Podcasts about senate watergate committee

With our live show in Washington, DC coming up on May 29, we thought it'd be fun to share one of our previous live recordings from Cat's Cradle in Carrboro, NC w/ guests Molly Worthen, Doug Heye & Rufus Edmisten!   Dr. Molly Worthen (Department of History at UNC-Chapel Hill), Doug Heye (CNN/former RNC Communication Director) & Rufus Edmisten (Deputy Chief Council, Senate Watergate Committee/ former NC Secretary of State & Attorney General) join Bob & Ben for a conversation about charisma in American politics and society. Recorded live at the legendary Cat's Cradle in Carrboro, NC on January 25, 2020.   Join us for our next live recording on May 29, 2025 at The Hamilton Live in Washington, DC. Click here for tickets!   Click here to check out upcoming Avett Brothers shows   Click here for Ben's comedy dates   This is a rebroadcast of episode #158 which originally aired on January 27, 2020. This episode was edited by Ben Sawyer.  

On this episode, we welcome Rufus Edmisten who served as the deputy chief counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee (1973-74). The Committee's final report, released on June 27, 1974, was partly responsible for the resignation of President Richard Nixon on August 9, 1974. On the podcast, Edmisten reflects on the high-profile nature of his work on the Committee, his relationship with Committee Chairman U.S. Senator Sam Ervin, and recounts the history-defining moment in which he personally delivered the subpoena to the White House for Nixon's secret Oval Office tapes."I knew it was going to be a big day, and when I got (to the White House) I read the subpoena title but then did a little impish thing too," said Edmisten on the podcast. "I had a little U.S. Constitution in my back pocket that Senator Ervin used to carry around, and something about my Boone upbringing said, 'whip that baby out on them.' So I pulled it out of my right back pocket and said, 'I heard you need one of these down here too.'"Rufus L. Edmisten was born and raised in Boone, North Carolina, and earned an undergraduate degree from UNC-Chapel Hill and a Juris Doctor from the George Washington University Law Center in Washington, DC. He served as North Carolina Secretary of State, North Carolina Attorney General, and was the Democratic nominee for Governor in 1984. He is currently a lawyer in private practice.The interview was conducted by North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts Communications Director Graham Wilson.

