Podcasts about archibald cox

Send us a textFew offices in the history of our government have produced more harm, to more people, more often, and more efficiently that the office created in 1973 to investigate the Watergate Scandal. The Special Prosecutor's statute stayed on the books the rest of the 20th century and was used to wound the reelection campaign of George H. W. Bush, and then cripple the final years of the Presidency of Bill Clinton. It has horribly damaged the historical legacies of four United States Presidents: Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. Ironically, the very party who dreamed this evil institution up, the Democratic Party,  was the same one to end it when the statue expired in 1999, but only after it had been effectively used to demolish a President of their own party, even as the Impeachment attempt failed to remove Bill Clinton from office.  Then congress invented its bastardized cousin, the Special Counsel statue. While it does have some modest restraints compared to the absolute total powers of the Special Prosecutor's statute, the record of abuse there may not be fully known until our current era, centered around Donald Trump, is over. As we look back at the 1992 Presidential Election and its controversial end. We thought this the perfect opportunity to show to our listeners the full impact of the 30 years of dishonesty that has been used to devastatingly wound four American Presidencies. But even worse than the damage done to the institution of the Presidency is the personal destruction it has wrought on the innocent aids to these Presidents. Often young men and women, whose only real crime was earnestly wanting to play role in the history of the nation and seize the opportunity so few people get in life, the chance to work for the President of the United States. Instead, many faced prison time, and were financially wiped out, while the most dastardly, horrible , unethical people you could have ever dreamed up paraded themselves on television and in books as lawyers who champion justice while playing on the trusting nature of a naive public that still believes that our Justice System is the one uncorrupted branch of government left in the land. Here we lay everything out, the abuses of power, and the intentionally corrupt birth of the most evil office our government has ever created. We hope it will serve as a warning for what we have seen in our more modern times, so that perhaps wise heads will see to it that this institution dies, with a stake through its heart. Like this bloodsucking vampire of an institution of division and destruction  truly deserves.  Boundless Insights - with Aviva KlompasIn depth analysis of what's happening in Israel—and why it matters everywhere.Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifyQuestions or comments at , Randalrgw1@aol.com , https://twitter.com/randal_wallace , and http://www.randalwallace.com/Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcastsThanks for listening!!

SERIES 3 EPISODE 56: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SPECIAL COMMENT: Republican silence or in some cases rationalizations have met General John Kelly taking his story ON the record about Trump coveting generals personally loyal to him the way Hitler's were personally loyal to him, and Trump insisting Hitler did good things for Germany. With other of mortified Trump military officials reportedly contemplating going public in similar ways, it is absolutely necessary for General Kelly to convene a live news conference - to be joined by any of those other officials - to name names. And the names he must name are Trump and Hitler. We are at an inflection point right now as surely as we were at Yorktown or Gettysburg or Normandy except that with WORDS you can prevent the bloodshed that will happen not on ONE battlefield at home or abroad, but in every corner of this nation, because bloodshed and the threat of it will be the essence of the Trump dictatorship. And bluntly, General, you helped get us there because while you were witnessing this madman in real time yearn for a military personally sworn to him as the Wermacht was to Hitler, you… said nothing. Now that you're talking, and the test of your patriotism – to say nothing of the test of the CHANCE for this nation to still exist five years from now in something LIKE its current form – depends on YOU winning The Battle of Trump Because the choice, General, is: A free America, or a dictatorship where you in the military, are expected to shoot Trump's critics for him. Period. B-BLOCK (18:23) This issue merits an entire episode and a lot of explanation. It is only a year since Trump began to openly mimic Hitler but his admiration of him was first identified in 1990. The saga of Trump's gradual revelation, beginning with Ivana Trump's confirmation to Vanity Fair magazine that he kept a book of Hitler's speeches by his bed. C-BLOCK (34:59) The darkest component to Trump's admiration of Hitler is that his defense against all such revelations is that he's such a supporter of Jewish Americans. But of course he isn't. He's a supporter of Israel, which buys him the support of Evangelical Christians who actually believe their "rapture" will happen only after all the Jews are in Israel, and they are converted - or killed.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's show, Ralph welcomes back Constitutional Law Expert Bruce Fein to dissect Judge Aileen Cannon's dismissal of Donald Trump's classified documents case in Florida. Then Ralph is joined by Haley Hinkle, Policy Counsel at Fairplay, to discuss their FTC complaint against the messaging app "NGL" and what their victory means for children's safety online. Finally, Ralph speaks with journalist John Nichols about the state of journalism in Gaza, as well as the state of the Democratic Party.Bruce Fein is a Constitutional scholar and an expert on international law.  Mr. Fein was Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan and he is the author of Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy, and American Empire: Before the Fall.I think that here, a little brief history speaks volumes of logic. The modern special prosecutor Ralph and I experienced directly during Watergate, it stemmed from the coverup of the Watergate burglars' funding by the Republican National Committee to try to save Richard Nixon. And when the Attorneys General John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst had been convicted of crimes, the vacancy was there, and Richard Nixon nominated his Secretary of Defense Elliot Richardson…[the Senate Judiciary Committee] insisted that they would never confirm Elliot Richardson unless he created the special prosecutor and appointed Archibald Cox. Because they could not trust the executive branch to investigate itself—that's the absence of separation of powers. You can't have the executive branch be a judge in its own case. So the purpose of the special prosecutor was to strengthen separation of powers by ending the absolute control that the President or Attorney General would have over prosecutorial decisions. Bruce FeinHaley Hinkle is policy counsel at Fairplay, where she advocates for laws and regulations that protect children and teens' autonomy and safety online. Ms. Hinkle has also worked on issues at the intersection of government surveillance technology and civil liberties. What we have seen over the last couple of decades of the Internet with these types of anonymous platforms that encourage either anonymous messaging within your peer group or within a specific geographic area…is that encouraging minors to talk about and to each other anonymously within a limited community always leads to really horrific cyberbullying outcomes. Because anonymity empowers people to say things they wouldn't normally say. Haley HinkleThe other piece [of our FTC complaint] is really trying to shift some responsibility onto tech itself for considering specific issues and harms and specific safeguards and tools that will help make kids and teens more safe, and help their parents understand that there are certain default protections in place. And that's why we've really been advocating for the Kids Online Safety Act to try to shift responsibility onto the platforms to consider specific harms in the duty of care…at the point of product design rather than trying to address these things after the fact.Haley HinkleJohn Nichols is a national affairs correspondent for the Nation, and associate editor of the Capital Times. He has written, co-written, or edited over a dozen books on topics ranging from histories of American socialism and the Democratic Party to analyses of US and global media systems. His latest, co-written with Senator Bernie Sanders, is the New York Times bestseller It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism.What has taken so long for international media in general to pay attention to the circumstance in Gaza? Not just talking about reporting from on the ground, but to give it the priority, to give it the seriousness that it has long deserved. For generations. And so this is part of a much deeper problem, part of a much deeper challenge. John NicholsThe last couple of months, I think, have caused media organizations to frankly feel a measure of shame for their failure to cover up to this point, their failure to take it seriously, and frankly their failure to fight to be in a position to give the coverage that's needed. So they're stepping up now. And it took way too long, but it is important. It is absolutely vital that they are saying what they're saying.John NicholsDemocrats should be thinking very, very seriously about whether they want to have an open convention or a closed convention. And frankly, if they go with a closed convention, if they stage-manage things and don't accept the dialogue—don't accept the discourse that frankly is necessary at this point, not just on the issues, but even on the question of the nomination itself—if they don't do that, I think the dangers are a) obvious and b) potentially profound.John NicholsOne of the reasons— in addition to his performance on the debate with Trump—so many leading Democrats asked [Biden] to step aside is because they saw the whole ticket crumbling all the way down to the local elections around the country. Not just Congress, but state legislatures, governorships, city councils just collapsing. And that's still a very great concern for them.Ralph NaderIn Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeSantisNews 7/16/24 1. Axios reports a bipartisan gang of Senators has reached a deal to ban stock trading by sitting lawmakers. This group, which includes Senators Jon Ossoff, Gary Peters, Jeff Merkley and Josh Hawley have agreed to a deal which would “immediately prohibit members of Congress from buying stocks and selling stocks 90 days after the bill is signed into law…ban member spouses and dependent children from trading stocks starting in March 2027..[and impose] Penalties for violating the law [totaling] either…the monthly salary of a lawmaker or 10% of the value of each asset they buy or sell.” This is the most promising iteration of the stock trading ban thus far. Action on this bill is expected later this month.  2. In Rafah, scenes of carnage abound. NBC reports the major southern Gaza city, once considered a “safe zone,” has become “an empty husk with almost every…building completely leveled.” NBC was given rare access to the city by Israeli forces as ceasefire negotiations ramped up last week; what they found were “Homes destroyed, buildings reduced to rubble and few signs of life other than sporadic gunfire. That's all there is to see now in...the city…that was once home to more than 1 million people.” NBC further reports that Israel is launching new military operations in northern Gaza.  3. In the UK, pro-Gaza independent MP and former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, along with the other four pro-Gaza independent MPs recently elected, have penned a letter to British Foreign Secretary David Lammy reminding him of his and his Government's “obligations under international law,” with regard to the ICJ's ruling that Israel is engaging in “plausible genocide.” These MPs call on Lammy to “immediately suspend all provision of weapons and weapons systems to the Government Israel...Immediately restore and increase UK funding to UNRWA…Impose sanctions on individuals and entities inciting genocide against Palesinians...[and] Regonise the State of Palestine,” among other demands. Yet quite to the contrary, the Middle East Eye reports Lammy “will not withdraw [Britain's] objection to the…ICC…prosecutor's application for arrest warrants targeting…Netanyahu and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant,” despite campaign promises to do so.  4. POLITICO reports the Department of Justice is “planning to sue RealPage Inc., a software company used by landlords across the country… [accusing] the company of selling software that enables landlords to illegally share confidential pricing information in order to collude on setting rents.” This is the latest in an ongoing effort by the Biden administration to crack down on “rent gouging among corporate landlords.” The Biden administration has also signaled it intends to propose capping rent increases at 5% nationwide, per Axios.  5. Detroit-based journalist Phil Lewis reports “CNN [is] quietly disband[ing] its Race and Equality team.” This team was presented as evidence of a “significant, sustained commitment to ensure race coverage is a permanent part of [CNN's] journalism,” when it was announced in during the George Floyd protests in July 2020. A CNN spokesperson confirmed “For all intents and purposes, the team is not a team anymore.” This comes amid news that the cable news channel will “lay off 100 employees as it restructures its newsgathering operations.” 6. This week, Teamsters President Sean O'Brien addressed the Republican National Convention. He is the first Teamster ever to address the RNC. In this speech, O'Brien sought to praise Republicans whom he believes have stood up for labor and urged the GOP to stand up for American workers. In terms of specific policies, O'Brien called on the Republicans to reject the “economic terrorism” of companies exploiting labor and bankruptcy laws to bilk American workers and stressed the need for “corporate welfare reform,” paid for by individual taxpayers. O'Brien's speech has drawn much criticism from the Left. It remains to be seen whether it will sway the Republicans toward a more pro-labor agenda.  7. On the other end of the labor spectrum, UAW President Shawn Fain is sounding the alarm about President Biden's reelection. At the Netroots Nation conference in Baltimore last week, Fain said “We're speaking truth to those who need to hear it most and that's the Democrat Party.” He urged the party to not put “our heads in the sand and hide from reality — we tried that in 2016 and it didn't work,” per Bloomberg. UAW, which endorsed Biden in January, is reportedly weighing their options in light of the pressure on Biden to step aside. CNBC reports Fain met with the union's executive board last week to discuss next steps.  8. The American Prospect reports the DNC is seeking to do an end-run around a contested convention by having delegates vote early in a virtual roll call beginning as early as July 22nd. While this virtual roll call procedure had already been approved for the convention – on dubious grounds – the early voting is a new tactic the Biden team is deploying to stave off challenges to his nomination. This underhanded campaign is being met with push-back from delegates and House Democrats. The Prospect's Luke Goldstein reports “One [California] delegate told me: ‘I have the same feeling I did when I was campaigning in Michigan for Hillary in 2016; everyone is acting like we're winning but it really feels more like we're losing.'” Punchbowl News has published a letter being circulated among House Democrats expressing “serious concerns” about the early virtual roll call, arguing “It could deeply undermine the morale and unity of Democrats– from delegates, volunteers, grassroots organizers and donors to ordinary voters – at the worst possible time.”  9. In June, the FEC declared that Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is eligible to receive federal matching funds for her campaign. Yet, Stein's campaign manager Jason Call reports “Congress robbed the fund and Treasury is refusing to pay us $270,000,” the campaign is rightfully owed. Call added “The Green Party takes no corporate money. We are following the rules. And the playground bullies are continuing to rig the system for the war machine and other corporate interests.”  10. Finally, in some positive news, Axios reports “Just 13% of workers in the U.S. are now earning less than $15 an hour; two years ago, that number was 31.9%, per new data from Oxfam.” The data also show “Even accounting for inflation — $15 an hour in 2024 has the same buying power as about $14 in 2022.” Yet even with these encouraging trends, Oxfam warns that wages are still too low. Senator Bernie Sanders has recently introduced a bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $17 per hour by 2028.  This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard.   Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

In April, the Environmental Protection Agency passed four new rules to reduce pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants. One of the new rules requires many new gas and existing coal power plants to control 90 percent of their carbon pollution if they plan to operate beyond 2039. The other three rules specifically target coal, requiring the industry to clean up various parts of the value chain including toxic metal emissions from power generation, wastewater pollution, and coal ash management. And while the Biden Administration and other proponents consider the new rules a step in the right direction, opponents argue they will undermine the reliability of energy systems.    So, how will the EPA's new regulations impact the energy industry? What makes these standards different from previous attempts to regulate energy emissions? And how might opponents try to overturn them? This week host Bill Loveless talks with Jody Freeman about the technicalities of the new EPA power plant rules, and the legal avenues opponents might pursue to overturn them. Jody is the Archibald Cox professor of law and the founding director of the Harvard Law School Environmental & Energy Law Program. From 2009-2010, she served as a counselor for energy and climate change in the Obama White House. Jody has also previously served on the Advisory Council of the Electric Power Research Institute and as an independent director of ConocoPhillips.

In our final show to air before the South Carolina Presidential Primary election, our Host Randal Wallace , will discuss what he believes is the root cause of much of the division our country faces today. It is the criminalization of politics and the weaponization of Justice in America. It is the legacy of the worst and least qualified Attorney General to ever hold the position, Robert F. Kennedy, and it has morphed into a tragic way of administering Justice in this country that has left a legacy politically of extreme bitterness that may, with a combination of a number of other factors, be driving the collective meltdown our nation seems to be facing. This episode will cover the history of how the Justice Department began the targeting of individuals with the goal to find a crime instead of chasing crime where it occurs, and how that weaponization has mostly been aimed at Republican Officials when it has been used in the political sphere. But, understand this method is not JUST being used in the political sphere, nor at JUST the Federal level, it is being used across the board to incarcerate people who run afoul of overzealous prosecutors and people with political agendas all across the nation. It is also, I believe, being used in an attempt to prevent former President Donald Trump from getting re-elected President of the United States. However, as horrible as what is happening to Mr. Trump has obviously become, it is ripe with possibilities that now this evil that has beset our country, divided us into tribes, and created such anger and bitterness can be changed. For the first time, the collective strategic takedown of a political figure has so far not worked, as it did in the cases of Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, Ted Stevens, and countless other lesser known figures, and if Donald Trump is re-elected after the $500 million dollar onslaught of unequal justice he has been subjected too, there is a real possibility that he may very well take the actions to end, what Maurice Stans, a victim of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office rightfully titled, the "Terrors of Justice" . For that reason, among many, we here wholeheartedly endorse Donald Trump for President just the day before the South Carolina Presidential Primary. Theme song is  Produced by Danya Vodovoz, link to my song   https://youtu.be/NRxduUMZcdw Questions or comments at , Randalrgw1@aol.com , https://twitter.com/randal_wallace , and http://www.randalwallace.com/Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcastsThanks for listening!!

