that I put together for a production we did for the Hoover Institution about a year ago.
24 internal memos that trace the ex parte meetings, which are terribly wrong, the suppression of evidence that would have been helpful to the defense, the political naming of defendants, we only name Republicans, we don't name Democrats, all laid out in these 24 worst memos, and we took a selection of that to put in the documentary.
He went to his grave not knowing what had been done to him.
One of the great disappointments in life, not even suspecting what had been done.
And so did Erlickman and Haldeman.
So did...
To a large extent, Chuck Colson.
Chuck died much later.
But I've uncovered what was simply not known.
Now, I grant you your knowledge of and interest in the break-in, and it looks peculiar.
Good questions.
But that's not what sunk Richard Nixon.
What sunk Richard Nixon was hugely biased lawfare, the perversion of the criminal justice system, Designed to drive Nixon from office, to void his re-election, and to imprison his top aides.
Well, I'll tell you what I thought, and maybe that's what he thought.
Until I discovered these documents, I thought of Watergate as a tragedy.
Let me read you the definition of tragedy.
Greek tragedy, okay?
In Poetics, Aristotle's book, he defines the ideal tragic hero as a man who's highly renowned and prosperous, but not one who is preeminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune is brought upon him not by vice or depravity, but by some error of judgment or frailty.
And that's Nixon.
And then there's the interpretation of Shakespearean tragedy, which envisions a setting in which a moral order reacts violently and convulsively against certain infractions.
From this reaction comes the calamity, which befalls the hero, frequently way out of proportion to the infraction itself.
And within this calamity, there is a dominating impression of waste.
you could say that's Watergate too And that's what I believed.
I thought he should have resigned.
I believe the smoking gun said what was properly interpreted as being a part of the cover-up.
And then I started discovering these documents.
And I picture myself sometimes as a monk, you know, sitting up on a high-topped desk in a monastery in the Middle Ages with a candle here.
Going through dusty manuscripts and discovering what we've been told is the opposite of what was written down at the time.
The memos that I've uncovered are nothing short of incredible.
And what distinguishes my work from allegations, from suspicions today, is I've got this paper trail.
So, but Nixon, I mean, I didn't know Richard Nixon, but I, you know, he did several interviews, famously with David Frost, but others, where this came up, and he seemed not very bitter about it, or not.
You know, one of the really interesting things about Nixon, he's in the military, he's in the Navy, goes to the front Pacific, and he sets up a hamburger stand, all this kind of stuff.
But he plays poker.
And he comes home with $10,000 of winnings from poker that funds his first campaign, okay?
Now, to be that good, you got to be able to read people, and you got to prevent people from reading you.
And nobody writes about that.
They don't understand.
And for Nixon, it was self-control.
So he says, I don't blame John Dean for doing what he did.
The guy brought down the presidency.
But he makes himself say that.
Now, on his final speech on the morning where he's going to go out and get on the helicopter, he's announced the night before he's going to resign.
He's saying goodbye to his staff.
And I was there pretty bitter because of that tape.
But he says, you know, you just can't be bitter.
If you're bitter, if you return hatred, then you lose, and the hatred will consume you.
And at the time, I thought it was just babble.
You know, what do you say?
But he was being sincere.
He really believed that.
A couple of the truths, if I may.
Nixon believed the truth was going to come out, without question, when he would allude to his prosecution or exposure of Alger Hiss.
He's a communist spy in 1946-47.
The statute had run on Hiss being a communist.
What botched Hiss up was his perjured testimony.
So Nixon would say, from then on, remember Alger Hiss.
Anything you do, don't perjure yourself.
And in one of the tapes he says, because then you've got two problems.
You got the original problem, and you got the problem that you perjured yourself.
Well, and that's my last question, and it has to do with Nixon.
Not just during Watergate or after his 72 re-election, but really for the scope of his career, going back to Hiss, the Hiss case, which I may be answering my own question, but the hatred of Richard Nixon was, like, pathological.
I mean, I don't know how many books hating Nixon came out.
And just when Truman became president, they won, Republicans won, for one session.
And when Eisenhower was elected, they won for one session.
Those are the red blocks at the bottom.
But then it reverted to total Democrat control.
And the Goldwater debacle in 1964 gave the Democrats two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate.
They ruled.
And who interrupts that?
Well, Richard Nixon.
Forget Eisenhower.
He was a war hero.