This Day in Legal History: James McCord ArrestedOn June 17, 1972, James McCord, security director for President Richard Nixon's re-election committee, and four Cuban-Americans were arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. This event marked the beginning of the Watergate scandal, a major political scandal in the United States that ultimately led to President Nixon's resignation. The burglars were caught wiretapping phones and stealing documents, intending to gather information to sabotage Nixon's political opponents. As investigations unfolded, it was revealed that the break-in was part of a broader campaign of political espionage and sabotage conducted by the Nixon administration. The scandal exposed widespread abuse of power, including illegal wiretapping, break-ins, and attempts to cover up these activities. Journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post played a crucial role in uncovering the details of the scandal, leading to increased public scrutiny and pressure on the administration.The investigation led to the indictment of several Nixon administration officials and the creation of the Senate Watergate Committee. The most significant outcome was the discovery of the existence of secret tapes of conversations in the Oval Office, which revealed President Nixon's involvement in the cover-up. Faced with the likelihood of impeachment, Nixon became the first U.S. president to resign from office on August 8, 1974. The Watergate scandal had a lasting impact on American politics, leading to increased transparency and reforms aimed at preventing such abuses of power in the future.The rare disease community is advocating for changes to the Inflation Reduction Act's drug price-setting scheme, which is causing drugmakers and investors to reconsider developing drugs for small patient populations. Companies like Pfizer, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Protagonist Therapeutics are altering their research strategies due to concerns over recouping costs under the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. This program exempts orphan drugs with a single FDA-approved indication from price negotiations, but those with multiple indications might not qualify for the exclusion, even if they are not yet approved for additional conditions.Opponents are seeking legislative and judicial changes to amend the Inflation Reduction Act, as companies and investors shift their focus away from rare disease and small-molecule drugs. Jamie Sullivan of the EveryLife Foundation for Rare Diseases emphasized the importance of achieving technical fixes to support innovation. Recent legislative efforts aim to protect the development of these drugs, and companies like AstraZeneca are challenging the provisions in court. The Inflation Reduction Act has made the capital environment more challenging for rare disease drugs, according to John Stanford of the Incubate Coalition.Patient groups and some manufacturers argue that the exemption reduces incentives provided by the Orphan Drug Act, which has historically promoted the research and development of rare disease medicines. These drugs often launch with a single indication but can later be approved for additional uses. Concerns are rising that the current policies may hinder further research into rare diseases. Despite industry concerns, some groups argue that drug companies still have substantial resources for robust R&D and can profit from expanding indications for orphan drugs. A CMS spokesperson stated that the negotiation program aligns with the law and won't harm long-term innovation.US Drug Negotiations Plan Shifts Focus for Rare Disease ProgramsAlex Jones' personal bankruptcy has been converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation, meaning a trustee will now manage how he pays the $1.5 billion in defamation judgments against him. Jones was unable to reach an agreement with the families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims, whom he defamed by claiming the 2012 massacre was a hoax. US Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez ruled that Jones' case does not qualify for exceptions to prevent its conversion to Chapter 7, despite Jones' objections.During the same hearing, Judge Lopez dismissed the bankruptcy case of Infowars' parent company, Free Speech Systems LLC, allowing the Sandy Hook families to pursue their claims in state court. The judge clarified that there was never a request to shut down Infowars itself. Lopez expressed the difficulty of the case, acknowledging its connection to the tragic 2012 shooting.Jones' defamation debts were deemed non-dischargeable in bankruptcy due to the intentional and malicious nature of his actions. Following state court verdicts, Free Speech Systems filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July 2022, and Jones filed for personal bankruptcy in December 2022. Efforts to reach a consensual bankruptcy plan failed, prompting the recent conversion to Chapter 7.Jones and the Sandy Hook families had recently agreed on the need to convert his case to Chapter 7, but the Free Speech Systems case remained contentious. Ultimately, the court decided that dismissing the Free Speech case was in the best interest of creditors. Despite potential liquidation, Jones may start a new broadcast, according to attorneys for the Sandy Hook families. This case is being managed under Alexander E. Jones, Bankr. S.D. Tex., No. 22-33553, as of June 14, 2024.Alex Jones Loses Financial Control as Trustee Takes Over (4)Alex Jones' assets to be liquidated as his company exits bankruptcy | ReutersAt a star-studded fundraiser in Los Angeles on June 15, President Joe Biden criticized the U.S. Supreme Court as being "out of kilter," emphasizing that it has never been as out of step as it is today. The event, which featured former President Barack Obama and Hollywood celebrities like George Clooney and Julia Roberts, raised over $30 million for Biden's campaign. Biden highlighted the court's conservative leanings, particularly criticizing Justice Clarence Thomas's remarks on reconsidering issues like in vitro fertilization and contraception. He also warned that if Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, he could appoint two more justices, which Biden described as alarming.The fundraiser was framed by a video montage contrasting Biden's record with that of Trump, drawing cheers from the audience. Biden noted that the Supreme Court, now dominated by conservatives appointed by Trump, has made decisions restricting affirmative action, gay rights, gun control, and environmental regulations. Obama reiterated the importance of elections in determining the court's power, linking the current situation to Trump's 2016 victory.The event marked the largest Democratic fundraiser in history, surpassing a previous record set in New York City. Other celebrities present included Jack Black, Jason Bateman, and Kathryn Hahn. Despite Biden's low approval ratings and concerns about his age, the fundraiser aimed to showcase the campaign's strength and momentum. Biden and Trump are currently tied in national polls, with Trump leading in battleground states. Both candidates have raised significant funds in California, demonstrating the state's financial influence on their campaigns.Biden slams Supreme Court at $30 million fundraiser with Obama, Clooney, Julia Roberts | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Impeachment Hearings Against NixonOn May 9, 1974, a significant event unfolded in the political and legal history of the United States as the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Peter Rodino (D-NJ), initiated impeachment hearings against President Richard Nixon. This marked a crucial point in the Watergate scandal, an episode that had gripped the nation for two years following the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in June 1972. The scandal involved allegations of political espionage and sabotage conducted on behalf of Nixon's reelection campaign, a cover-up by high-level White House officials, and subsequent revelations of misconduct.The decision to open hearings was based on accumulating evidence from various investigations, including testimonies provided to the Senate Watergate Committee and the revelations from the Watergate tapes. As chairman, Peter Rodino played a pivotal role in overseeing a fair and meticulous review of the allegations against Nixon, guiding the committee through extensive debates on legal and constitutional grounds for impeachment.The committee's hearings were comprehensive, involving detailed examination of the evidence and intense deliberations on the constitutional criteria for impeachment. The proceedings were conducted with a level of transparency, broadcasted live on national television, allowing the public to witness the meticulous process of democratic oversight.On July 30, 1974, after several months of hearings, the committee voted to impeach Nixon on three counts: obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. These