Mea Culpa welcomes legal legend, Nick Akerman. Akerman was formerly a federal prosecutor and the Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York, where he specialized in going after white-collar crime. Prior to the SDNY, he made his name as the Assistant Special Watergate Prosecutor with the Watergate Special Prosecution Force under Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski. There Akerman was instrumental in helping crack open the vast conspiracy orchestrated by President Nixon and his co-conspirators that resulted in Nixon's resignation and several prison sentences for his underlings. Akerman joins us today to discuss how Trump is basically screwed in his election interference trial and why televising the trial will be a terrible idea.

Dear Loyal Readers,Thank you for being here! I have four things for you this week, so let's get right to it.1️⃣ Article ClubThis month we've been focusing on “Why is Affirmative Action in Peril?” by Emily Bazelon. It's a piece I highly recommend that you read. Here's why:* The Supreme Court will likely strike down affirmative action next month* This article expertly explains why* Ms. Bazelon — staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, senior research fellow at Yale Law School, and co-host of Slate's Political Gabfest — knows how to write and knows what she's talking aboutInstead of focusing on the current politics of the Court, Ms. Bazelon takes us back in time, helping us understand the history of affirmative action through a close study of the Bakke decision and the legal strategy of attorney Archibald Cox — which won the case but ultimately left affirmative action vulnerable.I hope you'll sign up to discuss the article on Sunday, May 21, 2:00 - 3:30 pm PT on Zoom. Article Clubbers are kind and thoughtful and welcoming. Our conversations are always in small, intimate, facilitated groups. Reach out if you have questions or if you want to participate in the conversation but are secretly shy or nervous.2️⃣ My interview with Ms. BazelonI can't stop thinking about how much fun it was to chat with Ms. Bazelon. She was a total pro: generous, thoughtful, and deeply knowledgeable. (My friends have told me to stop gushing.) We talked about a number of topics, including:* how Mr. Cox cobbled together a victory by wooing a segregationist justice* how the justices have wildly different interpretations of the 14th Amendment* how white people have a very short amount of patience for thinking about the harms of race discriminationThere is a fundamental American tension between prizing individual achievement and promoting the collective spirit of the nation's egalitarian promise, between the call to be colorblind and the call not to be blind to racism.I hope you take a listen! (You can click the player at the top or subscribe to The Highlighter Article Club on your favorite podcast player.)3️⃣ Article Club author Eli Saslow wins another Pulitzer PrizeWhen I spoke with Eli Saslow last November about “An American Education,” I asked him how it felt to win a Pulitzer Prize. He shared his complex feelings: both that he was “hugely gratified” for the acknowledgment but also “a little conflicted” given that he writes about people's worst moments and our country's deepest problems.I appreciated the thoughtfulness of that answer, and I have continued recommending Mr. Saslow's work to my colleagues. For those reasons and more, I was delighted to hear that he won yet another Pulitzer Prize this week. Here's a clip:Congratulations, Mr. Saslow! You are further evidence proving my bold claim — that writers who participate in Article Club go on to win Pulitzers. My other evidence? Mitchell S. Jackson. (Sadly, I can't take credit for Kathryn Schulz or Stephanie McCrummen; they won their Pulitzers beforehand.) 4️⃣ Meet other thoughtful readers at HHH on June 1Highlighter Happy Hour has been one of the most joyful ways for us to gather, connect, and celebrate our reading community. We're heading into the 20th HHH! Can you believe it?We'll be meeting up at Room 389 in Oakland on June 1 beginning at 5:30.If you live or work not too far from Oakland, it'd be great to see you there. If you get a free ticket, you'll get a prize at the door. And just in case you're nervous: Yes, we do chat about the articles — but only sometimes, and usually just tangentially.Thank you for reading this week's issue and for listening to the interview. Hope you liked it.

Happy Thursday and happy almost-May, loyal readers. I'm very happy to announce that this upcoming month, we'll be reading and discussing “Why Is Affirmative Action In Peril?” by Emily Bazelon. You may know that the Supreme Court will be ruling on two affirmative action cases in June. It's a big deal, given the current composition of the Court. Unless one of the conservative justices changes their mind, affirmative action might be dead.I deeply appreciated Ms. Bazelon's article because she offers context for the upcoming decisions. Instead of discussing the current cases in detail, Ms. Bazelon explains the history of affirmative action and tells the story of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the 1978 landmark decision that still serves as legal precedent.Today's issue is a three-parter. You get:* an introduction to this month's article* a podcast episode with me and fellow Article Clubber Melinda, where we share why we liked the article so much* an invitation to join this month's discussion on May 21Before that, though — a little bit about the author: Ms. Bazelon is a staff writer at The New York Times Magazine and is the Truman Capote Fellow for Creative Writing and Law at Yale Law School. She is also the author of Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration, which won the Los Angeles Times Book Prize in the current-interest category, and of the national best-seller Sticks and Stones: Defeating the Culture of Bullying and Rediscovering the Power of Character and Empathy. She is a co-host of Slate's Political Gabfest, a weekly podcast. Ms. Bazelon has generously agreed to record a podcast interview.I hope you'll read the article and join our discussion on Sunday, May 21, at 2 pm PT. You can find out more information about the article and discussion below.Why Is Affirmative Action In Peril?The Supreme Court most likely will strike down affirmative action in June. This article explains why. According to journalist and law lecturer Emily Bazelon, it all comes down to understanding Regents v. Bakke, the 1978 decision that banned racial quotas but preserved affirmative action. In order to lure enough justices, lawyer Archibald Cox devised a strategy that centered the benefits of diversity, rather than the responsibility of reparations, as the reason affirmative action should continue. In other words: Let's forget that the 14th Amendment's purpose was to give equal rights to Black Americans. In the short term, the tactic worked. The Court sided with Mr. Cox 5-4, and affirmative action has endured despite many challenges, including in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Fisher v. Texas (2016). But now with a much more conservative court, Ms. Bazelon suggests that affirmative action's “diversity” rationale may be similar to abortion's “privacy” rationale — way too flimsy to survive. (35 min)This month, I warmly invite you to read, annotate, and discuss “Why Is Affirmative Action in Peril?” as part of Article Club.If you're interested, this how things will go:* This week, we'll read the article* Next week, we'll annotate the article as a group* The following week, we'll hear from Ms. Bazelon in a podcast interview* On Sunday, May 21, 2:00 - 3:30 pm PT, we'll discuss the article on Zoom.If this will be your first time participating in Article Club, I'm 100% sure you'll find that you'll feel welcome. We're a kind, thoughtful reading community. Feel free to reach out with all of your questions.Thank you for reading this week's issue. Hope you liked it.

This episode begins with a simple statement that says it all about the Watergate Scandal from Nixon Speech Writer Ray Price "We screwed up so badly because we really never knew what we were being accused of"And that was by design. In this episode we look at the radicalization of Leon Jaworski, made largely possible by a tape of President Nixon giving advice to Bob Haldeman and John Dean on how to answer questions in a way that would not allow them to be charged with perjury. Now as bad as that may sound on face value  it is routine advice that every lawyer in America gives to clients.  You see you have to be able to recall things precisely and if you can't it can be used against you later. You need only ask Dwight Chapin the price of not recalling details of events when asked (he was convicted of  giving misleading statements to the Grand Jury  for statements that may not have been precisely correct)What we also learn, and was hidden from the public  for nearly a half century, is that Leon Jaworski was having issues controlling his rabid staff even as he came to believe in the President's guilt.  After a press conference in which Press Secretary Ron Ziegler expressed his view that the Prosecutor's Staff was out of control, and out to get the President, a rebuttal came flying out of the office now headed by Leon Jaworski. Jaworski in an open letter to Ron Ziegler professed his total faith in the honesty , integrity, and fairness of his new found colleagues, all of whom he had inherited from his predecessor, Archibald Cox. But newly uncovered memos show a totally different story brewing in the background that begs the question did Leon Jaworski  even write the very letter that glossed over the growing belief that Richard Nixon had, that the staff of that office intended to do whatever it took to get him. The media embraced Jaworski and touted to an interested public that he had vouched for the Special Prosecutor's staff as honest and ethical investigators of the truth. They pounded the wounded President every day driving his once lofty approval numbers down to record lows. All setting the stage to undo an unprecedented mandate of the people the previous November. All of this as Jaworski in private did battle with his own lead staffers about inventive ways to stack the deck on Richard Nixon, using secret meetings with the trial Judge, John Sirica, sleight of hand to the Grand Jury, and taking advantage of a long friendship between John Doar, now the lead staffer on the House Judiciary Committee looking into impeachment,  and Henry Ruth that stretched back to the days they were neighbors in New York. They did it  all with one goal in mind;   How do we nail Richard Nixon.  It appears very early on in the tenure of Leon Jaworski,  that things are not always what they seem.....Support My WorkIf you love the show, the easiest way to show your support is by leaving us a positive rating with a review. You can also tell your family and friends about " Randal Wallace Presents : Nixon and Watergate " tooThe Lowcountry Gullah PodcastTheculture, history and traditions podcast where Gullah Geechee culture lives!Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

In this special edition we lay the foundation for much of the story to come. At various times we will be listening in on history and truly examining the tapes of the Richard Nixon Administration. We will be focusing on the time period in which the most question has been raised about President Nixon's personal involvement in the cover up of the Watergate burglary.  After his "Cancer on the Presidency" conversation with John Dean and subsequent conversations into late May of 1973. We have made this special edition in order to explain what we are doing and to help not confuse  our listeners because we will be bouncing back and forth between the events unfolding in 1974 and the fact that almost all the evidence and focus will be on events that occured after March 21, 1973.  that is the universally accepted time that both President Nixon and his chief accuser, John Dean , agree that he had set down to inform the President fully as to what had been going on.  A little later we will be hearing the entire Cancer on the Presidency conversation. This episode will explain what we are doing, and also focus on a figure who is leaving the scene just as we begin the tale end of 1973 and entering 1974,  Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Our assessments of him will probably surprise you, and in telling his final story as Special Prosecutor we will  begin to show the little details that point to the manipulative powers of the partisan staff he has assembled. How he personally had come to the conclusion that the one person who needed to pay for the criminality of Watergate was,  John Dean, and how the staff he put together was more concerned with destroying Richard Nixon than actually finding justice in the case of Watergate. Finally, we thought it only fair to take a second to let John Dean tell his version of the story and what he felt he himself was trying to achieve by the actions he took that helped bring down the Nixon Administration. What we found was a fascinating interview on the ABC News program "Nightline with Ted Koppel" from January 2000. It was just after the National Archives started releasing the Nixon tapes for the public to hear.  It is an opportunity for John Dean to give his defense of Watergate, The Dean Defense.Support My WorkIf you love the show, the easiest way to show your support is by leaving us a positive rating with a review. You can also tell your family and friends about " Randal Wallace Presents : Nixon and Watergate " too The Lowcountry Gullah PodcastTheculture, history and traditions podcast where Gullah Geechee culture lives!Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

In this second episode re-chronicling the Saturday Night Massacre a very disturbing picture will begin to emerge about the Watergate Special Prosecutor's office. You will begin to see a pattern of  behaviour where paranoia, arrogance, and an overall belief in the correctness of their cause emerges. That latter shows itself in decisions that get made where they themselves are willing to take matters into their own hands, without even consulting the very person who is supposed to be in charge of their office. Listen as they proudly discuss removing evidence from the office, weeks before the showdown that led to Archibald Cox's termination. The belief that they could defy the Federal Bureau of Investigation officers who had been sent to the office, even threatening violence at one point at the officers. They admit to sneaking more evidence out in the underwear of one of the staffers wives, they imply that they believe the FBI would ransack their files even though they later have to admit that at no time did that ever occur. They also openly discuss the contempt they held the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, even as he assumed the awesome responsibility of acting Attorney General and worked diligently to protect their jobs, even as he had to carry out the order from the President to fire the Special Prosecutor,  Archibald Cox. The picture that emerges is one of an out of control office, with no respect for any person of authority over them, whether it be a President they had targeted as a criminal, the former Attorney General that they accused of not acting in good faith, the new Acting Attorney General who protected their jobs, or even the man they were supposed to be working for who they lectured on how to conduct a criminal investigation and hid actions they took upon themselves , by removing evidence from the office weeks before a confrontation with the President had even occurred. And it will get worse from here. Support My WorkIf you love the show, the easiest way to show your support is by leaving us a positive rating with a review. You can also tell your family and friends about " Randal Wallace Presents : Nixon and Watergate " tooThe Lowcountry Gullah PodcastTheculture, history and traditions podcast where Gullah Geechee culture lives!Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

 In this episode we are going to step back to October of 1973. The singular event that changes everything in Watergate was the Saturday Night Massacre. When we originally told the story we did so from the overall perspective of the Nixon White House and the news media that covered it. We travel back in this episode and let you hear the story from the oral histories of the members of the Special Prosecutor's office whose boss was fired. It is, we thought, the best way to introduce you to several people whose oral histories will take you to the very end of our Podcast Documentary look at Richard Nixon. While this episode centers more on the Special Prosecutors you will hear from two top level Nixon staffers, Ray Price and an oral history of Alexander Haig, read by me. You will also hear from Elliot Richardson, William Ruckelshaus, and Robert Bork. But at the end you will get a play by play from three members of the special prosecutor's office we have only brushed upon in our earlier episodes. They are the number two man in the office, Henry Ruth, who will one day become the Special Prosecutor,  along with Richard Ben Veniste, and Jill Wine Banks.  It will give you some insight as to what it was like for those in the office on the night of the firing of Archibald Cox. This is the first of three episodes centered on the people of the Watergate Scandal and their roles in it. Support My WorkIf you love the show, the easiest way to show your support is by leaving us a positive rating with a review. You can also tell your family and friends about " Randal Wallace Presents : Nixon and Watergate " tooThe Lowcountry Gullah PodcastTheculture, history and traditions podcast where Gullah Geechee culture lives!Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

This is our second episode where we listen to lectures from Geoff Shepard that deals directly with two of the most important, and frankly, sinister factors that led to the downfall of Richard Nixon. Judge John Sirica, often portrayed as the hero of Watergate, was in fact a known attention seeker with one of the worst records of any Judge on the D.C. Court. He was famous for disregarding the rights of defendants. It is combination of these weaknesses and his desire to play the hero, all fed to him by private, ex parte,  meetings he was having with those interested in seeing that Richard Nixon would eventually be politically hurt by the case. It is a  damning indictment of his alleged behavior on the Bench, that if it had  been known at the time would have led to his disbarment.  Then we get a look at the Watergate Special Prosecutors Task Force, a team of lawyers we have labeled the Sinister Force of Watergate. They were formed with only one target in mind and they never hid it. That target was Richard Nixon, and over these lectures you will see a case form that should scare any person who has ever thought that somehow they could end up in the crosshairs of the criminal justice system. This is an excellent overview of the way things unfolded that led to the resignation of President Nixon. It is following this road map, complete with historical documents and various news reports from the time period that our podcast will soon begin to move you through the events of early 1974 that would lead to indictments of the President's top aids and the naming of President Nixon as an unindicted Co-Conspirator on March 1, 1974. Links to lectures and Website below: 1. https://youtu.be/hZIF0oSXBJE  Mysteries of Watergate Lecture Nixon Library  May 29, 20102. https://youtu.be/qXA2T23yoFU  Geoff Sheppard lecture Richard Nixon Library  August 11, 20153. https://youtu.be/9EPgLIWpFKA    Geoff Shepard - Special Prosecutors: Yesterday and TodayNovember 21, 2018 St. Vicente College 4. https://youtu.be/gHRv7WG7yTM  Watergate lecture at Hillsdale College  November 6, 2018*** For more information please go to the following website ShepardonWatergate,com Support My WorkIf you love the show, the easiest way to show your support is by leaving us a positive rating with a review. You can also tell your family and friends about " Randal Wallace Presents : Nixon and Watergate " tooThe Lowcountry Gullah PodcastTheculture, history and traditions podcast where Gullah Geechee culture lives!Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