He could have run as a Democrat.
Who did his dirty work?
Richard Nixon.
You could believe.
I think wrongly, but you could believe if you were a Democrat, that if you could get rid of Nixon, the man, he would all go back to Democrat dominance, which is what it should be.
Now, what they did, my first book about the Kennedy people, they set out to have three goals.
They wanted to ruin Nixon and his people, okay?
They wanted to stop the Republican money machine.
In those days, Republicans had all the money.
Democrats had all the unions.
There was a campaign committee set up in 1970, mid-year elections, designed to elect more conservatives, whether they were Democrats or Republicans.
And they raised a fair amount of money.
The Democrats investigated that, a part of what they're going to do.
And they sent FBI agents or IRS agents out to interview 150 Republican donors to this 1970 group called the Townhouse Project.
Because it turned out it didn't have a registered campaign treasurer.
Okay?
Nothing to do with Watergate.
At the time, there was a federal law on campaigns called the Corrupt Practices Act of 1925. It wasn't enforced anymore.
The last prosecution was brought in 1934. The Department of Justice testified in 1972 that they had a policy of non-enforcement.
But the special prosecutors re-erected it.
Sent their minions out to scare the living bejesus out of donors.
Now, if the IRS came to see you as a prominent donor, next time around, you wouldn't play.
So they crippled the Republican money machine, and then they launched investigations, internal investigations, of every single potential Republican candidate for president in 1976 who would run against, they assumed, Ted Kennedy.
So they had Jerry Ford's full field investigations.
They didn't do them, but Ford had to be confirmed by both the House and the Senate.
And then, and then there's Ronald Reagan, governor of California, 3,000 miles away.
Now, there's no file on Ronald Reagan, but there's a memo that I published, I put in my first book, and the prosecutor says, I just want to follow up on our hallway conversation and bring you up to date on where we are on the investigation of Ronald Reagan.
What we did talk about was Nixon's absolute paranoia that Ted Kennedy would emerge as his opponent in 1972, and they would steal his re-election just like they stole 1960. But I can't remember a single conversation about the Warren Commission.
But can I ask you, so you say, now I keep, I'm violating my pledge not to ask you more questions, but okay, this is the last one.
So you said Nixon was worried that Kennedy would run against him in 72 instead of McGovern and that they would steal the election as they had in 1960. Yes.
Two-parter.
Did Nixon sincerely believe that the 60 election was stolen from him?
With Kennedy money in West Virginia and Texas, where, interestingly, Leon Jaworski leads the defense and claims in Texas there's no law, there's no standing to come into Texas and claim that the election was stolen.
When I brought my suit, if I may, when I brought my suit to disclose the roadmap, and I prevailed, the judge at the same time said she was going to rule against my motion to disclose the grand jury testimony.
So the Department of Justice called me and said, we've been asked to prepare the order finding against you on that part of your petition.
Second thing, there is a post-Watergate reform at the Department of Justice, a unit set up whose only responsibility is to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by Justice Department lawyers.
It's called the Office of Professional Responsibility.
It was founded the year after Watergate.
It didn't exist during Watergate.
I learned about it about a year and a half ago.
I immediately filed, asking for a review of the prosecutors.
Look what they did.
And I followed it up with 11 letters.
Let me come down and explain.
This is complex.
I got all the paperwork.
Please let me come make the case.
One year passes.
I get a letter.
Thank you for your interest in the enforcement of the laws.
It's been a long time.
These lawyers aren't here anymore.
We're busy doing other things.
And we take no responsibility for the special prosecutors because subsequent to the special prosecution force, they enacted the independent counsel law.
And we deem them to have operated under that.
The Department of Justice is simply not involved.
And I sent, it's posted on my website, And I sent back a letter, and I said, here's your stationery for your letters and your internal memos saying Department of Justice.
So it turns out that YouTube is suppressing our show.
I know.
Shocking that in an election year, with everything at stake, Google would be putting its thumb on the scale and preventing you from hearing anything that the people in charge don't want you to hear.
But it turns out it's happening.
So what can you do about it?
Well, we could whine about it.
But that's a waste of time.
We're not in charge of Google.
Or we could find a way around it.
A way that you could actually get information that's true.
It's not intentionally deceptive.
And the way to do that on YouTube, we think, is to subscribe to our channel.
Subscribe!
And you'll have a much higher chance of hearing what we say.