charges were centered around Nixon's involvement in the cover-up of the Watergate break-in and other misuse of presidential power.The impeachment process was a watershed moment in American legal history, emphasizing the principle that no one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law. It showcased the pivotal role of legal frameworks and congressional oversight in upholding democratic principles and integrity within the executive branch.Peter Rodino, whose leadership was instrumental during this challenging time, was later recognized for his fairness and dedication to upholding justice. He passed away in 2005 at the age of 95, remembered as a key figure in one of the most challenging periods in American political history. This day in 1974 remains a defining moment, highlighting the robustness of legal and democratic processes in the face of political crisis.Jazz Pharmaceuticals is set to challenge the FDA in a court case regarding the approval of a rival narcolepsy medication, Lumryz, by Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals. Jazz argues that the FDA's approval of Lumryz violated the Orphan Drug Act because it disregarded the "clinical superiority" clause. Jazz contends that the FDA should not have approved Lumryz as it is considered the same drug as Jazz's Xywav, which has orphan drug exclusivity until 2027. The FDA, however, maintains that Lumryz is not the same because it offers clinical benefits that Xywav does not, such as not requiring a second dose during the night. The case hinges on the interpretation of the term "same drug" and whether the FDA's definition of a clinically superior drug is permissible under the Orphan Drug Act. This lawsuit could potentially reshape how the FDA interprets and applies rules concerning drug exclusivity and could have broader implications for how agencies interpret ambiguous statutory language, following the principles established by the Chevron doctrine.By way of very brief background, the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 provides seven years of market exclusivity for drugs designed to treat rare diseases, preventing the FDA from approving similar drugs for the same condition from other manufacturers unless certain exceptions apply. This law aims to encourage the development of treatments for diseases affecting small patient populations, and thus having a small number of potential sales, by offering incentives like exclusivity to pharmaceutical companies. In the case involving Jazz Pharmaceuticals and the FDA, the dispute centers on whether the FDA can approve a drug claimed to be "clinically superior" despite existing exclusivity agreements under this law.Jazz Pharma to Fight FDA in Court Over Rival Sleep Drug ApprovalProminent law firms Morgan & Morgan PA, Seeger Weiss LLP, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, and Motley Rice have been appointed as lead counsel for plaintiffs in litigation concerning side effect warnings for the diabetes drug Ozempic and related medications. The decision was made by Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This litigation involves multiple lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies including Novo Nordisk A/S, the producer of Ozempic, and Eli Lilly & Co., which manufactures Mounjaro and Trulicity. These companies are accused of underplaying serious gastrointestinal side effects associated with drugs classified as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Ozempic, known for its blood sugar regulation and unintended weight loss effects, has seen a spike in demand leading to the development of the weight loss drug Wegovy. The firms representing the defendants are DLA Piper for Novo Nordisk, and Welsh & Recker PC, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and Redgrave LLP for Eli Lilly. The case continues to unfold in Pennsylvania.Ozempic and Wegovy, popular diabetes and weight-loss medications, have been linked to severe gastrointestinal side effects, including gastroparesis (stomach paralysis) and cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS). Gastroparesis causes the stomach muscles to slow down, severely delaying the digestion process, which can result in food remaining undigested in the stomach for prolonged periods. This condition can lead to symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Cyclic vomiting syndrome is characterized by intense, recurrent episodes of vomiting, which can last several hours or days, accompanied by severe abdominal pain and nausea. These side effects significantly impact patients' quality of life, and concerns have been raised about the adequacy of warnings provided by the drugs' manufacturer, Novo Nordisk. Ozempic Plaintiff Attorneys Led by Morgan & Morgan, Seeger WeissRudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, has been accused again by Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea' Arshaye “Shaye” Moss of making false statements. Despite a previous $148 million defamation judgment against him for similar allegations, Giuliani reportedly continued to claim that these poll workers manipulated the 2020 presidential election results. This accusation came during an April livestream where he addressed a crowd in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Freeman and Moss, who recently won their defamation suit against Giuliani, responded by filing an objection to his motion for an appeal, which he had requested after declaring bankruptcy. They argue that Giuliani's actions are not only a flawed litigation tactic but also a disregard for legal consequences. Meanwhile, a committee of unsecured creditors also opposed Giuliani's motion, highlighting that his legal maneuvers delay resolving the financial claims against him, affecting the creditors adversely. The dispute underscores ongoing legal battles involving Giuliani, who faces significant financial liabilities primarily due to the defamation award.Giuliani Accused of New False Remarks About Georgia Poll WorkersStephen Miller's legal group, America First Legal (AFL), has initiated a lawsuit against IBM subsidiary Red Hat Inc., alleging that the company's diversity initiatives resulted in discriminatory practices against a former White male employee, Allan Kingsley Wood. Filed in the US District Court for the District of Idaho, the lawsuit contends that Red Hat's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program, which sets hiring goals for women and minorities, led to Wood's wrongful termination. Wood, who was a senior director at Red Hat, reportedly disagreed with the DEI policies based on his religious, personal, and political beliefs, advocating for hiring based on merit. The lawsuit also claims that Red Hat's DEI goals effectively acted as "quotas," aiming to significantly alter the company's workforce demographics by 2028. Shortly after expressing his views, Wood was dismissed from his position, along with 21 other employees, predominantly White males, under the guise of role elimination. Wood is now seeking compensation and an injunction against Red Hat's DEI program. The case highlights ongoing tensions and legal challenges related to corporate diversity efforts following the US Supreme Court's June 2023 decision on affirmative action in college admissions.Stephen Miller Group Sues IBM's Red Hat for White Male Bias (1) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this day in history, October 4, 1974, the trial of key Watergate conspirators began, marking a seminal moment in American political history. The defendants were H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Mitchell, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson. Each played a significant role in the Nixon administration and faced serious charges related to the Watergate scandal.H.R. Haldeman, Nixon's Chief of Staff, was accused of conspiracy and obstruction of justice. He was ultimately convicted and served 18 months in prison. John Ehrlichman, a close advisor to Nixon, faced similar charges and was also convicted, serving 18 months. John Mitchell, the former Attorney General, was charged with conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. He was convicted and served 19 months in prison.Robert Mardian, a lesser-known figure, was initially convicted but his conviction was later overturned on appeal. Kenneth Parkinson, a lawyer for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, was acquitted of all charges.The Watergate scandal originated from a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in 1972 and the Nixon administration's subsequent attempts to cover it up. Investigations revealed that Nixon had approved plans to conceal the administration's involvement, leading to a constitutional crisis and his eventual resignation.The trial was a culmination of investigations by both the Department of Justice and the U.S. Senate Watergate Committee. These investigations were intensified by the discovery of a voice-activated taping system in the Oval Office, which provided crucial evidence against Nixon