In this first of two episodes,  we have culled several important points on the case that Geoff Shepard has laid out in his three books from several lectures he has made that are available on the internet and at his site. The links to which are below. This episode centers on various theories of Watergate that have been out there for a number of years, the role of Senator Ted Kennedy and his various staffers, and finally a focus on the role of former White House Counsel to the President,  John Dean. This is an excellent overview of the way things unfolded that led to the resignation of President Nixon. It is following this road map, complete with historical documents and various news reports from the time period that our podcast will soon begin to move you through the events of early 1974 that would lead to indictments of the President's top aids and the naming of President Nixon as an unindicted Co-Conspirator on March 1, 1974. Links to lectures and Website below: 1. https://youtu.be/hZIF0oSXBJE  Mysteries of Watergate Lecture Nixon Library  May 29, 20102. https://youtu.be/qXA2T23yoFU  Geoff Sheppard lecture Richard Nixon Library  August 11, 20153. https://youtu.be/9EPgLIWpFKA    Geoff Shepard - Special Prosecutors: Yesterday and TodayNovember 21, 2018 St. Vicente College 4. https://youtu.be/gHRv7WG7yTM  Watergate lecture at Hillsdale College  November 6, 2018*** For more information please go to the following website ShepardonWatergate,com Support My WorkIf you love the show, the easiest way to show your support is by leaving us a positive rating with a review. You can also tell your family and friends about " Randal Wallace Presents : Nixon and Watergate " tooThe Lowcountry Gullah PodcastTheculture, history and traditions podcast where Gullah Geechee culture lives!Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

SHOWDOWN!!There was no question that after a junior officer of the Federal Government faced down the President of the United States on National Television that that junior officer was not going to have his job long and Archibald Cox didn't.  Richard Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire him. Richardson refused, as did his next in line William Ruckelshaus before finally the true hero of the night stepped up and did the deed. Robert Bork, the Solicitor General, fired Cox and then held the Justice Department together for two and a half months all while being under attack for having done the right thing,  Richard Nixon was , contrary to popular belief, justified in that decision. We were dangerously close to a war with the Soviet Union as both sides sat on the sidelines helping the two sides of a conflict in the Middle East. In fact, this was the closest the two nations had come since the Cuban Missile Crisis a decade before. There was no way that Richard Nixon was going to let Archibald Cox, nor his Special Prosecution Force, get away with such insubordination at such a moment. I would dare say that the history you have read about would have looked totally different had it involved any other President other than Richard Nixon. That is how egregious this act by Cox was no matter how avuncular he appeared that night on television. The chain of events this situation set off changed everything for President Nixon and it was largely in my opinion unfair. Archibald Cox should never have been appointed in the first place. He was a known Nixon hater, puppet of the Kennedy family, and he loaded up his staff with rabid partisans that either came from the Kennedy-Johnson Administrations or were prosecutors who had spent years chasing gangsters and treated the Nixon staffers as though they were members of a crime family. From this point on Richard Nixon was at war with a prosecution staff , who in my opinion, was willing to do , say, and perform any sleight of hand necessary to get the only target they were actually focused on, the facts be damned. And that target was Richard Nixon, and they cared not who all's lives they had to ruin to do it. FYI - We will be returning to this event in next seasons shows,

Spiro Agnew resigns on October 10, 1973, the Arab Forces go on another offensive on October 11, 1973 all the while the Special Prosecutor's continue to push forward trying to get their hands on the Presidential recordings. Tom Brokaw of NBC News is right to describe the situation as "Richard Nixon was a President under siege." He seemed to be facing historic level crisis everywhere he looked. Nixon went right to work to insure the Israeli government  would have everything they needed to defend themselves and he was given some hope by his Attorney General that finally a deal could be struck not to hand over the tapes. He was determined not to give in to the mounting pressure of allowing the prosecutor's free run over the Nixon White House. That hope would turn out to be false. Attorney General Elliot Richardson would waffle around on a proposal for third party verification of the tapes, in a compromise originally proposed by Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox himself. But when it was originally proposed Richard Nixon had turned the idea down and pursued his options in court. The court would rule against him 5 -2 but add that they wanted the party's to find a deal themselves. So Richardson took the initiative to re propose the compromise that had been earlier rejected.  It is a little murky as to what exactly happened or if it was all a misunderstanding  but an idea was proposed that a prominent, well respected Senator, John Stennis, a Democrat from Mississippi would listen to the tapes and verify what he heard on them. Stennis was a man of unquestioned character, (though he was a southerner and a segregationist) , he was also elderly, hard of hearing, and a huge supporter of the Republican President.  The Prosecutors wanted  no part of this deal and I actually can understand the reasoning on this point. However, it was Archibald Cox's idea, and though he now had a court decision saying he should get the tapes  he had asked for,  it could  reasonably be argued that in good faith he should have honored his original proposal. But either way he chose to hold a press conference and face down the President of the United States while the President was dealing with an enormous crisis in Israel and for that a showdown became inevitable. This episode takes you right up to that moment just before the most famous of showdowns happened and it  includes Archibald Cox's press conference. 

In this episode we look at the start of the Ervin Committee Hearings as the Congress begins bringing the various players of Watergate out in front of the American people on national television.  We listen to the members of the press as they look back at a different era when the news of the day could grab an enormous audience because there were only three networks. Then we learn all about the make up of the committee and how it would structure the hearings.  Basically, as a legislative show trial in which the accused had no rights and in which what they said would be used against them later. Then we move on to the early stages of the hearing itself and listen in to various moments from the testimony of the burglars themselves, the officers that made the arrest, and finally to those in charge of the campaign. Jeb Magruder, Hugh Sloan, Maurice Stans and finally the former Attorney General himself John Mitchell. He will face a barrage of questions from several Senators and he holds his ground fairly well.Then we turn to the big moment of the Ervin Hearings, the testimony of former White House Counsel John Dean. This is where you will see the extreme partisanship that had begun to grip the investigative process. John Dean is protected by the Democratic staffers by being allowed to keep his testimony and written statement private until literally he walked out in front of the cameras forcing the Republicans to study all of the written material as they listened to the testimony as it was televised. They literally had no time to plan out or even think about questions to ask. It does not get any better over at Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox's office as he begins to staff up for his investigation. He is hiring nothing but the most partisan and most determined lawyers he can find, all alumni of the Kennedy - Johnson Justice Department and Administration. The very failed Administrations Richard Nixon had swept from power. 

Jody Freeman, the Archibald Cox professor of law and director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard University, leads the conversation on global climate policy. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the Winter/Spring 2022 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have Jody Freeman with us to talk about global climate policy. Professor Freeman is the Archibald Cox professor of law, founding director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program, and a leading scholar of administrative and environmental law at Harvard University. From 2009 to 2010, Professor Freeman served as counselor for energy and climate change in the Obama administration. She is a fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as well as a member of CFR. She also serves as an independent director on the board of ConocoPhillips, which is an oil and gas producer. Professor Freeman has been recognized as the second most-cited scholar in public law in the nation and has written extensively on climate change, environmental regulation, and executive power. So, Professor Freeman, thanks very much for being with us today. We just saw the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, Sixth Assessment Report, that was quite pessimistic about the outlook on the future. Can you talk a little bit about that report and connect it to what we are going to see the effects on climate policy and what we need to be doing to really remediate what's happening in the world? FREEMAN: Well, thank you very much for having me. It couldn't be a more important or interesting moment to be having this conversation, and mostly I look forward to you, students, posing some questions and us having some back and forth. So, Irina, I will be as brief as I can in trying to really encapsulate what's going on now to set the stage for the discussion that I hope we will have. First, as you noted, the IPCC, which of course is the UN-established organization that since 1988 has put out periodic assessments of the science of climate change and their consensus-based assessments written by about six—about two hundred scientists from about sixty countries, so to give you a sense of the authority of the documents they've put out. This assessment was quite bleak, and really—I can read a couple of the top line conclusions to you, but the essential message is that climate change is accelerating. It has already been wreaking havoc and doing significant damage to human health, environment, and ecosystems. It is already causing and will cause increasingly devastating wildfires, historic droughts, landslides, floods, and more intense hurricanes. The long list of things that you all are witnessing around the world—think of the Australian fires, the California fires, the historic flooding we've seen here in the United States. The report basically says this will get worse if we continue without significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions soon, beginning immediately, and cutting them quite drastically. There are many conclusions here about the need to accelerate the pace of our efforts, the need for the governments of the world to do more than they have pledged to do under the Paris Agreement, which we can talk about, which is the international climate agreement that the overwhelming majority of the world's countries have pledged, have made commitments to. And the U.S. has renewed its commitment to the Paris Agreement under the Biden administration saying that it will achieve 50 to 52 percent of emissions reductions here in the United States below 2005-levels by 2030. So a very significant upping of the U.S. commitment recently at the Conference of the Parties last year in Glasgow, Scotland. That agreement is the prevailing international agreement, but this report says it's not enough. Even if the countries of the world were to meet their pledges—and that's an open question—what the report essentially says is we need to do more, and so there's a consensus on the science. I don't think there can be reasonable disagreement about the science of climate change at this point. There is significant evidence that it is already happening, already changing the world's—the patterns that we have seen in, again, weather patterns, storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, and it is already threatening communities. The question now is, how do we close this gap between what the report—what the IPCC report is telling us is happening, the risks that the report is warning us about—how do we close the gap between that and what the governments of the world have agreed to do under the Paris Agreement? And I want to note just two other contextual developments here that make this problem even more challenging. One is what I think you're all very conscious of now, as we all think about daily, the war in Ukraine, and the fact that that is scrambling in the geopolitics of energy. Russia, as one of the world's top three suppliers of oil and gas, produces about 40 percent of Europe's natural gas, and now there are sanctions that the U.S. has imposed, and that other countries have announced they will gradually phase in, against Russian oil and gas supplies. The price of gas, as you may all have noticed the United States, is sky high. That's not just because of the war in Ukraine, but it hasn't helped. And attention has moved to what this war means not just for the devastating human consequences, but also what is it doing to the—how to encapsulate this—to the power relationships among the world's nations that are anchored in oil and gas, and how is it shifting the relative power of the oil-producing countries vis-à-vis each other. That conversation about how we're going to produce enough oil and gas to meet Europe's needs in the absence of or in the presence of sanctions against Russia, where are we going to get the extra supply from? In some sense, that conversation about the short-term need for what is admittedly fossil energy has edged out, has moved out of the main frame of the climate policy discussion temporarily. And the concern among communities, institutions, organizations, people who care deeply about climate change at the moment is, that edging to the side of the climate discussion is the wrong direction to go, is an unhelpful event. And especially in the United States where we now are looking at the dynamics in Congress to see if major climate investments will be part of a legislative package that the Biden administration has been advancing— the Build Back Better package—as the discussion is focused on Ukraine, the short-term need for oil and gas, who will produce and meet the extra demand, that conversation, the worry is it's not helping climate policy move forward in the United States. And as you all know, the Build Back Better bill has essentially been shelved, and there are ongoing discussions about which pieces of it might move forward. As time passes and we get to the United States' midterm elections, which are upon us very soon in the fall, the question is, will anything significant in terms of additional climate investments and climate policy come from the United States Congress? Or are they essentially done with the pieces they put into the big infrastructure bill that, as you know, was passed this past fall? The bipartisan infrastructure bill contained significant investments in things like electric vehicle infrastructure, grid investments, and other things that are beneficial for our climate policy. But as you all know, this is not nearly enough, and nothing regulatory went into the Infrastructure Act, and just to be clear about that, there was nothing in the bill that passed Congress in November that operated—that went through a process called budget reconciliation. This really was passed as a budgeting mechanism. Nothing in there regulates industry greenhouse gas emissions, and that's because regulation can't go in a budget bill. And what this means is, in the United States we are challenged now to put in place the policies necessary for us to meet our commitment to Paris, and the main vehicle left right now, if Congress remains fairly inactive, is using existing law like the Clean Air Act by which the Obama—listen to me, the Obama administration. I'm remembering my time in the Obama—the Biden administration can use existing law to regulate sector by sector by sector the greenhouse gas emissions that come from the power sector, that come from the transportation sector, that come from the oil and gas sector. That's what the Biden administration is right now doing. They're issuing regulations through agencies like the EPA to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the economy on a sectoral and piecemeal basis. And what this all means is that a war is raging in the Ukraine that is refocusing attention on the need for short-term fossil fuels, while a longer-term discussion is happening about how to wean the world off fossil energy, and this dynamic is a very challenging, complicated dynamic in which to have both of those conversations simultaneously. The only thing I'd mention, before now turning to your questions, in addition, is that there is no small irony in the fact that this report that Irina cited, the new installment of the IPCC scientific assessment was issued essentially the day before the Supreme Court of the United States heard argument in a really important climate case in which what's at stake is the EPA—the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to set far-reaching standards to reduce our emissions from the power sector. And by all indications, the Supreme Court is poised to restrict the EPA's ability to set standards that would really force quite forward-leaning change, quite aggressive, ambitious change—speedier, deeper reductions from the electric power sector. It looks like the Court may well constrain the agency, and I can talk more about that for those who are legal eagles and want to know more. But the fact that that argument was heard the day after this report as sort of the juxtaposition of those two things was quite striking. So let me leave it there with these sort of broad observations about what's happening and turn to you all and see if we can dive deeper into some of these dynamics. FASKIANOS: Thanks a lot for that overview. You can all either raise your hand to ask your question, or you can write it in the Q&A box. So I'm going to first go to Babak Salimitari. Q: I had a question regarding the Paris climate accord. This is a non-binding agreement in which it seems like the United States is the only country going above and beyond to limit emissions and pollution and whatnot, but we're also the ones suffering the most. You have, like Germany building coal plants. China and India are extremely dirty, filthy countries, to put it bluntly. They admit they destroy environmental places, not just in their own country, but all over the world. But we're the one paying six bucks for gas. Oil is like a hundred dollars a barrel. FREEMAN: Yeah. Q: Things are getting very expensive and very annoying. So what's the point of this agreement if we're not reaping any benefits from it? FREEMAN: Yeah, I hear the question and—but let me add some perspective here. First of all, the ones suffering the most, it's not us. There are really serious consequences from warming temperatures for countries around the world that are already being inundated because their low-lying coastal populations are at risk. And they're much more vulnerable because we can afford adaptation measures, we can afford to respond to disasters, and we can afford to invest in resilience or adaptation, whereas many parts of the developing world cannot. They will be swamped. There will be massive migrations. There will be flooding, heat wave and tremendous suffering, and there already are some of these effects around the world. So I just add that perspective because I'm not sure it's quite right that we're the only ones or the ones who are suffering the most currently or that we will be in the future. We're actually, in the United States, fairly well-positioned, even if some of the worst risks we anticipate befall us. We're just a rich country compared to the rest of the world. I also would just comment that prices for gasoline are sky high here, and I understand that this is, as you say, annoying and quite difficult for folks who, you know, must purchase gas to get to work or must purchase gas in order to move around, they don't have an option. But I will say that in many parts of the world gas prices are much higher, and they're much higher in places like Europe and Canada and elsewhere because the governments have chosen to reflect in the price of gasoline more of the harms caused by burning fuel. In other words, they're internalizing the cost that otherwise people have to bear in terms of health consequences from burning gas, climate consequences, et cetera. So this is all me just saying gas may seem really high and I understand it, but actually many countries choose to impose high gas prices really as a signal to populations about the cost of being dependent on these fuels. But the point of your question, I think, is what's the value of the Paris Agreement? It's not binding, and why are we bothering to commit to do so much? And I will say we're not the only country to make a significant commitment. The EU countries have made significant commitments, even China. To put it in perspective, China's commitment to level off emissions by a deadline is important. There are very significant pledges that have gone toward this agreement, and the fact that they're nonbinding, I just want to shed a little light on that. You can say, well, it doesn't matter because nobody can force these countries to deliver on their pledges, and there is some truth to that. There's no grand international body presiding over this that comes knocking on the door of the world governments to say, you know, you said you'd pledge to reduce your emissions by X and you're not even close, so we're going to penalize you. There's no such international enforcement system. But it turns out that the format of the Paris Agreement—which is to make a pledge and then to periodically every five years have to do what's called a “stock take,” where the world countries come together and take stock of where they are in the progress—there are mechanisms to hold each other to account, that's the theory of the agreement; and that there are regular meetings of the parties called Conferences of the Parties that are meant to be the vehicle for forcing a kind of truing-up and disclosure of how far countries have come. Now that's an imperfect system, I will concede to you, but it is a big improvement over prior international climate regimes, which purported to be binding. But, for example, the Kyoto Protocol, the prior agreement to the Paris Agreement, only bound the world's developed nations, meaning the rich countries of the world, and the developing world, which was fast overtaking the developed world in the amount of emissions being produced—so think of China, think of India, Brazil, et cetera—they weren't part of the agreement. They had no obligation. So, while Kyoto was binding, it was binding on not the entire world, and it's not the even—who were soon to be the largest emitters, including China. So Paris is an inclusive agreement. China's in it. India's in it. Brazil's in it. Every country that's a significant share of the world's emissions is committed, so the inclusiveness of it is thought to be an important advance. Your question is still important. The proof is in the pudding. Are these countries going to come anywhere close to delivering on their pledges? But I guess what I would suggest is, we need an international vehicle in order to continue to press forward. And if the U.S. is in a leadership position in that international agreement, that's better for our chances than if the U.S. is not. The strongest position to be in is the U.S. and China together. When the Paris Agreement was signed, Obama and Xi combined forces and both supported it. China has now backed off. President Xi did not show up in Glasgow for the meeting personally, whereas the Biden—President Biden did. So now we're seeing a bit of a different approach. It's a very long answer, but that's because how these agreements work—their value, why they're an improvement or not over the prior—is actually quite complicated. FASKIANOS: Now the war in Ukraine and how China's going to align with Putin. FREEMAN: Yeah, I mean, this is really interesting—and I don't know if any of the students have a question about that—but everything is speculative right now. For example—I mean, in terms of how this will come out for China and China's relationship with the other powers of the world. China's in a very delicate position, and it may turn out that its alliance with Russia, depending on how that plays out, will leave it in a position of trying to look for opportunities build back relationships with the rest of the world, and it might turn out that climate policy is an opportunity to re-establish itself. And so we can't see how this will evolve, but a situation that looks at the moment like China's aligned with the bad actor—Russia in this case—may actually open up opportunities in the future for it to readjust its behavior, and climate may be one of those opportunities. Historically, the United States and China, even when tense relationships existed over trade policy and other things, cooperated on climate. It became an opportunity, especially in the Obama years when I was in the White House. We had a lot of good agreements with China around climate policy, both bilaterally and multilaterally. It was sort of an area—it was a bright spot of relations. That may turn back around and come back following this conflict. FASKIANOS: A written question from, let's see, Jackie Vazquez, who's in undergraduate school at Lewis University in Illinois, asking: Is there any possibility for all countries to come together to make a global movement to combat climate change? Would that even make a difference? FREEMAN: I think that the Paris Agreement is meant to be at least an instrument of a global movement to address climate change. But I think if you're talking about a political movement, that is people, not negotiators, representing governments, but populations and communities—I think we're seeing some of that. I mean, I think this generation, your generation, has really given voice to a real need for climate action faster. And I give a lot of credit to young people. I say this—it makes me feel 150 years old when I say this—but I think this generation, at least in the United States, it's taken the form of something called the Sunrise Movement and other youth movements. Of course, Greta Thunberg is the most famous young person putting a face on climate change, insisting that the older generations have let you all down, and I think there's something to that. I can understand your frustration, and I would feel the same way if I were younger that the people with the power have not taken the steps necessary when they should have taken the steps to mitigate a global problem. And I think that we're seeing movements all around the world; youth action all around the world. The problem comes in translating that political enthusiasm and political energy into policy, into laws and rules and requirements and incentives and subsidies and investments and inducements to change the trajectory to require over time—and quicker than—than many in industry want—require reductions faster, to translate it into investments from the private sector, because we need trillions of dollars of investments in low carbon technologies, in innovation. Translating that energy into real political action is the challenge. And I guess the one thing I'd say to you all is you have to vote. You have to put into power the people who support these policies, and you know, the youth vote is tremendously and increasingly important. So, in addition to activism, which is—which is critical, you want to vote in state, local, national elections at every opportunity. FASKIANOS: Earlier on, you talked about how the Supreme Court case is going to restrict the EPA trying to regulate. So there's a question from Nathaniel Lowell, who's at Skidmore College: Could you talk a little bit more about that Supreme Court decision, what that means for the Biden administration efforts to push forward within an act of Congress? You know, and what can be done? Because that's pretty significant, and certainly just putting in executive orders, the next administration could just roll back on those—roll those executive orders back. FREEMAN: Yeah. So here's what I'd say. First of all, I'm speculating a bit when I say the Court seems poised to restrict EPA's authority. I think most observers think that's what we got from oral argument. You know, we watched the oral argument, which is when the counsel for both sides—in this case, it was the government represented by the Solicitor General of the United States—that's how the government is represented in the Supreme Court—and the challengers from the state of West Virginia and about seventeen other states, Republican-led states, along with the coal and mining industry on the other side, arguing this case to the justices. And you know, you can listen to these arguments, by the way. You can go to SupremeCourt.gov and click on the audio portion of these oral arguments. It's fascinating. So I highly recommend and you can read the transcripts. And what we heard from the argument were the questions of the justices, the back and forth as the advocates were stating their positions, and basically, the petitioners in this case—that is, the mining industry, coal industry and the Republican-led states, including West Virginia—are basically saying the Environmental Protection Agency is overreaching. It's stretching its authority under the Clean Air Act too far, and the courts should read the language of the Clean Air Act narrowly and limit what they can do. And the government, the Biden administration, and the power sector petitioners—sorry, the power sector respondents—these are legal terms of art, but this describes who's on what side in the case—the power sector itself, this is the industry being regulated by these standards; this is the coal and natural gas plants across the country. The owners of the utilities that own these plants, they're the ones who are going to be regulated and required to cut their carbon pollution, and yet they are on the side of the Biden administration because they want to preserve EPA's power to set standards. They don't want this to be a free for all in which they get sued in a bunch of different lawsuits. They want a coherent, consistent, implementable, realistic, cost-effective set of standards, and they're prepared to make reductions. They want this done in an orderly fashion, and they don't want the Supreme Court making a mess of things by, for example, restricting the EPA so much that the agency won't take into account the reality of the power sector and how it works and allow them to average emissions—cut average emissions across their fleets; trade where it makes economic sense to trade emissions allowances. The industry wants all these flexibilities, and they're worried that the Court will be on too much of a mission to cut the agency's power, which will make the rules less economically sensible for the industry. So I hope that was an understandable explanation of what's at stake and how unusual it is that the industry being regulated is on the side of the government in this case, supporting the idea that the EPA has the authority to do this, and the consequences of the case here are quite significant. Because if the Court limits EPA, the bottom line is the standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal and natural gas plants won't be as stringent as they could have been. They won't move as quickly as they could have moved, and the cuts won't be as deep as they could have been. And that's a loss—that's a loss of a tool we would have in our toolbox to cut emissions from the sector in our economy that is the second largest sector in terms of its emissions. So we want a robust program to control those, and Congress didn't pass one. And Congress doesn't look like it's passing one, so this is our second-best strategy. And if the Court crimps EPA so much that it limits the stringency, it's like losing some ability that you thought you had to constrain your domestic emissions, which means it's harder to fulfill our Paris pledge. That's the bottom line. The last thing I'll say—again, kind of a nerdy point, but for those of you who think about law and are interested in law—the Court should never have taken this case. You know, when—when people are unhappy with the decision in a lower court they can appeal to the Supreme Court. They ask the Court to grant review. Our Constitution requires that the Court only take cases where there is demonstrable harm or injury. You can't go to the Supreme Court and say, you know, I'm not injured, but I really care about this, can you—can you help me out? You have to be injured. In this case there is, actually, currently no rule regulating anybody in the power sector, no federal rule, because the prior administration's rule way back in the Obama days never went into effect. It was caught in litigation, and it was challenged in court. It never went into effect. And the Trump administration came in and repealed that and put out its own rule, which was a very minimal rule that did almost nothing to reduce emissions, and that got challenged and struck down by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. So, as a result, the bottom line people, there is no current federal rule regulating the power sector. Why would the Supreme Court take a case from West Virginia and other states and the coal industry complaining about something when nobody is being asked to do anything? There's no harm. So it's very unusual that the Court granted review in a case like that, and that is why many of us think they're eager to do something that will constrain the EPA's authority. I hope that made sense to folks. FASKIANOS: That was really helpful to clarify and give context to what's going on. Thank you for that. So Terron Adlam has written a question, but also has a hand up. So just ask it yourself and give us your university. FREEMAN: You know, I see my former chancellor, Chancellor Carnesale from UCLA where I started my career. I'm just thrilled to see his name there. That's great. Q: Hi there. FREEMAN: Hi. Q: Hi. So my question is, do you see any possibility of change of behavior of humans, especially during the global warfare/pandemic? I mean, ice caps are melting. Greenhouse gases are rising so much that—can we go past the differences, you think? FREEMAN: Yeah, I mean it's very interesting you say that Terron. I do think we talk an awful lot about how we need to require industry to do things and that's, of course, terribly important—you know, the auto makers and the oil and gas companies and the power plants and steel companies and how we do agriculture around the world. But in the end, there's demand for energy and we are the demand. I'm sitting here on Zoom consuming a bunch of electricity. I got professional lights that you can't see that are consuming a bunch of electricity. My phone is charging next to me consuming a bunch of electricity. And you know, I'm probably going to—well, I drive a Tesla—I'm lucky enough to have a Tesla, so I won't be consuming gas later. But my point is just we all pull on energy, and you know, no one of us can transform the situation. We can't accomplish the energy transition all by ourselves. But we can start thinking about the decisions we make, and we can start thinking about those implications and consequences. Your generation—I mean, I have a niece and nephew in their twenties, and I hear a lot about how nobody really wants a car anymore, apparently. I'm shocked at this, but there are generational shifts in how people think about consumption. Do you need your own vehicle or can you do ridesharing? Are we going to see ourselves in a world in the next fifteen, twenty years with autonomous vehicles that are electric vehicles, that we essentially share, at least in concentrated urban settings? These kinds of transformations, I think, are in part being driven by the demand from your generation. Likewise, I think as you build wealth—you guys will build wealth over time, right? You're getting an education, right, and that education is directly connected to your earning power. You will build wealth over time as a result of becoming educated, and when you build wealth, you'll have a decision about where to invest that wealth. And we see increasingly, social action investors, social commitments being made through people's investment decisions, and they say we want to put our wealth into these kinds of stocks, these kinds of companies, these kinds of enterprises and not over here in these other ones. And I think that is another kind of behavior—where you put your capital is going to be another kind of decision that can help spark change. So, from the lowest level, most local decision about what you consume and how you consume it to bigger decisions later in life about where you put your money, I think there's a lot of opportunity for you to make really consequential decisions. But I'm not somebody who believes that all of this will be fine if people just stop consuming energy because we all depend on energy, and we can't stop consuming energy. For some of us, we can make decisions about where we want to get it from. Some of us live in jurisdictions where we can choose, quote/unquote, “to pay a little more” to be assured of getting more renewable energy as the provider. Not all of us can do that, and so, really, you need your governments to act. This is the kind of problem at the kind of scale where all of our individual activity can't possibly be enough. I would say we have to do all of it. FASKIANOS: Well, I am going to go to Al Carnesale, your— FREEMAN: Oh! FASKIANOS: —your former chancellor. FREEMAN: My former chancellor! FASKIANOS: Your former chancellor and a CFR member. So, Al, over to you. Q: So we—since we traded places, I left Harvard to come to UCLA, you left UCLA to come to Harvard. FREEMAN: Yes! Q: Congratulations. So here's my question is about nuclear power. For a number of years environmental groups have been opposed to nuclear power largely because of the waste problem. And then they—in light of climate change, they sort of changed their view and became reluctant supporters. And then came Fukushima and they again opposed nuclear power. Now, as we look ahead with the additional problems you've been talking about that may stymie some of our plans to deal with climate change, where do you think we might be headed on the nuclear problem? FREEMAN: You know, it's interesting—well thank you and it's just delightful to hear from you and see your—see you again. Here's what I'd say. There's a domestic conversation about nuclear and there's a global conversation about nuclear. And of course, as you know, many countries in the world have made a big bet on nuclear. France has always been dependent on nuclear power, for example. China is investing heavily in nuclear power along with every other kind of energy because of their tremendous need as the population grows, and as they, you know, grow into the middle class. So there's a lot of opportunity for nuclear to be built, especially updated sort of smaller more modular reactors, the next generation of reactors all around the world, and I think we're going to see a lot of nuclear deployment. I don't expect to see it in the United States, and the reason I don't think we're going to see it is the legacy you've cited, which is this historical discomfort with nuclear, and the ambivalence that is felt in this country about nuclear and the sort of unwillingness to tolerate the risks that are perceived from nuclear. We haven't solved our long range—our long-term radioactive waste problem. You know, we never decided on Yucca Mountain or anywhere else to put the radioactive waste, so it's being stored on site for—in large measure. And I think there's still kind of a very local NIMBYism, a bad reaction to the idea of nuclear power. The challenge for us in the U.S. is right now nuclear provides about 20 percent of our electricity, and as these facilities are retired, where are we going to get that share of our electricity from? Will it be more renewable energy supported by natural gas for baseload? These are the questions if we lose even this relatively small share of nuclear that we have. The only other comment I'd make—and you may well know far more about this than me—but from my understanding of the cost comparison now, nuclear power, at least in the United States, is just far too expensive to build and not cost-competitive with the alternatives. Natural gas has been cheap because of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. There's sort of abundant natural gas reserves released from shale. It outcompetes coal, and renewables have dropped so much in cost that they are extremely cost-competitive, so I don't think nuclear competes in the American market, at least, this is what the experts have said to me. FASKIANOS: Al, given your expertise in this field, do you want to add anything? Q: It's not to add anything, it's to agree, largely. I think the catch is, how caught up are you in climate change? Because natural gas may be better than coal, but it's not better than nuclear. But it would have to be government-subsidized, which basically in France it's a national security consideration. So it would have to be subsidized as we subsidize many other things. FREEMAN: Right. Q: But I don't see it happening. I think—I was actually on the President's blue-ribbon commission, who tried to come up with a strategy for what to do about the waste. FREEMAN: Yeah. Q: And the strategy said it had to go someplace where the people agreed to take it. FREEMAN: Yeah. Q: And that's not—that's not happening. So I think your conclusion is right, but it is a tension for those of us who are concerned about climate change. FREEMAN: Yeah, it is a tension. And I think you rightly point out the evolution in thinking in the environmental community about this that initially opposed then, sort of, wait a minute, this is a zero-carbon source of energy and we should be for it. And you know, I—this is—for the students, you know, I always say to my students you can't be against everything. You have to be for something. You can't say, well, fossil energy, a disaster; nuclear energy, we're not interested in that, that's too risky et cetera, and all we want is wind and sun, when, at least currently without storage capacity, wind and sun alone without some support—this is in the electricity sector—wind and sun alone without some baseload support to regularly supply the energy when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, you need something else. And that's what Chancellor Carnesale and I are talking about. What is that baseload? Is it going to be natural gas? Is going to be nuclear, et cetera? So you have to be for something, people, is the upshot of this exchange. FASKIANOS: Thank you. So I'm going to go next—there are two written questions from Kai Corpuz and Natalie Simonian, and they're both undergrads at Lewis University. I think they must either—must be focused at Lewis University or both taking the same course. Really talking about wealthy nations helping developing countries. Developing countries are not equipped with the funds to push for a green future. How are they supposed to participate in this? And you know, what is—what are the wealthy nations' obligation to help assist developing economies in dealing with climate change? FREEMAN: Yes, I mean it's a really good question. And of course, the developed world has an obligation to assist the developing world through technology transfer, with financial support. If the developed world wants other countries that have not had a chance to get as far in developing their economies yet, if they want their cooperation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they're going to have to make a contribution to support these countries in all these ways—financing, tech transfer, help with adaptation and resilience. And that commitment is part of the Paris Agreement, but it is true that the pledges that governments have made so far to produce annually billions of dollars for the developing world have not materialized to the level that was promised. So we are behind on that, and this is a significant problem. There is a very legitimate equity claim being made here, which is that the developed world has enjoyed economic growth. GDP has risen. We've all achieved a level of wealth and middle class. I mean, I'm talking on average for the developed world, obviously not everyone. We have tremendous income inequality in this country and around the world, but relatively speaking, our societies have evolved and become richer because of industrialization. We've already produced all our greenhouse gas emissions to achieve this level of prosperity, and the notion that now countries that haven't gotten there yet should just reduce their emissions to their own economic disbenefit, I think everyone agrees that is not a legitimate position to take without offering assistance and support. So I think the leading countries of the world understand this and agree to this. The question is, how do you operationalize this? How do you best support and help the developing world? Where are the investments best made? How do we make sure the governments of the world are held to their commitments and produce the money they promised to produce? And that is an integral part of the Paris Agreement process. So, you know, I don't want to suggest this is an easy problem, but I do agree the question is absolutely the correct way to think about this, which is we do have to help the countries of the world if we expect for us to achieve our climate mitigation and adaptation goals. FASKIANOS: Thank you, I'm going to go next to a raised hand from Sally Eun Ji Son, I believe at Columbia. Q: Oh, yeah. Hello. My name is Sally. I'm currently at Stanford engineering and an incoming PhD student at Columbia in the Political Science Department. And sort of relevant—related to, like, how different countries are in different stages, what I've noticed, as someone between Gen Z and Millennial—what I've noticed is that I, as an individual, like to take environmentally-conscious decisions. Yet, there's some—there's sort of this, like—a debate going on, like your action will not do anything to the Earth, your action will not do anything to climate change. And when I sort of encounter those debates, how should I navigate myself? Like, should I say it's maybe not a direct environmental effect, but it could be a symbolic effect, political effect? Sort of, like, how do I navigate that individuals could also have power or, like, have a stance or position in shaping climate policy around the world? FREEMAN: Well, first of all, I applaud you for engaging in those debates, and you know, sometimes when we come up against viewpoints that we don't agree with, we run away because we're not interested in engaging. And I would just encourage you all to engage, and I mean in the most respectful way. I'll get to the heart of your question, but it just gives me this opportunity to make this one pitch to you. So allow me—indulge me in making this one pitch to you about engaging in the way you're suggesting. You know, my law students what I ask them to do is in the classroom if they hear something they disagree with, sometimes very strongly, I ask them to put it at its highest—in other words, make it the best version of that argument before you criticize it. So, if somebody didn't make the best version of their argument and it's easy to take them down, actually elevate it and say, I think—I think what you're saying is this, and then what I'm hearing is this and give it the best, most legitimate form you can, and then engage with it on the merits, not them as a person. You don't attack them as a person, but say here's where I think differently. Here's my perspective on these issues. So just the idea that you're prepared to go back and forth on this, I think, is very laudable, and I encourage you to do it in that very respectful way. And you may not convince people of your point of view, but you may give them something to think about. And so what I'd say is—a little bit following on my earlier comment—that individual action can be impactful cumulatively, of course it can. If an entire community makes a decision to compete in their consumption of energy—you know there are these competitions among neighborhoods to be more energy-efficient. You know, you get this little notice in the mail that says your home is good compared to your neighbors, and your home is—in some communities this works. It actually promotes competition. In other communities it annoys them. It really depends on the politics of the community. But the point of this is just to say, communities are just—it's just a cumulative set of individual actions, right? So I do think there's something to changing individual behavior, and if lots of people do that, that makes a difference. So I don't accept the idea that nothing you do matters, so don't do anything. I mean, that argument is a recipe for never doing anything about anything. That is a large problem—because your share is necessarily small, so why should you change, and that, to me, is an excuse for inaction and apathy so that can't be the right argument. But you can accept that individuals alone, even aggregated behavior alone, can't change the world's energy systems, that the scope and scale of that challenge—that's a hundred-year challenge that requires the governments of the world to lead. So you can talk about the individual difference you can make, but that's not enough, right? And all of these things have to be done at the same time, and they fit together. You know, local, national—state level, national, global, this all must be done at the same time. That's the scope and scale of this problem. It's a really—climate is a really hard problem because the world's energy system is important for everything from our economic prosperity to our national security, and you can't transform the world's energy system overnight without affecting—first of all, you can't transform it overnight no matter what you do. But even as we transition, we have to think about national security implications, which is what the Ukraine war makes us do. There are geopolitical implications to how energy moves around the world, and who has energy power around the world. And as we shift to a different energy profile, those the power dynamics will shift, and we need to think about that. You know, we need to make sure that the United States has an energy policy that is strategically in our interest, and you can't think about climate without thinking about that. Likewise, you can't think about climate change without thinking about economic development and—and the flourishing—the ability of societies to flourish. So—and you can't think about it without thinking about equality and equity and justice. So it's a really hard problem, but that's why it's so fascinating to learn about. FASKIANOS: Thank you, the next question is from Chaney Howard, who is a senior honors international business major at Howard University. Going back to the war on Ukraine, how do you feel the argument for infrastructure development can be introduced into this conversation as new strategies and allegiance pledges are emerging? FREEMAN: I'm not sure I fully understand that. Can we have a little bit of clarification? FASIKANOS: All right, Chaney, are you able to unmute yourself to clarify, because I can't divine from the written question. Q: Can you hear me now? FREEMAN: Yes, excellent. Q: OK, perfect. So my question is really surrounding ways that the conversation can be a little bit more direct. So you mentioned how there needs to be a development of infrastructure for overall environmental, like, sustainability, and you were talking about electric cars— FREEMAN: Right. Q: —and just kind of having that conversation with global powers. And so I'm curious how you think—now that we're in this transitional period and some of the nations that are supporting Ukraine are working to develop new strategies and new partnerships, what are ways that we can encourage the government and then the global commerce centers to kind of establish those new strategies for environmental sustainability? FREEMAN: So I'm not a 100 percent sure how Ukraine fits there. But let me talk more generally about this idea of infrastructure and investment because I think what the IPCC report that we were talking about that's projecting climate-related risks and saying what's necessary to do in order to avoid them and what the Paris Agreement represents and what I think the current conversation around what's necessary tells us—the strong message from all of these vehicles and processes and meetings, the strong message is we need massive investment from the private sector and government combined in partnership into what the new energy system of the globe has to look like. Meaning, you have to build the power plants of the future. You have to support commercial-scale renewable power. You have to build the charging infrastructure to electrify the transportation fleet to the extent possible. You have to build a modern grid, not just in this country but all around the world, that is capable of supporting the level of electrification that we need. Because to move sectors like transportation off oil and gas, you're going to need—off oil, rather—transportation is mostly dependent on oil—you're going to need to power them differently, and right now we're thinking of mostly powering cars and many trucks from electricity, which means fortifying the nation's and the globe's grids. All of that is infrastructure. All of that requires investment. And there are massive R&D investments, you can imagine, necessary in the low carbon technology of the future. Hydrogen—eventually producing green hydrogen as a fuel source. There are techniques for removing carbon from—direct air capture. Carbon from the atmosphere, things like direct air capture. Or, you know, other carbon removal technologies, they're controversial but they may be necessary. Carbon capture and sequestration, putting it underground, carbon dioxide underground—again, controversial. But if any of these future low-carbon technologies or remediation techniques are going to succeed, they will require trillions of dollars of investments. So, the kind of level of investment that people are talking about—I'll just give you an example. At the latest COP meeting, the Conference of the Parties, meeting in Glasgow, Scotland, which is—these meetings are part of the international process of updating and checking in on the Paris Agreement. The world's biggest companies and financial institutions came together, and 5,200 businesses pledged to meet net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and 450 banks, insurers and investors representing $130 trillion in assets. Those are the assets they invest, which is 40 percent of the world's private capital. And I'm giving you all these numbers because I want to impress you with the scale of the commitments you're seeing from the private sector, from banks and lenders, investors and businesses. They committed to making their portfolios climate neutral by 2050. My point is there is a lot of activity in the private sector, both committing to net-zero goals themselves and also committing to investing capital, big money, trillions of dollars—up to $9 trillion annually is what is projected to be needed, that's $105 trillion over thirty years. That's how much money we need to put into the infrastructure you're talking about, the new—next generation energy infrastructure. All of the things I've discussed—the future of power plants, the future of transportation, new breakthrough technologies, new remediation techniques, new resilience—all of this requires massive investment. And the governments of the world and the private sector are nowhere near what they need to do combined to pull off what amounts to a moon-shot kind of level of investment. So this is a long answer, but it's a way of saying the infrastructure we're talking about in a really concrete way is the energy system of the future, and it's going to require a massive level of investment. FASKIANOS: Thank you. We're going to go next to William Naeger, who is a law student at Washburn University. Q: Hi. Yeah, like she said, I'm at Washburn Law School. I'm wondering if your impression is that these kinds of issues will continue to mainly be governed internationally by COP or the Paris Agreement? Or, if over time, as it becomes more and more extreme, whether it will just become one factor in, like, national security and trade agreements and migration issues and kind of just run through everything else that we do already? FREEMAN: Well, I think this is very astute of you, because, in fact, I think climate change as a global challenge has actually come into the mainstream of all of these other fields. I do think that it is part of the discussion around national security. I do think that climate is part of the discussion around trade and that it will become more embedded and more central to these other domains over time. And I think that—people talk a lot about how we could pair climate commitments of countries with trade measures that countries— the trade relationships that countries have with each other. And people talk, for example, about eventually having countries pledge to reduce their emissions, and if they don't reduce them, they may suffer a border tariff on goods that are produced in countries that don't have climate policies, that impose costs for greenhouse gas emissions. So they'll have to—there'll be a tariff or a border tax on goods that are basically being produced and sold cheaper because they're not subject to carbon constraints. That's a merging of climate and trade policy that we may well see over time. Likewise, I think we're learning to talk. We're not there yet entirely, but we're learning to talk about national security and climate together. Climate is really a national security issue. And you saw the Department of Defense and its reports and testimony to Congress from members of the military who are frequently called on to testify about the impact of climate change on the—they will acknowledge that climate change is a threat multiplier for the military and it's a national security issue. Likewise, when we talk about the Ukraine conflict, the war, and we talk about the need to supply the world with oil and gas in times like this when one of the largest suppliers is engaged in very bad action and being sanctioned for it, how do we meet those short-term energy needs but stay on path with our climate goals? That's a very hard thing to do. You have to be able to talk about the short-term, the medium-term, the long-term all at the same time. So I think your question is very smart in the sense that you understand that climate has to become embedded in all of these other fields and conversations, and I think that's already happening. The Biden administration, I think, to its credit has announced what it calls a whole of government approach to climate, and I think it's trying to do basically what you're talking about, which is say the entire federal government that the Biden administration runs, right, say to all the agencies across federal government—from financial regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission, which makes sure that markets are open and transparent and investors have the right information—even the financial regulators are saying, listen, companies, if you want to trade on this exchange, you better disclose your climate-related risks so investors can make decisions that are appropriate. That's bringing climate into financial regulation. And so the Biden administration has basically said this issue should appear and be relevant to all the things we do. And so I think we're seeing what you're talking about happening to a greater extent, more and more. FASKIANOS: So, Jody, we're at the end of our time. There are a lot of questions that we could not get to, and I apologize for that. Just to sum up, what do you think we all should be doing at the individual level to do our part to affect change and to help with the climate change crisis? FREEMAN: Well, like anybody who's had media training I'm going to not answer your question and say what I want to say anyway, which is— FASKIANOS: Perfect. (Laughs.) FREEMAN: —yeah—because I actually think I've talked a little bit about what we can all do and why it makes sense to take individual action. But what I think I would say, rather, is just I know that there is a lot of reason for pessimism, and I really understand it. And I certainly sometimes feel it myself. I mean, you know, you guys have been through a very, very tough time—a global pandemic, which has been just an awful experience, scary, and disorienting. And you're doing it while you're trying to go to school and live young lives, and that's been hugely disruptive. You now see this war in Ukraine, which is deeply, deeply upsetting, a horrific assault on the Ukrainian population, and you're living at a time when you think climate change is a major challenge that, perhaps, the governments of the world aren't up to. And you see a divided country and, in fact, divisions all around the world and threats to democracy, and restrictions on voting rights. I see what you see, and I can see why you would be upset and worried. But I also want to suggest to you that things are also changing, and there are lots of opportunities for good things to happen. And there's a tremendous amount of innovation and creativity on all kinds of low carbon technologies. There are innovations all the time that open up possibilities. Just look at what's happened with solar power and wind power, renewable power over time. The costs have dropped. The potential for wind and solar has increased exponentially. That's a very hopeful thing. So technology change is very promising. There's a possibility to affect politics in a positive direction. I encourage you to affect politics—this sort of answers your question, Irina. So affect politics in a positive direction, be active, be engaged, because you can effect change by—through activism and through voting. And I also encourage you to pursue professions where you can make a mark. I mean, you can make a difference by engaging with these issues from whatever professional occupation you choose. You can engage with one or another aspect of these challenges of climate, energy, national security. So I have reason for optimism. I think, as frustrating as it is to say, well, the Paris Agreement isn't enough, there's another way to look at it, which is there is an international agreement on climate change. It does have a level of ambition that is an initial step and can be built upon, if we can keep the structure together, if the U.S. continues to lead and look for partners in leading along with the EU. Maybe China will come back to the fold eventually. In other words, things change. Stay tuned, be engaged, and stay optimistic because I, frankly, think there is tremendous opportunity for your generation to engage with these issues in a really constructive and transformative way. And that is where I would leave it. FASKIANOS: Thank you so much, and I'm glad you left it there. It was a perfect way to end this webinar, and thanks to everybody for joining. You should follow Jody Freeman on Twitter at @JodyFreemanHLS, so go there to see what she continues to say. Our next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, April 6, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. We'll focus on China, India, and the narratives of great powers. And in the meantime, I encourage you to follow us at @CFR_academic and, of course, go to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. So thank you again, and thank you, Professor Freeman. (END)