and his associates.The scandal led to the indictment of 69 people, with 48 of them being convicted, many of whom were top Nixon administration officials. It also led to the impeachment process against Nixon, who became the only U.S. president to resign from office. His successor, Gerald Ford, later pardoned him.The Watergate scandal had a lasting impact on American politics, leading to greater scrutiny of political actions and making the term "Watergate" synonymous with political scandal. It also led to significant reforms in campaign financing and governmental ethics. It remains a cultural touchstone, standing as the platonic ideal of the heights of presidential scandal until a young upstart out of Queens descended an escalator into the presidency and rewrote what was possible in the realm of scandal and legal entanglements. Judge Arthur Engoron, overseeing Donald Trump's civil fraud trial in New York, has imposed a gag order on Trump and others involved in the case. This decision came after Trump criticized the judge's top law clerk on social media. Engoron warned of "serious sanctions," potentially including contempt of court, for any violations of the gag order. The case, brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, accuses Trump, his adult sons, and the Trump Organization of inflating asset values to secure favorable loans and insurance terms.Trump had shared a social media post featuring the clerk and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, calling for the case's dismissal. The post was later deleted. James is seeking at least $250 million in fines and various bans against Trump and his sons from running businesses in New York.Trump, who attended the trial, told reporters he plans to testify. The first government witness was Trump's former accountant, Donald Bender, who stated that financial statements for the Trump Organization were largely based on self-reported figures. Trump's lawyer questioned the accuracy of these reports.The trial could last until December and will review additional claims including falsifying business records and insurance fraud. Other witnesses expected to testify include the Trump Organization's former CFO and Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen. Trump also faces four criminal indictments and a civil damages trial for defamation, all of which he denies.Trump hit with gag order after lashing out at court clerk in NY fraud case | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments concerning the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), an agency established to regulate predatory lending. The case is an appeal against a lower court ruling that found the CFPB's funding mechanism unconstitutional, as it draws money from the Federal Reserve rather than from budgets passed by Congress. Both liberal and some conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, expressed skepticism about the argument that the CFPB's funding violates the Constitution's "appropriations clause."Kavanaugh noted that Congress could change the funding structure if needed, while Barrett questioned how the challengers would rectify the issue. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the funding mechanism is lawful and similar to those of other financial regulators like the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.However, conservative justices like Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts raised concerns about the agency's setup, questioning whether it undermines Congress's control over appropriations and the constitutional separation of powers.The CFPB was created in 2010 to curb predatory lending practices and has delivered $16 billion in relief to consumers through various enforcement actions. The case has broader implications as it could affect the power of federal agencies, a topic the court is set to tackle in its new term.Supporters of the CFPB warn that a ruling against the agency could leave consumers vulnerable to deceptive practices and jeopardize existing rules. A decision is expected by the end of June.US Supreme Court appears wary in case targeting consumer financial watchdog | ReutersHunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, has pleaded not guilty to charges related to lying about his drug use while purchasing a handgun in 2018. This marks the first-ever criminal prosecution of a sitting U.S. president's adult child. Hunter Biden faces three counts, including lying on a federal form to acquire a Colt Cobra handgun and being an illegal drug user in possession of the firearm. The hearing took place in a federal courthouse in Wilmington, Delaware, and lasted 25 minutes.Conditions for Hunter Biden's release pending trial were set, including clearing travel with a probation officer and abstaining from illegal drugs and alcohol. His attorney, Abbe Lowell, plans to file a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that a previous agreement to resolve the gun and separate tax charges should still be in effect. The case has constitutional implications, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court expanded gun rights under the Second Amendment last year.The trial sets a historic precedent as it involves the adult child of a sitting president who is campaigning for reelection. The case has garnered significant attention, especially from Republicans who have long scrutinized Hunter Biden's activities. A ruling is expected to be filed by November 3.Hunter Biden pleads not guilty to gun charges in Delaware court | ReutersSam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the now-defunct FTX cryptocurrency exchange, is facing trial on charges of stealing billions from customers. The trial resumed with the aim of completing jury selection and moving on to opening statements. The case comes nearly a year after FTX's collapse, which had a significant impact on financial markets and damaged Bankman-Fried's reputation. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan has selected a pool of nearly 50 jurors, with the final panel expected to be chosen soon.Prosecutors allege that Bankman-Fried misused FTX customer funds to support his hedge fund, Alameda Research, acquire luxury real estate, and make political donations. Three former associates, who have already pleaded guilty, are expected to testify against him. Bankman-Fried has pleaded not guilty, and his defense is likely to argue that while he may have mismanaged risk, he did not engage in theft.The defense may also attempt to shift blame onto the cooperating witnesses, suggesting they are implicating Bankman-Fried to receive lighter sentences. Bankman-Fried has been in detention since August for likely witness tampering. The trial is closely watched given its implications for the cryptocurrency sector, which has been marred by scams and regulatory scrutiny.Sam Bankman-Fried's trial to resume with jury selection, opening statements | ReutersThe IRS's recent Notice 2023-63 has redefined software development for the purpose of current year expensing, requiring most related costs to be amortized. This change poses a significant challenge for "bootstrap" software developers who typically self-fund their projects. These startups often rely on expensing their software development costs, which can make up a large portion of their annual expenses.Previously, Section 174 of the tax code allowed businesses to either deduct research and experimentation costs in the current year or amortize them over a period. Most businesses preferred the former option as it allowed them to recoup costs immediately. However, the new IRS rules have created ambiguity, making it more advantageous for some to acquire software rather than develop it, thus discouraging innovation.The new rules also introduce an administrative burden, requiring developers to meticulously track and categorize their activities to differentiate between what can and can't be expensed in the current year. This increases the complexity of tax compliance and demands additional resources and training.Moreover, the rules leave open questions about what constitutes "maintenance activities" that don't give rise to upgrades and enhancements. Such ambiguities could lead to differing interpretations and increased litigation, further straining IRS resources.The significance there is that so-called “maintenance activities” that do not give rise to upgrades or enhancements are expensable in the current year–but your guess is as good as mine what kind of development work would meet that criteria? On some level, does not every new software release intend to upgrade or enhance the previous version?I suggest that either the post-TCJA changes must be rolled back or a more well-considered policy should be implemented. If not, there's a risk that these changes could stifle software innovation, particularly affecting startups and smaller companies that were previously incentivized to innovate.New IRS R&E Rules Risk Stifling Software Innovation for Startups Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