It turns out that most of the people I deal with daily – the people I talk with, meet with, collaborate with, teach, zoom with, and have lunch and coffee with – are 50 years younger than I am. They're in their mid-20s. I'm in my mid-70s. Most of the time I don't think about the half-century gulf between us, but occasionally it slams me in the face. As when I catch our reflection in the window of a coffee shop and wonder, just for an instant, who that old man is hanging out with those young people. Or when I make a casual reference to someone like Humphrey Bogart or Archibald Cox and they stare back at me blankly. Or when I refer to “the Rosemary Woods stretch,” or being “Borked” or “swift-boated,” and they don't have the slightest idea what I'm talking about.Recently we got into a conversation about clothing, and I mentioned that I'd stored my tony jacket in my valise above the chest of drawers in the den. I might as well have been talking ancient Greek.Thank you for subscribing to my newsletter on power, politics, and the real economy. If you'd like to support this week, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. But I miss lots of what they say, too. Yesterday, one of them opined that “inflation is, high-key, skyrocketing right now." I got the skyrocketing part. But high-key? Another told me, reassuringly, that the “vibe” of something I'd written was “immaculate.” I was not reassured. When one asked another if she'd seen me “clap back at Elon Musk," I didn't know whether to feel complimented or ashamed.This morning one of my graduate students, referring to another who had driven a Mustang to someone's weekend baby shower, exclaimed “What a flex!"A “flex?” I asked.“A flex! A flex!” she said more loudly, as if she were talking to someone hard of hearing.I am becoming hard of hearing, damnit. But that wasn't the problem.Face it. A half-century is a chasm in the landscape of living memory. A person who tries to speak across it can seem to warp the time-space continuum. When I was a boy, I remember my father telling me that when he was a boy he watched veterans of the Civil War march in New York City. I was astonished. How could he be that old? How could the Civil War have occurred that recently?    Most of my undergraduate students were born after 9/11. They don't remember a time when the United States was united over anything. They have a hard time believing I've lived most of my life so far before the Internet.  When I tell my undergraduates that I once advised Barack Obama, they're somewhat impressed. Labor Secretary to Bill Clinton? Their eyes begin to glaze over. Worked for Jimmy Carter? Not particularly interested. Campaigned for Eugene McCarthy? They look puzzled, as if I've entered the misty expanses of ancient history. Sometimes I follow this by telling them I started my career as an assistant to Abraham Lincoln. This used to elicit a laugh. I'm beginning to fear it won't much longer. But every day I consider myself especially blessed for having the great good fortune to spend most of my time with these wonderful people. They're going to inherit the mess my generation has bequeathed them. But instead of being bitter or angry, they have all sorts of ideas for how to clean it up, fix it, make the world better. And they have the energy and determination to succeed. They keep me optimistic and sane. They keep me young. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

I first met my next guest about 10 years ago at a show in Thermal California. I was a newcomer, and he was a staple with a famous name that everyone knew.  I soon realized, that although his name is recognizable amongst many groups, across many generations, he is stand alone and stand out in his own right with a big personality and an even bigger heart.  Whenever I felt like a fish out of water, he was always there to offer me insight, solutions, and support.  Never afraid to crack a joke to provoke a smile or open his arms to offer a hug, he is thoughtful, generous, and endearing. Archibald Cox III, better known to everyone as simply Archie, has often referred to himself as being very fortunate.  He achieved much success as a young rider growing up in Long Island, NY surrounded by many famous equestrians that were better known as family friends.  Upon receiving a degree in Political Science from Drew University, Archie continued his equestrian education, working and learning from some of the best in the biz.  In late 2000 he opened his own business, Brookway Stables and let's just say the rest is history. Some would say that Archie's famous name may have led to his fortune, but I definitely beg to differ.  Archibald Cox the third has found fame and fortune in spite of what his grandfather's name represents, and he deserves every accolade that he has worked so hard to achieve. For the next 30 mins or so, I invite you to sit back and relax with AC3 and I, where fortune and fame might be the name of the game, but self-identity, and kindness is where it's at. Let's get into it!

Christian Haynes ’20 joins us again to speak with Ron Lawson ‘75 about the transformational power of both a Holy Cross education, and the Holy Cross alumni network. Interview originally recorded on Martin Luther King Jr. Day on January 20, 2020. --- Transcript Ron Lawson: Holy Cross instills in you that notion of perseverance and what I realized when I graduated here... that I already had the suit of armor necessary to succeed in life and that played itself out at Carnegie Mellon because when I graduated from Carnegie Mellon, I knew it was the Holy Cross experience that got me to that point. Maura Sweeney: Welcome to Mission-Driven, where we speak with alumni who are leveraging their Holy Cross education to make a meaningful difference in the world around them. I'm your host, Maura Sweeney from the class of 2007, director of alumni career development at Holy Cross. I'm delighted to welcome you to today's show. Maura Sweeney: In this episode, we hear from Ron Lawson from the great class of 1975. Ron attended Holy Cross in the early '70s, a time that has been celebrated in the book Fraternity by Diane Brady, which chronicles the lives of an influential cohort of African-American students at Holy Cross. After growing up on Long Island, Ron studied political science at Holy Cross. He still considers those years living on Healy Three among the best in his life. Christian Haynes from the class of 2020 speaks with Ron on Martin Luther King Jr. Day in January 2020. They talk about how his career progressed from Wall Street to being unemployed and homeless, to today working as the COO for Care for the Homeless in New York City. Throughout these changes one thing has remained constant, his dedication to giving back to the Holy Cross community. They discuss Ron's motivations for helping create the ALANA Mentoring Program and the Bishop Healy Emergency Fund, in order to offer students of color the resources and support that he didn't have. A captivating and motivating speaker, Ron shares stories about the life experiences at Holy Cross that teach you how to persevere through hard times and succeed in life. Christian Haynes: Welcome everybody, my name is Christian Haynes, class of 2020, woo woo, that's this year. That's this year. I have here with me, the great Ron Lawson, class of '75. Ron you could introduce yourself, even though I just did. Ron Lawson: Yeah, I'm Ron Lawson. I would say I'm not great but I would say I'm from the great class of '75. Christian Haynes: I like '75, I don't know why. I always told my mum I wanted to be born that year. Ron Lawson: Oh really? Christian Haynes: I'm a more old-school guy. Young but got the old school. What was so great about '75? Ron Lawson: '75 had the unique distinction of being the last all-male class to enter Holy Cross. So my class was all-male when we entered as freshmen in '71. We all lived on the same dorm. The majority of African-Americans on campus, who were all male at the time, it's probably about 80 or 90 of us and most of us lived on Healy Three. So I love the fact that the class of '75 has that distinction as being the last all-male class before that transition took place. It was challenging, both on the part of the women... I don't know how they did it. I don't know how those early classes endured us because a lot of us weren't as considerate and kind as we realized we should have been in retrospect. Christian Haynes: Right. Now did you guys stay together all four years, in the same dorms? Ron Lawson: Yeah, I lived in Healy Three all four years. Christian Haynes: Really? Ron Lawson: Had a couple of different roommates but there was a core group of us that we used to call the fellas. About five or six of us and we all did everything together, everything from going to Kimball, to eating at Hogan, to going to parties at Welsey and Mount Holyoke and Smith and Simmons and Wheelock and Emmanuel. Christian Haynes: The list goes on. The list goes on. Ron Lawson: Yeah, on and on and on. Christian Haynes: That's interesting that you guys stayed in one dorm, all four years. What dorms weren't there that are here now. Ron Lawson: Figge... Christian Haynes: Yeah that's the newest one. Ron Lawson: ...wasn't here. There's a new dorm that just opened a few years ago, the apartments? Christian Haynes: Oh the Edge Apartments, no that's... Ron Lawson: Yeah, Figge and... Christian Haynes: Williams. Ron Lawson: Williams. Figge and Williams. Christian Haynes: Yeah, well I think Williams is... Ron Lawson: Williams is older than Figge and Figge... neither one of those were open. A little sidebar is, Williams was named after Edward Bennett Williams, who was a prominent attorney, a Holy Cross alumni, also the owner of the Baltimore Orioles and I think he may have owned the Washington Redskins also but he was a very prominent D.C. attorney and one of his mentees was Ted Wells who was in the class of '72, who was in school when I was here and Ted followed Edward Bennett Williams' model for success and Ted, in his own right, is a very prominent corporate attorney, got a joint degree from Harvard Law School and Business School. Christian Haynes: Wow. Yeah, earlier we talked about the connections Holy Cross provides to each student. I was told that freshman year... every year but freshman year I didn't believe it until I saw it... especially when I had my experience with you. I would love to get into that a little bit later but first, tell me about, how was it growing up in... correct me if I'm wrong, Winditch? Ron Lawson: Wyandanch. Christian Haynes: Wyandanch, Long Island. Ron Lawson: Wyandanch was a predominantly African-American community in Suffolk County on the South Shore of Long Island and it's where my parents had the foresight to move us, when I was infant, from the South Bronx because my father felt there was too much violence and he wanted a more safe and secure environment for us so he was able to buy a house. As I tell people, my father would constantly tell the story that he couldn't afford this house and it was $10,000 and he couldn't afford it because, even though he served in World War Two in the Philippines, because of Federal law. African-American veterans were not allowed to apply for a G.I. Bill, which provided low-interest loans to secure housing for veterans of World War Two. So he and my mother used to drive out from the Bronx and take these rides through the countryside on Long Island. He said, one day they drove by this house, which was a model home for where we moved in, he and my mother toured it. The real estate agent told him it was $10,000. He and my mother walked back to the car, he told my mother we can't afford it, she started crying and he sat in the car for five minutes trying to calm her and literally got out the car, walked back in the house and gave the real estate agent $10. Christian Haynes: Wow. Ron Lawson: That's how we secured our first home on Long Island and that's where I grew up. Christian Haynes: Wow. Ron Lawson: A very comfortable, lower middle-class environment. As I was telling some people earlier, I didn't realize that I was poor until I came to Holy Cross because all my needs had always been met. So it was a very interesting, holistic upbringing. I went to a really good public school, North Babylon High School. Some of the folks I graduated with... I went to Holy Cross, the other guys, one of my best friends went to Tufts, one guy went to Naval Academy, one guy went to Air Force Academy, so we were going to very good schools as a result of our North Babylon education. Christian Haynes: That's great. How was that culture shock and how... Ron Lawson: It wasn't for me, which I found interesting and unique. Coming to Holy Cross wasn't a culture shock for me. Coming to Holy Cross was by design, not by default. I had done well on the SATs so I was being recruited or getting letters of interest from a lot of schools including West Point, Indianapolis, Syracuse, Bucknell, College of William and Mary. I got a letter from Holy Cross but whereas all these other schools were sending me form letters, I got a personally typed letter that was signed by Gary Reed, who wound up being two years ahead of me, class of '73, wound up going to Harvard Law School and Gary obviously was part of the BSU committee at the time, that was trying to work to increase the number of African-Americans on campus. So when I got a personal letter from Holy Cross, I said well, I want to go see this place. Ron Lawson: Took the bus to Worcester with another friend of mine because he and I were both considering running track. When I got here and got on campus, I knew that was it. It was everything I had envisioned my college experience was to be. Ivy covered walls, small school sitting on a hill, didn't hurt that it was only 45, 50 minutes from Boston, then another 45, 50 minutes from Western Mass, so I knew I could get to Wellesley within an hour and I could get to Mount Holyoke within an hour, so that was very important to me. Ron Lawson: My high school was a very large high school, 2000 students, 90% white, 10% African-American. So when I got to Holy Cross and Holy Cross was 97% white with 3% African-American, it didn't phase me because that had been my whole upbringing. It was very interesting for guys like Ted and Tony Hill, class of '76 because Ted created a funnel effect for Holy Cross students coming from Calvin Coolidge High School in Washington and they followed him to Holy Cross so at one point in time, there were six or seven students from Calvin Coolidge here at Holy Cross. D.C. was totally different. D.C. was totally segregated. The schools were segregated unless you went to a private school, Calvin Coolidge, some of the other schools in the neighborhood were all African-American, so when they got to Holy Cross, they culture shock of having to deal with a majority environment was challenging to a lot of folks and some of the guys I knew dropped out because they couldn't handle it. Christian Haynes: Yeah, that's a good point, they may dropping out. I think as college students, that happens, it doesn't matter your background or anything like that but what made you stay? Now, you said there wasn't as much as a culture shock but I'm assuming that there had to be some kind of trials and tribulations along the way of... Ron Lawson: Oh, yeah, that's life. You're going to always incur trials and tribulations but I knew, at the time I was here, that I was experiencing the best time of my life. I knew I would have other good times ahead but I knew, while I was at Holy Cross, that I was experiencing four of the best years of my life and so I took it all in, I didn't leave anything on the table. I made sure I took advantage of as many opportunities as possible and it ran the gambit. It ran from going to parties in Boston to sitting, being a member of the political science club and having dinner with Archibald Cox, who was the special prosecutor for Richard M. Nixon, to one night having a campus-wide snowball fight with 26,000 people. Christian Haynes: Wow. Ron Lawson: All night long. Hunkering down behind Wheeler, crawling through the snow with a sack full of snowballs, waiting to get somebody upside the head. So no one could have had a better collegiate experience and you can talk to a lot of the folks that were with us, experienced this during the same time and a lot of them would feel the same way. Christian Haynes: Would you say there was a difference between the other African-American men on campus, since you guys had different backgrounds, did you notice certain differences through just the way you guys went about things? Ron Lawson: No, it was pretty much consistent throughout. Some of the same lingo that I used in North Babylon, that the guys from D.C. used, still played the same games growing up Ringolevio, hot peas and butter, all- Christian Haynes: I never heard of that... You from Brooklyn so... Ron Lawson: But a lot of the influences were exactly the same. Christian Haynes: Yeah, that's good. Ron Lawson: The commonality was such that, when our parents met, it was the same thing, they became friends. So no, I didn't see any difference between me and the other guys that I was going to school with. Christian Haynes: That's good. Now when you hear, you mentioned these names many times today in the short time that we've been together today but when you hear the names Stan Grayson, Eddie Jenkins, Clarence Thomas, those names, Ted Wells, what's the first thing that comes to your mind? Ron Lawson: It varies. First of all, the relationship endures and I take that for granted because it's just constant. Here's a perfect example, the Bishop Healy Committee had a farewell lunch in for Dean Millner yesterday, off-campus. Eddie came and we call ourselves the old heads because when we're around you guys there's a 40 year, 45 year gap so we know we're the old heads. So after I went to the bookstore, I was walking down here and I decided to go into the library, just to look to see how things have changed and as I'm leaving, I see a display case and in the display case is a picture of the Holy Cross football team of 1969 and so I look and I see Eddie Jenkins, take a picture and I send it, said that, on campus, in the library at the bookcase, just saw this picture, who's the young man in the second row, third from the left? So it's always those kinds of continuity of relationships and continuation of relationships. Two young men from my church will be entering Holy Cross in September and Stan and I couldn't be happier because we constantly engaged with making sure they were... applications were in, they were getting everything they needed, they were responding in an appropriate time. So now, I see this as an opportunity to have two more mentees on campus that I can help mentor over the next four years. Christian Haynes: That's great. I love this story but when you're mentioning Fraternity, it's like a slight bit but I know you take full pride into that, right? Ron Lawson: Yeah but as I said and as I told Maura and the other folks early on, I was at the tail-end of that experience, all right? Christian Haynes: Yeah. Ron Lawson: That started with these guys making one of the most bold decisions you could make as a person that young. They had decided that there were injustices on campus that affected black students disproportionately and they couldn't achieve the level of resolution that they wanted so they walked out. Went in the Hogan, had a press conference, tore up their ID cards and walked out. Among them was Art Martin, class of '70, who was the first president of the BSU and I can't even imagine the admiration the admiration these other guys must have had for him because he was a senior and he was already accepted into Georgetown Law School and Stan and Eddie and Clarence and Ted, they all told him, you don't have to go, you're already set, don't worry about it. He said, no, if one person is walking out, we're all walking out. Christian Haynes: RIght. Ron Lawson: So he was willing to sacrifice... they were willing to sacrifice their college education, he was willing to sacrifice an opportunity to matriculate Georgetown Law School. So I don't, in any way shape or form, compare with them or compare with that. Where I fall into play is, most of them except for Clarence and Art were all seniors my freshman year and we were all living on Healy Three and Eddie was a big-time football player, went on to win the Superbowl with the Miami Dolphins, Stan was getting ready to go to the University of Michigan Law School and Ted was getting ready to go to Harvard Business and Law School, four year joint degree. My claim to fame was, I showed up on Healy Three with a color TV and so that was my paragraph in the book and it was bittersweet because, I must admit, I liked the attention I got but then I realized the foolhardiness in that because Ted and Stan would kick me out my room every Sunday so they could watch Sunday football games in color and they'd make me go to the library. So... Christian Haynes: At least you got your work done. Ron Lawson: Well I tried to get my work done but I sat there for two or three hours saying, "man they kicked me out of my room, I can't even watch TV on my own TV", but I was a freshman, they were the upper-classmen so you do what you're told. Christian Haynes: Yeah, can't do nothing about it. Ron Lawson: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Christian Haynes: Yeah but I think there was a trickling effect that they had, especially with your class and the classes after that, I think you guys noticed what they did and wanted to pursue what they did, pursue that. Ron Lawson: Oh, definitely. Definitely. Christian Haynes: Pursue that legacy. Ron Lawson: They set the model that we all tried to become and follow suit. That was a blessing and a curse because over time, you would say to yourself, well, I'm not as successful as Ted, I'm not as successful as Stan, I'm just doing this. It took a while to say, I'm successful in my own right but what was always important was, will they be proud of me, will they be proud of my accomplishments. That was very, very important to me and the guys and the women that followed them. When they hear your name, will they speak about you with pride? Christian Haynes: Yeah. Seemed like there was a strong sense of brotherhood on the campus around that time. Ron Lawson: Oh, definitely. Christian Haynes: Yeah and for your class and the classes after, who were the people that you would go to whenever there was something on your mind or something you had to get off your chest or something happened, whether good or bad? Ron Lawson: It was pretty much Ted and Stan, for me. Even when Ted was in law school and business school, as consumed as he was, his Wife Nina, who was successful in her own right, was at Suffolk University and a lot of times, she would help counsel me because I was thinking of applying to law school. Even after school, when I'd had issues or just needed to bounce something off of someone, it would always be Ted or Stan that I would reach out to. Christian Haynes: Do you have any untold stories of Holy Cross, that you can think of? Ron Lawson: No, not... I have some I can't say publicly. Christian Haynes: Oh yeah, that's fine. Or your favorite story. Ron Lawson: Okay, my favorite story really... there's so many favorite stories. My most favorite story would have to be... I owe so much to Holy Cross. I always tell people like you and like Maura, who I think graduated in '07, that you all were going to be successful no matter what you did or no matter where you chose to go to school but you decided to go to Holy Cross so Holy Cross gets to take credit for your success. That's the reality. But going to Holy Cross... when I was here, my freshman year, my roommate was dating a young woman from New York, who was a few years younger than him, in high school and she and a bunch of her girlfriends came up for the weekend and we had one of the vacant suites in Healy Three and they all stayed there. I was dating one of her girlfriends. Then afterwards, my roommate and her broke up and over the years I would say, I wonder what ever happened to her, she was really cute and she had an odd last name, her last name was Clivert. Ron Lawson: So fast forward from the mid '70s to the early '90s, I'm now CFO for Mayor Dinkins in New York and one night I let the whole finance team go home early and I am processing campaign cheques to deposit in the bank the next day. So I see a cheque and it's got the name Nina Clivert on it. Well I know this has to be her so I start research... I try to find her, I get her number, I call, I leave a message. Couple of weeks later, we go out on a blind date. We go out on a couple of other days and to make a long story short, she's been my wife for the last 25 years. So it's because of Holy Cross I found my wife. Christian Haynes: Wow. You ever tell your roommate about that? Ron Lawson: Yeah, no harm, no foul. He broke up with her 1973, she and I got together in 1992. Christian Haynes: He does play a part in it. Ron Lawson: Yeah but- Christian Haynes: He wasn't invited to the wedding? Ron Lawson: Huh? No he wasn't invited to the wedding. He's all the way out in Seattle. Christian Haynes: That's funny. Now, what was next, after you graduated from Holy Cross? Ron Lawson: I didn't know. I didn't know. I was not at the top of my class, by any stretch of the imagination. I wasn't even in the middle of my class, by any stretch of the imagination. I was real close to the bottom of my class, with no stretching the imagination so I came home and I didn't have a lot of options. I didn't have the GPA to go to law school and so I worked for a year in a job that basically paid me a salary and it was something to do. At that time I decided I was going to apply to business school because two of the guys I graduated with, both went to Cornell and they were in the MBA program. So I applied to Cornell. I applied to a few other schools and I had done well on the GMATs so I got a letter from Carnegie Mellon saying that they had a pre-professional... they had a quantitative summer skills institute that I could enroll in for free and depending upon how I did in this summer skills institute, they would determine whether I could matriculate as a master's candidate and whether or not I would receive any sort of scholarship. Ron Lawson: It was scary because at Holy Cross, I was a political science major and one of the things Holy Cross teaches you is how to think, how to process, how to articulate and how to write. So I knew I could get in front of any audience and I could pontificate and I could speak the King's English and I could do well. I stayed as far away from quantitative courses as I possibly could because I was fearful of them. Well now I'm at CMU and I'm going to a quantitative summer skills institute so I'm confronted with my greatest fear. So the summer I was there, I had to take finite math, calculus, statistics, two computer programming courses, fundamental accounting, intermediate accounting, cost accounting and advanced accounting. I did well enough that I was actually tutoring calculus to undergraduate students by the end of the semester and I was offered a seat in the master's class and got a scholarship. So after one year of working after Holy Cross, I then went and got a master's in public management from Carnegie Mellon. Christian Haynes: You went from being at the bottom of the class to getting that offer of scholarship. Ron Lawson: Yeah and that's what I tell people. When anybody comes in my office... I prominently display all my degrees, my Holy Cross degree, my master's degree from Carnegie Mellon and then the first company that hired me after Carnegie Mellon sent me to a post-graduate program in accounting and finance at the Kellogg School, so I had that certificate on my wall also. I always tell people, it's not about me trying to show off or trying to display any arrogance. I am paying testimony to my parents, to my father who died at 57 and mother who died at 47, who I felt worked themselves into an early grave to make sure I could achieve that level of success, so that's in tribute to them. Ron Lawson: But yeah, that's how life is and what Holy Cross also taught me was, never give up. It was instilled in me, early on because there were a lot of challenges here where I could have... half my class, there were 34 black men in my class and half of them either flunked out or left and that 50% drop-out rate was pretty consistent through the early '70s to mid '70s. So I could have easily said, this is too hard, I'm not doing it, I'm going back to North Babylon and go to community college but Holy Cross instills in you that notion of perseverance. What I realized, when I graduated here, that I already had the suit of armor necessary to succeed in life and that played itself out at Carnegie Mellon because when I graduated from Carnegie Mellon, I knew it was the Holy Cross experience that got me to that point. Ron Lawson: Let me tell you a perfect example. Once again, I'm not at the top of my class, I'm struggling because I'm dealing with all these quantitative courses. We would be sitting in economics and economics class was 200/300 people in the auditorium. Now I'm not used to that. I'm used to 20 people in a class, in the basement of Fenwick or O'Kane because we used to have classrooms down there. I wasn't used to the type of economics because we were used to Samuelson, guns and butter. That was economics, I can understand that. I get to Carnegie Mellon and it's all math, it's all quantitative and it's all math. It's partial and differential equations. The professor is at the front on the video screen and he's doing computations and equations and formulas and he is trying to show us how to solve for lambda. I'm like, "what's lambda?", well nobody really knows but we're going to solve for it. Christian Haynes: Right. Ron