(11/9/2022) David Dorsen, who first came to national attention in the early 1970s as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and Assistant Chief Counsel of the Senate Watergate Committee will examine, his book Judicial Mayhem: How Federal Judges Betrayed Their Public Trust. Join us when Dorsen gives a 'behind-the-bench' look at how the federal court system can completely malfunction with a never-before-revealed account of this extraordinary miscarriage of justice in a white-collar case on this installment of Leonard Lopate at Large.

This was a special collaboration with Headline Books. David Dorsen is a celebrated author who entered the public sphere during his time as a top attorney for the Senate Watergate Committee, this week he speaks with Burke about how law has changed in the United States. David's book, Judicial Mayhem: How Federal Judges Betrayed Their Public Trust is the roller coaster true story of hedge fund manager Michael Lauer, who escaped to America from behind Russia's Iron Curtain at age 15, penniless and speaking no English. Throughout this episode, David talks about the ever-changing landscape of law in the United States and how that was reflected in his career. Judicial Mayhem is available on Amazon! The Big Time Talker is sponsored by Speakermatch.com

In this episode we cover the opening day of the Impeachment Hearing of the House Judiciary Committee. We listen to staffers of the committee and a couple of the committee members as they discuss the way the committee operated and the issues they faced as they moved forward to really look at the events. You will also hear from the members of a quiet coalition of southern Democrats all of whom are struggling between their feelings of loyalty to both a President and a constituency that is counting on them to do the right thing, and the overwhelming nature of the evidence that is in front of them. This evidence totally coming from two sources, the Senate Watergate Committee staffed with partisan Democrats put together by Senator Ted Kennedy's office, and the Rabid Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office. None of those facts was known at the time this debate raged  by this set of politicians tasked with making the final judgement as to whether to impeach the President As all of this pressure continues to build we will look into the toll it is taking on the President's mental health. Just how well was Richard Nixon coping with the disintegration of his Administration.  There are various rumors circulating that it was not to well. Yet, other staffers such as Alexander Haig and Ray Price take issue with those reports. We will hear from various people who witnessed the President up-close as all of this was unfolding. Then we close out the episode hearing from the man himself,  President Richard Nixon. In 1983, just nine years after these events transpired, then Former President Richard Nixon sat down with his former staffer Frank Gannon for an in-depth, non adversarial, much more relaxed, set of interviews. We will be sharing portions from those interviews in our remaining broadcasts. They will provide you with some extraordinary insights from what the President was thinking in these final months of his administration.  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!!

In this episode we listen as the House Judiciary Committee sets up shop to start their look into the impeachment of Richard Nixon.  You will hear from Bernard Nussbaum as he talks about the decision by John Doar not to aggressively investigate the facts of the case instead deciding they would collate the evidence already gathered by the Senate Watergate Committee and the Special Prosecutor's office. A decision that Nussbaum violently opposed at the time but in these interviews tries to put the best face on for the oral history he is providing. He even goes so far as to say it was  most likely the biggest factor in getting to the result that eventually happened. You will hear Hillary Rodham Clinton discuss the system for organizing material they came up with based on how Doar ran his law practice. The three areas that they all worked on included just trying to figure out how an impeachment would work, what were the grounds for determining a high crime and misdemeanor, and just what exactly were the facts as they knew them. It is a fascinating look at how the committee was run and you will hear how the congressmen were babysat through the process, with little black books, kept under lock and key, that staffers would go through the evidence with the congressmen, given to them by the WSPF, let them ask questions and go through books only under the direct supervision of staff with all the materials going safely back into custody after they were done researching it all for the current session. It was all a very controlled environment, for secrecy's sake, or at least that is what we have been led to believe.Then we go through the scenario that led to the request by the Special Prosecutor's office for 64 more taped conversations. The President refused to hand them over, deciding instead to give edited transcripts, to be released simultaneously, to the Prosecutors, the House Committee and the public. That decision would eventually lead to the legal fight in the Supreme Court known as the United States vs Richard Nixon.  Then the President addressed the nation.If ever a case of being caught telling the truth has existed then this speech by President Nixon is it.  We just did not have any way of knowing it then, but we do now. If you go back to our first four tape series episodes and listen to the "Cancer on the Presidency" conversation with John Dean, the White House Counsel, ( episode 137 -  Tape series part 1) or the conversations with Assistant Attorney General Henry Petersen ( episode 139  -  Tape series part 3) every single assertion in his defense made by President Nixon in this April 1974 speech turned out to be true. Go listen to it all for yourself. ZBiotics Pre-Alcohol ProbioticBreaks down the byproduct of alcohol responsible for rough mornings after drinking.Brand 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!!