Lawson: So I am befuddled, I am bemused, I am dismayed and I am flunking everything. Then one day, Holy Cross, being the institution that it is, teaches you perspective, teaches you how to observe. So I'm sitting in class and he puts an equation on the board and I see somebody raise their hand, "Professor Haynes, Professor Haynes", oh and he goes, so, this is how you solve for lambda, you take that purple bag and you have the black video screen and then you add it to the Holy Cross sign. "Professor Haynes, Professor Haynes", "yes Ron?", "so what you're saying, and this is intuitively speaking, is if I have a purple bag with a black sign and the Holy Cross sign, via the combination of those three elements, I will be able to solve for lambda", "that's right Ron", and I looked and I said, all he did was regurgitate what the professor said, he just said it a different way. From that day on, I was a B plus or an A student because all you had to do was regurgitate but I learned that because I learned that at Holy Cross, the perspective. Ron Lawson: Then I also realized my grades weren't good as the rest of the class so I needed to step up and figure out how I was going to gain an advantage. Well, I looked around and I remember when we were interviewed on campus, everybody put on their little suits and ties. I went out and got a $250 navy blue, Pierre Toussaint [intention: Pierre Cardin] double-breasted suit. Clean as the board of health. I would wear that to every job interview and at the end of my first semester, second year, when all the job offers were being made, I think I had seven job offers, which was more than anyone else in my class. Christian Haynes: Wow. Ron Lawson: So it was all those educational... it wasn't even educational experiences from Holy Cross, it was those life experiences from Holy Cross that helped me succeed. Christian Haynes: Right. Now, shortly after you got the scholarship for the master's program, you found out that your father had passed, right? Ron Lawson: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Christian Haynes: At this point, your mother had passed at the age of 17. Ron Lawson: Yes. Christian Haynes: Earlier you mentioned having the degrees in your office as a testimony to them, at that age, how do you get through that? I don't know if you have any siblings or anything like that but how were you able to get through that and how did your work or your work ethic reflect your parents? Ron Lawson: Well I just did. I can't even tell you how I got through it, I just did. I would love to say I had a tremendous support system but I was a moving target. I'm trying to pursue my career or move forward professionally, the way I know my parents would have wanted me to. When my father passed, I must admit, for a minute, I said, well I'm not... it was a three week break between the end of the summer skills institute at Carnegie Mellon and me entering the fall class and I wasn't going to go back. After my mother's death, my father remarried, my step-mother said, that's what he would have wanted you to do so you can't not go back. He only had $3,000 in life insurance, she gave me $300 and so off I was back to Carnegie Mellon. Ron Lawson: I was struggling academically and broke because I had no financial support. If we're having breakfast and you offered me a bowl of Kellogg's cornflakes now, I'd want to fight you because that's all I could afford to eat for two years. Coming from that experience, I realized well, if you can do this, you can do anything. What my parents instilled in me is no giving up, you don't quit. I saw it with my mother and her battle with breast cancer. I saw my father's angst after she passed and how he basically raised me as a single parent until I went off to Holy Cross. So those object lessons stuck with me and I just had the mindset that there was no challenge I couldn't overcome. Christian Haynes: So after Carnegie Mellon, you ended up in Wall Street or was there...? Ron Lawson: Yeah, spent 15 years in financial services with what is now Ernst & Young, Deloitte & Touche, Chase, JPMorgan Chase, Salomon Brothers, I did that for 15 years until I got laid off. That was my great epiphany because... this is what... you may have heard the term, in the past, the go-go '80s, this is during a period of time where everyone's making a ton of money on Wall Street, everyone's living extravagantly, it's all about self, there's nothing about, how do you live your life to benefit others. It's like, how do I get mine? I was caught up, head over heels, in it. Wearing the fine clothing, the expensive clothing, going out to the expensive restaurants, going to the theater two or three times a week. Next thing I know, I have lost my job and in my arrogance I said, well this will only take me a couple or three weeks to get another job because I have a Holy Cross degree, I have a Carnegie Mellon degree and I have a post-graduate certificate from the Kellogg School and I have 15 years of work experience on Wall Street. Didn't happen. Ron Lawson: I realized that, in retrospect, that this was God's way of humbling me because it's very timely that we're having this conversation today on Martin Luther King Day because I was able to come out of losing my job, losing everything I own, being homeless, to in a six month period of time, being the CFO for the Mayor of New York because I had a close network of friends that were very influential and because I met my minister at the time, who was Reverend Doctor Paul Smith and he was a senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Brooklyn Heights. Paul is the person that introduced Martin Luther King to Andrew Young and Paul is a really good friend of Andrew Young and Paul was a key proponent, a key participant in the Civil Rights Movement, he was part of the group that got beaten crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Paul was the one that would call me over... because I lived about two or three miles from the church and I'd walk over because I couldn't afford to take the subway or a cab and we'd sit, we'd talk, we'd pray and he's constantly telling me, hard times don't last always. Tough times don't last, tough people do. Ron Lawson: So that's what got me out of that but once again, it was the Holy... one of the things Holy Cross also teaches you is, you are fortified to accomplish anything and as such, when somebody offers an opportunity to you that you might not necessarily be comfortable with or think you have the background for, you jump at it because you know you'll figure it out and that's what happened to me. My best friend at the time had run both of Harold Washington's mayoral campaigns and was in New York, he was the vice chair of an investment banking firm and Mayor Dinkins asked him to be the treasurer, campaign treasurer for his re-election campaign. Ken and I had dinner one night and Ken asked me if I would serve as the CFO because as Ken... and he was a real funny guy, as Ken put it, he said, "you know in New York state law, a political campaign treasurer can go to prison if there's misappropriations of funds of malfeasance", and he said, "so I need you to set up the financial infrastructure so you can watch my back because I am too pretty to go to prison". So that's how I got there. So I wound up managing an $11,000,000 political campaign, had about 15 staff members. Christian Haynes: So I think that definitely had an effect on what you do now and being the... Ron Lawson: That did, yeah. Christian Haynes: Yeah. Being the COO of Care for the Homeless, which I was a part of for one summer, as an intern. Not only that, I'm thinking about it right now, you taught me a lot but the biggest thing that I took away from you during that summer was the way you treated other homeless people. A lot of people, especially in New York City, homeless people get treated as if they're not a human being, nothing, just on the street but the way you would interact with them, and it's not just giving them money or giving them food, you would actually interact with them and I remember me, you and Nikai was coming from dinner one time and you told us just to go to the office and I just felt like you were going to a business meeting. You made it seem like you were going to a business meeting. Christian Haynes: Then I saw you going... I don't know the guy's name but it was in the corner of the same block that the office is on and you was talking to him, you was talking to him for a good minute and that right there just showed me the type of person you were and I guess it showed me a little bit what you learned yourself when you was homeless yourself for those six months and it was just like... and I'm glad. I'm really glad I had that opportunity and it just opened my eyes to a lot of things. I'm pretty sure that's one of the messages you try to tell people, in a way. Ron Lawson: Yeah. Holy Cross espouses and the model/mantra is, "men and women for others". So I don't want to have this journey and not be of service to others. It's not just selfishness in the sense of, well people helped me and I want to help other people, it's that it's what we're supposed to do. It's how, I think, an individual is supposed to live their life. The road to success is a journey, not a destination. In my view, you are never completely successful until you're put to rest and somebody is eulogizing you and says the world was a better place because you were here, because you lived in it. I take the work I do at Care for the Homeless differently in the sense that I am selfish because those 15 years on Wall Street, I always felt good about making a lot of money but I never felt good about what I was doing for someone else because I didn't care. So having to be humbled was God's way of telling me, you need to start focusing on other folks and not yourself. Ron Lawson: So I have the best experience in the world, I'm helping the folks who are least among us to get back on their feet, to find meaning in their own lives and because I go to work every day, I can honestly say, when I go home and I lay my head on the pillow at night, somebody somewhere is a little better off because I went to work today and I like the way that makes me feel. Christian Haynes: That's great. I remember you telling me that. You think if you didn't have that humbling experience, you would have went from business to non-profit, as you did? Ron Lawson: I don't know. I think I would have gotten to a point where I would have gotten tired of Wall Street and looked for other opportunities but I don't know when and where that would have come. So I think God just accelerated it for me. Christian Haynes: Has it always been instilled in you to give back or to want to give back? Ron Lawson: It has but not as prominent as it became once I started working for the mayor because that was a turning point for me because now I was working for the mayor of New York and no matter what your political persuasions... he was running against Rudy Giuliani and we literally saw it as good guy versus the bad guy, that's how we saw it. It was the very first time that I worked for a purpose and not just a paycheck. My wife will tell you, the night the mayor lost, we were engaged and we were living together at the time, we went to her house after the campaign because we were in the mayor's suite at the Sheraton and we couldn't stay any longer because we could tell he was losing so we went home and I started looking at the returns on the TV and after about three or four minutes I started crying and I couldn't stop crying. Then the TV went black. Never happened before that, never happened after that. So I think it was a sign where I just didn't have the emotional capacity to deal with him losing. So that's some of what I feel at Care for the Homeless, this is not just collecting a salary, there's a purpose behind the paycheck. It's a gratifying experience. Christian Haynes: Yeah. You've done a lot of great things, in my eyes, as an alumnus of the school. One of the things you helped do is created the ALANA Mentor Program. I've benefited form that. I've met a couple of alumnus who I still keep in touch with today, we're great... I actually just had a conversation with one of them. What made you want to create that? Ron Lawson: I want y'all to have what I never had, on a variety of levels. The ALANA Mentoring Program, that's why I was also key in starting the Bishop Healy Emergency Fund because a lot of times we don't have the resources that other folks on campus have and a lot of times the resources we need aren't huge. There's some kids that can't take the GMATs or can't take the LSATs or can't take the MCATs because they can't pay the application fee. Christian Haynes: Right. Ron Lawson: So the ALANA... the Bishop Healy Emergency Fund can do that. Can't get home for a winter break, come from the south and don't have a winter coat. The mentoring program, as I told you, who did I counsel with? Ted and Stan. Ted and Stan. The mentoring program, I thought, was an opportunity to connect more students of color on campus with alumni of color who were in the same fields that the students may have an interest in. I just thought it was a necessary addition to a student's collegiate experience here at Holy Cross. Christian Haynes: You know how it's set up? Ron Lawson: How it's set up? Christian Haynes: Yeah, how people are matched with the alumni. Ron Lawson: Well I know how I started it and... I called Amy Murphy in career development and she told me she thought it was a good idea and she said okay, here are some student's names that said they're interested and here's the list of alumni. I literally sat in my living room for two or three days, looking at alumni careers and their careers and then the students and what their interests were and started matching them. So now, I don't know how it's evolved, I know it has on some level. Christian Haynes: Yeah, similar it's just I thought it was interesting that the names aren't on the list, it's just the occupation and where they're located and the year that they graduated. So for us students it's like, we don't know who's who, we just know a little bit about them and you know the things that they've done on campus, whether that's sports or BSU or anything like that. So I thought that was pretty interesting. Ron Lawson: Yeah, it is. Christian Haynes: The Bishop Healy Fund too, a lot of people have benefited over that. I know somebody who just came home from an immersion trip and told me that it was a life changing trip and it was because of the Bishop Healy Fund so we want to thank you... I think I speak for everybody when we say, we want to thank you and those who have helped you create the Bishop Healy Fund and the ALANA Mentoring Program. Ron Lawson: So I appreciate the thanks but I'll tell you, like I was told by my friends that helped me out of that tough period of time, when you start moving forward in your career, make sure you reach back and make sure you do it for someone else. Christian Haynes: Yeah. Yeah I honestly think that was... the ALANA Mentoring Program, that was the thing that made me want to give back. I haven't graduated yet but I've told myself that, when I get to where I want to be, I want to give back. Ron Lawson: I would challenge you on that and say, don't wait until you get to where you want to be. Start now because you being out of school a year or two, you're going to be far more relatable to a sophomore or junior on campus than I am, 45 years out. So don't think you don't have anything to offer just because you haven't achieved what successes based upon what you define it to be. And, stay connected. I know you and Maura are going to say, oh here he goes again, because I know I'm preaching to the converted but I always like to state, that if you are a graduate of The College of the Holy Cross and you don't take advantage of the alumni network, you have discounted your degree by 25%. Christian Haynes: Yeah I definitely hear that and I will do as you say. Ron Lawson: How did you get your job last summer? Christian Haynes: Last summer or the summer before? Ron Lawson: Last summer. Christian Haynes: Last summer? Same story as the other one anyways. Ron Lawson: No, who'd you work for? Christian Haynes: Huh? Ron Lawson: Who'd you work for? Christian Haynes: Schone Malliet Ron Lawson: And what is he? Christian Haynes: He is an alumnus. Ron Lawson: From what class? '74. Christian Haynes: I thought '76? Ron Lawson: '74. Christian Haynes: Yeah. Ron Lawson: The point I'm making is, your last two summer jobs came because you reached out to the Holy Cross alumni. Christian Haynes: Right. Actually, everybody that I've spoke to to get those two jobs were alumnus or alumni. Ron Lawson: See? Christian Haynes: Interesting. But yeah, like I said before, I didn't know the strength of... the power of the purple. Ron Lawson: Yep. There's nothing like it. Christian Haynes: Yeah until when I needed to start connecting with people because I needed a job for the summer or anything like that. Yeah, what would you say is your mission statement, if you were to have one? If you don't have one, now's your time to create one. Ron Lawson: Personal mission statement? Christian Haynes: However you want to take it. Ron Lawson: To share as much as I can with as many people as I can. I take umbrage and I take it personally whenever I speak to a Holy Cross alumnus who tells me they didn't have the same experience I had. It bothers me when somebody walks away from this hill and says it wasn't four of the best years of their life. I know it can't be the case 100% of the time but I would hope it's the overriding case 98% of the time and those occurrences are few and far between. So I feel it's incumbent upon me to do everything I can to give back to the students who are on campus now so they can walk away saying it was four of the best years of their life. So whereas you have other alum who have interests to serve on the board or serve on the alumni association board, which I have done, I really get excited about connecting personally with students on campus, while they're on campus. Christian Haynes: How would you say the Holy Cross mission statement has effected your work? Ron Lawson: It makes it easy for me to say I come from an institution like this because this institution's motto is, "men and women for others", and that is what this school is known for and how the students live their lives on campus. So it's very interesting and another example of how deep the network runs is, Yankelly Villa, who you may know, was one of the presidential scholars last year. She posted on LinkedIn that she was coming to New York to get a master's degree at the new school and she needed a job, I saw it, she is now my operations assistant. Harry Thomas, class of '78, former ambassador to Bangladesh, Philippines, Zimbabwe, sits on the board of trustees, I asked him to serve on our board, he's on our board, he chairs our benefit committee and as a result of the people he knows, we now have a relationship with Ben Vereen, who's a two time Tony Award winner who is now going to headline a huge gala for us to celebrate our 35th anniversary in the fall. It is so bad that my boss, George Nashak who's a Columbia graduate, calls Care for the Homeless, Holy Cross South. Christian Haynes: In fairness, that's a good thing. Ron Lawson: Yeah, it's a very good thing for us. Christian Haynes: Yeah. All right so, we're going to do a little speed round. Ron Lawson: Okay. Christian Haynes: Just ask you questions and you can answer as fast you can. So if you was to change two things about Holy Cross, what would they be? Ron Lawson: Number of African-American students on campus. Christian Haynes: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Ron Lawson: And... figuring out how to keep it from snowing so much here during the winter. Christian Haynes: Impossible. Ron Lawson: Yeah. Christian Haynes: One year, it didn't snow as much. I didn't like it because you know we still have classes when it snows. Ron Lawson: That's another thing. You don't understand, y'all be shutting down and closing school when it snows, that is like an oxymoron to me. Holy Cross is closed because it's snowed. It didn't close the four years I was here. Christian Haynes: You'd be surprised how dangerous it gets. Ron Lawson: Oh, please. Christian Haynes: There's a lot of black ice... Ron Lawson: I must admit, when my father brought me up, he brought me up, dropped me off and then he came back later in the fall, towards the end of the fall for a football game and he saw the maintenance crew putting up the long, red, metal poles with the diamonds on top on the fire hydrants and he said, "what is that for", I said, "Dad, I don't know", and like six weeks later I called him, I said, "Daddy, you know why they put those things on the fire hydrants?", he said, "no", I said, "because the snow's so deep, they can't find them, that's the only way they can find them". So... I know the first one's far more realistic than the second. Christian Haynes: Yeah. Best place to eat in Worcester, back in the day? Ron Lawson: There was none. Christian Haynes: Really? Nothing? Ron Lawson: No. Christian Haynes: Not Miss Woo's? Ron Lawson: McDonald's. That's pretty much it. Christian Haynes: Wait, Miss Woo's is there. Miss Worcester's Diner. Ron Lawson: I didn't do that. I am not going to eat any place... under a place that is called Pigeon Bridge. Where Miss Woo is, that bridge, they used to call it Pigeon Bridge. Christian Haynes: Oh, did not know that. Ron Lawson: Yeah. Christian Haynes: Makes a lot of sense. Ron Lawson: There you go. Christian Haynes: All right, best place to eat in Worcester now? Ron Lawson: Oh, Sole Proprietor. Christian Haynes: Actually been there, it's pretty good. Ron Lawson: Yeah. Christian Haynes: Would you rather life as a student or life as an alum? Ron Lawson: Life as an alum. Christian Haynes: Ideal vacation spot? Ron Lawson: South Africa. Christian Haynes: Why? Ron Lawson: Because I haven't been. Christian Haynes: Okay. I was going to ask your favorite dorm but you said you spent all four years at Healy. Ron Lawson: Yeah. Christian Haynes: Favorite year? Ron Lawson: Every year. Christian Haynes: No, favorite year. What was that? Ron Lawson: Favorite year? Christian Haynes: Yeah. Ron Lawson: '75. Christian Haynes: Okay. If you were to win the lottery, what is the next thing you're doing? Ron Lawson: How much? Christian Haynes: I don't know, 100 mil. Ron Lawson: 100 mil? Christian Haynes: Yeah. Ron Lawson: Make sure my families and friends are secured. Christian Haynes: I'm one of those friends. Ron Lawson: I'd think about it. Sit down with the school to see what their needs are. Have a conversation with Father Boroughs and Tracy Barlok and make a sensible contribution to the college that's going to help move it forward and move the mission forward and set up a need-blind scholarship program for students coming to campus. Christian Haynes: Favorite song or best song that reflected your time at Holy Cross? Ron Lawson: Theme from Shaft. Christian Haynes: Theme from what? Ron Lawson: Theme from Shaft. Isaac Hayes. That's all that was playing when I got here. Christian Haynes: A book you've read that has changed your perspective on life. Ron Lawson: Fraternity. Christian Haynes: Okay. If given the money needed, what would be the first thing you'd invent? Ron Lawson: A quicker mode of transportation from my house to work in the morning. Christian Haynes: You're on a road trip, who's in the car and what are you guys listening to? Ron Lawson: Nina, my wife, is in the car and we're listening to Stevie Wonder's Inner Visions/Fulfillingness' First Finale and Songs in the Key of Life, in sequence. Christian Haynes: Well, that's all I got. Ron Lawson: All right. Christian Haynes: Always a pleasure. I appreciate you coming down here and taking the time to do this, it was very exciting for me. I hope you had a good time. Ron Lawson: I enjoyed myself and I appreciate you asking. Christian Haynes: Yeah, no doubt. Maura Sweeney: That's our show, I hope you enjoyed hearing about just one of the many ways that Holy Cross alumni have been inspired by the mission to be men and women for, and with, others. A special thanks to today's guest and everyone at Holy Cross who has contributed to making this podcast a reality. If you, or someone you know, would like to be featured on this podcast, please send us an email at alumnicareers@holycross.edu. If you like what you hear, then please leave us a review. This podcast is brought to you by the office of alumni relations at The College of the Holy Cross. You can subscribe for future episodes wherever you find your podcasts. I'm your host Maura Sweeney and this is Mission-Driven. In the words of Saint Ignatius of Loyola, now go forth and set the world on fire. --- Theme music composed by Scott Holmes, courtesy of freemusicarchive.org.