In this episode we are going to introduce you to a new set of players in the saga of the fall of Richard Nixon. These are the members of the House Judiciary Committee and its staff. We chose five of them. Representatives Elizabeth Holtzman D-New York and Trent Lott R-Mississippi, two people at the very start of their long and illustrious careers. We also chose three members of the staff, Hillary Rodham Clinton and William Weld, who were young staffers and the number two man on the staff Bernard Nussbaum. It is Bernard Nussbaum whose oral history is of the most interest throughout the rest of our series. He is blunt in his assessment of the office of Special Prosecutor even as he attempts to defend the job that they all did in 1974. He calls it a dangerous office. He also points out often that Doar overruled him in his view that a thorough investigation needed to be conducted by their office rather than just relying on the information and evidence gathered by the Senate Watergate Committee and the Watergate Special Prosecutor's office. However, in this episode, we will just introduce them all to you and how they got in the places they were when the scandal landed on their doorstep in March of 1974.  I will tell you that of all the various entities involved in the horrible travesty of justice known as Watergate (Here I am editorializing again) my opinion of these people, with the exception of William Weld, changed the most dramatically for the better of any of the research I conducted. This is their story with a few funny side stories too. Like how sliming  salmon prepared Hillary Rodham Clinton for her long career in politics. Reality Life with Kate CaseyThree times a week I interview directors, producers, and stars from unscripted television.Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify The Enthusiasm ProjectDeep dives exploring the world of what it means to be an independent creator.Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify 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!!

John Dean taught a class about Watergate and the discovery of the Nixon White House taping system. In June 1973, during testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee, Mr. Dean implicated President Nixon and administration officials, including himself, in the Watergate cover-up. Mr. Dean later pleaded guilty of obstruction of justice for his role in Watergate and served four months in prison. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week marks 50 years since the Watergate break-in happened, sparking perhaps our nation's biggest political scandal and the resignation of President Richard Nixon.  North Carolina played a monster role in the investigation that followed with Sen. Sam Ervin chairing the Senate Watergate Committee.  His 31-year-old Deputy Chief Counsel Rufus Edmisten delivered the subpoena to the White House for the famous tapes. Edmisten went on to a long and prolific political career. Tim catches up with the 80-year-old character at his office, which looks more like a museum and his home, which looks more like a public garden, and a local radio station.

David Erdman was born on July 4, 1949 at Camp Lejeune, NC and grew up near New Bern, North Carolina. He attended Duke University on an Angier B. Duke Scholarship and was the first person to graduate from Duke with a Degree in Biomedical Engineering. He now serves on the Board of Visitors of the duke Engineering School. He went to Georgetown University Law School where he was elected national president of the Law Student Division of the American Bar Association. David moved to Charlotte in 1976 and quickly became a well-known trial lawyer. David was recognized in 2019 (10th time) by Business North Carolina magazine as one of North Carolina's “Legal Elite” in the field of Family Law. He leads the law firm of Erdman & Hockfield, which he founded in 1981. In 1999, David was unanimously appointed to the Charlotte City Council to fill an at-large seat. David is an author and frequent lecturer, having delivered over 225 presentations on the History, Geography, and Future of Charlotte. He has been quoted in media outlets including the New York Times and the Washington Post. His book 100 Lost Architectural Treasures of Old Charlotte is in its third printing. David's new book designed to help people save and improve their marriages is The Ten Commandments of Marriage -- Secrets of a Divorce Lawyer" available on Amazon. While in law school at Georgetown University, David worked as a staffer on the U.S. Senate “Watergate Committee.” David is a member of St. John's Baptist Church where he has been a Deacon and a long-time adult Sunday School teacher. He is married to Lynn Erdman, Executive Director of Carolina Breast Friends, a breast-cancer support organization in Charlotte. They have two daughters: Natalie, a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist and Emily, a school teacher. When not immersed in his busy law practice, David is frequently invited to speak to civic groups. In his picture-packed presentations, he shares his extensive knowledge of Charlotte's history and geography.