Show Sponsor: The law firm of Waranch & Nunn  Robert Reich: Trump Could Try to Rig the 2020 Elections.  Trump angry after House briefed on 2020 Russia election meddling on his behalf  The briefing cost the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, a shot at the permanent DNI job, current and former officials said. In the years leading up to his resignation, Nixon turned the Justice Department and FBI into his personal fiefdom, enlisting his political appointees to reward his friends and penalize his enemies. Reports about how compromised the Justice Department had become generated enough public outrage to force the appointment of the first Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox. Before Nixon’s mayhem was over, his first two attorneys general were deep in legal trouble — John Mitchell eventually served 19 months in prison — and his third resigned rather than carry out Nixon’s demand to fire Cox.  Watergate also ushered into politics a young man named Roger Stone, who, under the Committee for the Re-election of the President (known then and forevermore as CREEP), helped devise lies and conspiracy theories to harm Democrats. After Nixon resigned, the entire slimy mess of Watergate spawned a series of reforms. During the years I worked at the Justice Department, regulations were put into place to insulate the FBI and DOJ from political interference.

Show Sponsor: The law firm of Waranch & Nunn Robert Reich: Trump Could Try to Rig the 2020 Elections. Trump angry after House briefed on 2020 Russia election meddling on his behalf The briefing cost the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, a shot at the permanent DNI job, current and former officials said.In the years leading up to his resignation, Nixon turned the Justice Department and FBI into his personal fiefdom, enlisting his political appointees to reward his friends and penalize his enemies. Reports about how compromised the Justice Department had become generated enough public outrage to force the appointment of the first Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox.Before Nixon’s mayhem was over, his first two attorneys general were deep in legal trouble — John Mitchell eventually served 19 months in prison — and his third resigned rather than carry out Nixon’s demand to fire Cox. Watergate also ushered into politics a young man named Roger Stone, who, under the Committee for the Re-election of the President (known then and forevermore as CREEP), helped devise lies and conspiracy theories to harm Democrats.After Nixon resigned, the entire slimy mess of Watergate spawned a series of reforms. During the years I worked at the Justice Department, regulations were put into place to insulate the FBI and DOJ from political interference.

Author Ray Locker returns for part two of a discussion about his new book, Haig's Coup: How Richard Nixon's Closest Aide Forced Him From Office. In this episode, Locker and S.T Patrick take the story from July 1973 through the end of the Nixon presidency. included in tonight's episode are discussions on Alexander Butterfield, The White House Tapes, Bob Woodward, Deep Throat, Seymour Hersh, Larry Higby, Fred Buzhardt, the 18 1/2-minute gap on the tapes, being at Defcon 3 without the president even knowing, Archibald Cox, the Saturday Night Massacre, Leon Jaworski, the Spiro Agnew resignation and the Gerald Ford appointment, the Ford pardon, the "I'm in charge here" comment of 1981, and the value of the memoirs. Locker also gives his theory on who ordered the Watergate break-in and why. These two episodes are two of the best we have ever done. Check them out! Check out our FREE archives at www.MidnightWriterNews.com. And the magazine, "garrison: The Journal of History & Deep Politics," has a new home at LuLu where you can buy a copy at any time and from anywhere Get it here: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/MidnightWriterNews          

Ken Starr, Archibald Cox, Leon Jaworski, Lawrence Walsh, and Robert Mueller. These names are almost as familiar as the Presidents they investigated. What does that say about the role of Special Prosecutors, the power the have, the evolution of their role in history and how we should see them today? When a lesser know name, John Henderson was the special prosecutor pursuing Ulysses S. Grant in 1875 we didn’t have a 24/7 new cycle, and hundreds of former US Attorneys, commenting on his every move. So once again, the question has to be asked, does this important safeguard of democracy even work in our current political, media and partisan environment. Of course the best way to know is to examine the history. That what Andrew Coan does in Prosecuting the President: How Special Prosecutors Hold Presidents Accountable and Protect the Rule of Law My conversation with Andrew Coan:

Author, attorney, and Nixon administration insider Geoff Shepard joins S.T. Patrick to reassess the figures and events of the Watergate era. Shepard, the author of The Real Watergate Scandal: Collusion, Conspiracy, and the Plot That Brought Nixon Down, is an expert on the legal malfeasance of the public figures involved, but he also knew many of the administration officials that were so demonized by the media and historical establishment. What were John Ehrlichman, H.R. Haldeman, John Mitchell, and Charles Colson really like? How did a young Geoff Shepard land his first job in the White House? What was the reaction of Ehrlichman's Domestic Council to the failed break-ins? How and when did the Watergate story gain traction nationally? Shepard also takes us into the careers of Judge John Sirica and special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski. ...All of this and more in our first discussion with author Geoff Shepard. For our FREE archives, go to MidnightWriterNews.com.

On October 19, 1973, Nick Akerman and his fellow Watergate investigators began hoarding whatever documents they could from the office of the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox. They knew that the next day, Cox planned to disobey President Richard Nixon and announce before a clutch of reporters at the National Press Club that he would pursue taped recordings from inside the Oval Office; they also knew that in doing so, Cox was risking his job and the fate of the investigation.

This week's episode features a massacre, though not necessarily the kind you would expect from this particular show. It relates indirectly to the presidency of one Donald Trump, but that's about as political as I would like for it to be. President Richard Nixon managed to avoid impeachment by resigning just before the articles of impeachment made their way through the House of Representatives into the U.S. Senate. The basic story is this: President Nixon wanted to prevent some damning audio tapes from being introduced into the investigation into the Watergate break-in and cover-up, so he tried to coerce his Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. The resulting scandal is known as the Saturday Night Massacre. A lot of people are making connections between Nixon firing Archibald Cox and President Trump firing FBI Director James Comey, so I thought I would give a primer on the case. Here's a brief re-telling of that situation: Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox asked for several of Richard Nixon's dictabelt recordings in lieu of the investigation. Nixon turned down Cox's request for tapes featuring John W. Dean, citing "executive privilege" because he didn't think it was anybody's damn business. Richard Nixon, at first, tried to get AG Richardson to get Archibald Cox under control. Alexander Haig, Chief of Staff, met with AG Richardson to try to influence him to calm down Archibald Cox. At the same time, there was an investigation into VP Agnew regarding taking cash payouts. After a meeting on the subject, Nixon basically said to Elliot Richardson, "Now we have to get rid of Archibald Cox." Judge Sirica ordered for all of the subpoenaed tapes to be turned over. Nixon really wanted to get rid of Cox after that. He had his lawyer, Fred Buzhardt, to meet with AG Richardson and present a two-pronged plan: 1. Nixon would listen to the tapes and oversee transcripts being turned over. 2. Cox would have to be fired. Attorney General Richardson said he would rather resign than fire Archibald Cox. The compromise failed, and yet President Nixon attempted to persuade Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson ended up resigning and so did the acting Attorney General, William Ruckleshaus. The third-in-command, Robert Bork, ended up doing the dirty deed. The result ended up being called the Saturday Night Massacre. The Saturday Night Massacre was notable in and of itself, but it also signaled just how corrupted President Richard Nixon would be. If you're interested in checking out my books, please do. You can pick up a signed copy of my third novel, Dirt Merchant, at my personal Selz page or the local bookstore that's treated me SO well, Parnassus Books in Nashville, TN.

Government and Politics

Forty-five years ago, the attention of the nation and much of the world swung toward New Haven, where the murder trial of Bobby Seale and Ericka Huggins had made the city a magnet for Black Panther outrage and pushed New Haven to the brink of anarchy.It's an amazing story with a cast of characters that includes not only the Panthers, but future black leaders like Kurt Schmoke, a Yale student who would become mayor of Baltimore, and J. Edgar Hoover, Jerry Rubin, Allen Ginsberg, Archibald Cox, Spiro Agnew, Kingman Brewster and Tom Hayden.Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.