Website: http://www.erdmanforcharlotte.com/ TenCommandmentsOfMarriage.com David Erdman -- Brief Biography Updated: February 2021 David Erdman was born on July 4, 1949 at Camp Lejeune, NC and grew up near New Bern, North Carolina. He attended Duke University on an Angier B. Duke Scholarship and was the first person to graduate from Duke with a Degree in Biomedical Engineering. He now serves on the Board of Visitors of the duke Engineering School. He went to Georgetown University Law School where he was elected national president of the Law Student Division of the American Bar Association. David moved to Charlotte in 1976 and quickly became a well-known trial lawyer. David was recognized in 2019 (10th time) by Business North Carolina magazine as one of North Carolina's “Legal Elite” in the field of Family Law. He leads the law firm of Erdman & Hockfield, which he founded in 1981. In 1999, David was unanimously appointed to the Charlotte City Council to fill an at-large seat. David is an author and frequent lecturer, having delivered over 225 presentations on the History, Geography, and Future of Charlotte. He has been quoted in media outlets including the New York Times and the Washington Post. His book 100 Lost Architectural Treasures of Old Charlotte is in its third printing. David's new book designed to help people save and improve their marriages is The Ten Commandments of Marriage -- Secrets of a Divorce Lawyer" available on Amazon. While in law school at Georgetown University, David worked as a staffer on the U.S. Senate “Watergate Committee.” David is a member of St. John's Baptist Church where he has been a Deacon and a long-time adult Sunday School teacher. He is married to Lynn Erdman, Executive Director of Carolina Breast Friends, a breast-cancer support organization in Charlotte. They have two daughters: Natalie, a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist and Emily, a school teacher. When not immersed in his busy law practice, David is frequently invited to speak to civic groups. In his picture-packed presentations, he shares his extensive knowledge of Charlotte's history and geography.

Lou  Russell is the most intriguing figure in a scandal full of intrigue.  Perhaps much like Michael Stevens, his potential role could not have been spun by either the Washington Post or the Senate Watergate Committee in a way that avoided the CIA, and therefore the public has heard nothing about him.  But Russell's participation, if proven, implicates far more than the CIA.  For those skeptically wishing to cling to the conventional Watergate narrative, Lou Russell is a mystery who cannot be explained.________________________________________ Thank you for listening! For more information such as a hyperlinked Cast of Characters, visit themysteriesofwatergate.com.  And if you like what you've heard, please leave us a 5-star review on Apple Podcast and pick up a copy of the new book, "The Mysteries of Watergate: What Really Happened" on Amazon.

We welcome Michael Hershman co-founder of Transparency International for an in-depth conversation about founding TI, populism, COV-19, FIFA, and politicization of sports. Michael’s shares his experience of being Senior Staff Investigator for the Senate Watergate Committee, how his work on Police corruption in New York inspired the movie Serpico (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070666/) and the challenges that Michael and his fellow co-founders faced when founding Transparency International, which other name Michael proposed. Listen to Michael looking back on the successes and failures of anti-corruption in the past decades. Michael takes the listener through his many stations of anti-corruption work including the famous Bofors scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_scandal) and Siemens corruption scandal (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21siemens.html). The second part of the interview deals with corruption sports, including Michael’s surprises when he served on the Independent Governance Committee for FIFA and why FIFA was reluctant to implement reforms. The interview ends with Christopher, Nils and Michael discussing the importance of athletes as role models, and how sports athletes, in particular in the NBA, are increasingly making use of their public role to demand for social justice. References: Michael’s TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOzwUq6WGCA Michael’s pick of the podcast: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6751668/

Dr. Molly Worthen (Department of History, UNC-Chapel Hill), Doug Heye (CNN/former RNC Communication Director) & Rufus Edmisten (Deputy Chief Council, Senate Watergate Committee/ former NC Secretary of State & Attorney General) join Bob & Ben for a conversation about charisma in American politics and society. Recorded live at the legendary Cat's Cradle in Carrboro, NC on January 25, 2020. Our gratitude to everyone who attended this sold out show! If you'd like to join us for a future recording, check out our calendar of live events by clicking here. The Road to Now is part of the Osiris Podcast Network. This episode was edited by Gary Fletcher.  

In 1972, Richard Nixon’s political future seemed assured. He was reëlected by one of the highest popular-vote margins in American history, his approval rating was near seventy per cent, and the public wasn’t interested in what newspapers were calling the “Watergate Caper.” But the President’s fortunes began to change when new revelations suggested that he knew about the Watergate break-in and that he had participated in a coverup. In May of 1973, the Senate Watergate Committee hearings were broadcast on television, and millions of Americans tuned in to watch compelling testimony about Nixon’s illegal activities. A narrative emerged, of Nixon as a scheming crook who put his own interests before those of the country. His poll numbers plummeted, his party turned on him, and, in August of 1974, Nixon resigned from the Presidency in disgrace. Thomas Mallon dramatized Nixon’s downfall in his 2012 novel “Watergate.” As Congress again debates the impeachment of a President, Mallon joins Dorothy Wickenden to discuss the power of a good story to affect the course of political history.

Ohio native John Dean became a household name in the 1970s as the White House Counsel who participated in the infamous Watergate scandal that rocked the United States. Dean served as a witness for the prosecutors of the break-in and cover-up and ultimately testified before the Senate Watergate Committee, after pleading guilty to obstruction of justice charges. In his post-White House career, Dean became an investment banker and author, writing eleven books about Watergate and Republican politics including Worse than Watergate and Conservatives without Conscience. Dean's name has been in the news a great deal in 2019, culminating in June with his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee where he testified about the implications of the Mueller Report. John Dean, along with collaborator James Robenalt (Partner at Thompson Hine LLP and author of January 1973: Watergate, Roe V. Wade, Vietnam, and the Month That Changed America Forever), will talk about the legacy of Watergate and share his perspective on current events.

Jason Hartman talks with David Dorsen, former Assistant US Attorney in New York, former Assistant Chief Counsel of the Senate Watergate Committee, author of The Unexpected Scalia and the new book Moses v Trump, about what on earth is going on in regards to President Donald Trump and the Mueller report. David discusses what disappoints him about Mueller's decision making process, and the incredible cultural shift between the Watergate investigation and the Mueller investigation. David also gives some insight into the life of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, as the two were friends for many years and went to many functions together. While they may have differed greatly politically, the two had a friendship we should see more of in today's world. Key Takeaways: [1:53] David's involvement in the Watergate hearings [5:22] David's history with the late Justice Scalia and some of Scalia's liberal leanings [10:58] Has Trump been cleared yet? And where Mueller failed the American people [16:39] Are some Trump supporters just unwilling to step up and admit it because of intolerance from the left? Website: Moses v Trump: A Contemporary Novel The Unexpected Scalia: A Conservative Justice's Liberal Opinions

Not until Dirty Trickster, Corporate Spy does a memoir exist by one of the principal Watergate saboteurs-provocateurs that exposes the full extent of the insalubrious side of politics and negative campaigning. And that is not all: After Watergate, Kelly became a corporate security consultant that provided undercover agents for client companies to spy on their employees. Kelly also specialized in eavesdropping detection, which took him around the world searching for clandestine listening devices for clients such as Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Bob Hope, Ferdinand Marcos, the Miami Dolphins, Eastern Airlines and even suspected drug dealers. He secretly provided debugging training for entities such as IBM, Revlon, the U.S. Navy and dozens of others.During President Nixon's second term when the Watergate scandal erupted, Kelly teamed with Donald Segretti in a wild series of underhanded capers that created havoc in the Democratic presidential primaries. Kelly and Segretti turned a fundraising dinner for front-runner Senator Ed Muskie at the Washington Hilton into absolute chaos; hired a University of Miami coed to strip naked and parade before Muskie's hotel; released two mice and a bird that threw a Muskie press conference into total confusion; organized fake luncheons, fake press releases, and other unscrupulous acts. The aim of the Nixon White House and Committee to Reelect the President was for the dirty tricksters to sow discontent among the Democratic primary candidates so they would blame each other for the dirty tricks, making it more difficult for them to unite in the general election against Nixon. The author was one of only three witnesses who testified specifically about dirty tricks before the Senate Watergate Committee. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Watergate and Trump, is a fascinating show comparing Russian hacking to Watergate. This show points out the weak sources that fringe media is using to refute the United States Intelligence Community allegations of Russian hacking. The show contains an audio clip of Sam Ervin chair of the Senate Watergate Committee explaining the dangers of interference in a Presidential election.

President Richard Nixon Defends His Office on Watergate Charges Watch the video on our YouTube Channel https://youtu.be/7rQBIunbH8Q Watergate was a major political scandal that occurred in the United States in the 1970s, following a break-in at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. and President Richard Nixon's administration's attempted cover-up of its involvement. When the conspiracy was discovered and investigated by the U.S. Congress, the Nixon administration's resistance to its probes led to a constitutional crisis. The term Watergate has come to encompass an array of clandestine and often illegal activities undertaken by members of the Nixon administration. Those activities included such "dirty tricks" as bugging the offices of political opponents and people of whom Nixon or his officials were suspicious. Nixon and his close aides ordered harassment of activist groups and political figures, using the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The scandal led to the discovery of multiple abuses of power by the Nixon administration, articles of impeachment, and the resignation of Nixon as President of the United States on August 9, 1974. The scandal also resulted in the indictment of 69 people, with trials or pleas resulting in 25 being found guilty and incarcerated, many of whom were Nixon's top administration officials. The affair began with the arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the DNC headquarters at the Watergate complex on Saturday, June 17, 1972. The FBI investigated and discovered a connection between cash found on the burglars and a slush fund used by the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CREEP), the official organization of Nixon's campaign. In July 1973, evidence mounted against the President's staff, including testimony provided by former staff members in an investigation conducted by the Senate Watergate Committee. The investigation revealed that President Nixon had a tape-recording system in his offices and that he had recorded many conversations. After a protracted series of bitter court battles, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the president was obligated to release the tapes to government investigators, and he eventually complied. These audio recordings implicated the president, revealing he had attempted to cover up activities that took place after the break-in and to use federal officials to deflect the investigation. Facing near-certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and equally certain conviction by the Senate, Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974.[ On September 8, 1974, his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him. Source Link https://archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.48638 Copyright Link-Usage Public Domain https://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ Information source Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal National Archives and Records Administration U.S. Information Agency. (1982 - 10/01/1999) ARC Identifier 48638 / Local Identifier 306.2181. NAIL Control Number: NWDNM(m)-306.2181

Author and historian Karl Campbell (Appalachian State University), moderator, leads two distinguished guests in trading stories about senator Sam Ervin and his central role in the Senate Watergate Committee hearings. Panelists include Rufus Edmisten (former Sam Ervin staffer and deputy chief counsel for the committee) and Sam Ervin IV (Court of Appeals judge and grandson).

Former White House counsel, John W. Dean, moderates a discussion about the Watergate investigation and how evidence was found and used to persecute President Nixon. Panel guests include Scott Armstrong, Chief Investigator for the Senate Watergate Committee and Alexander Butterfield, the head of internal security at the White House at the time. Get an inside look at the evidence that caused President Nixon to resign, from two people who lived in the thick of it. Taped by Panther Productions at Chapman University.