Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown
Judge Drops Knoller's Second-Degree Murder Charge; Possible New Government Department Causes Tension Between Existing Ones; Watergate: 30 Years Later
Aired June 17, 2002 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again everyone. Can it really be 30 years ago? And yes, I was really sitting in a radio station in a studio in Los Angeles a few weeks before being fired, as I remember it, when this story cleared the wires.
"Five Arrested in Break-in at Democratic Party Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel" it said. And being the astute newsman I was even then, I said to the audience, which numbered really about 120, this is going to be something.
But who knew? Who could have imagined the president would have been brought down? Who could have imagined the incredible tension an entire country felt when a young lawyer named John Wesley Gaines (ph) sat down before a Senate committee? Who knew all that he would lay out, the crime and the cover-up? And still, the tension of that moment was remarkable and we remember it.
Who could have imagined there would have been tapes and a constitutional crisis over those tapes? Who could have imagined that the resignation of the vice president of the United States for bribery would be a sidebar, not nearly as important as the real deal that was unfolding on TV and the papers, most especially the "Washington Post"?
And who could have imagined that 30 years later, we would still wonder about some of it, about the stupidity of the break-in, the arrogance of the cover-up and, of course, the identity of Deep Throat who, as much as anyone, helped bring the president down?
The story owned me. I loved it. It was perfect. It was real. It had enormous implications for the country. Like every good story, it had a beginning, a middle and an end, and no one died. It was a tragedy, but it was not that kind of tragedy.
The morning after Mr. Nixon resigned, I turned on a microphone in a different radio station, this one in Seattle with an audience of well, maybe 5,000 people and said, "now what are we going to talk about?" Thirty years later, the answer is the same, Watergate. And we will again tonight.
But we begin with the news of the present day, and that brings us to the dog mauling trial, which took an extraordinary turn.
Our legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin leads off "The Whip" tonight.
Jeffrey, a headline please.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It was an extraordinary change of circumstances in a San Francisco courtroom today. Earlier this year, a jury convicted Marjorie Knoller of second-degree murder, but the judge today reversed that conviction and said there was no murder in this case.
We'll explain, and we'll look at what comes next.
BROWN: Thank you, Jeffrey, back to you shortly. It's always an important professional moment when you first appear in "The Whip."
Suzanne Malveaux is at the White House tonight, a turf battle involving the proposed Department of Homeland Security.
Suzanne, welcome; and a headline please.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, thank you very much, Aaron. Actually, you're right that battle over resources and power and turf is being waged at the highest levels of government. There is tension between the State Department and the White House. This, while Governor Ridge is going to be presenting a united front, that homeland security legislation before congressional leaders tomorrow -- Aaron.
BROWN: Suzanne, thank you, back with both you and Jeffrey in a moment.
Also coming up tonight, voices from Watergate; Nixon White House Counsel John Dean, Nixon Aide David Gergen, Journalist Carl Bernstein and Daniel Schorr; so lots of conversation on that score tonight.
We'll also talk with Michael Isikoff of "Newsweek" magazine. An intriguing report in the magazine this week on the controversy surrounding John Walker Lindh and how he was questioned overseas. Apparently some, even in the Justice Department, had concerns about the appropriateness of interrogating the suspect.
And it's a rare World Cup indeed where you could hear chants of "USA" this far into the tournament. Tonight, the stunning defeat of archrival Mexico by the United States as seen from the losing side, Mexican TV is their news tonight.
All that coming up in the hour ahead.
But -- I knew we'd get there -- but we begin with a sudden twist. And a shocker it was in the dog mauling case. The "San Francisco Chronicle" Web site put up a poll after a judge threw out the murder conviction of Marjorie Knoller, whose neighbor was viciously killed by one of Ms. Knoller's dogs early last year.
Readers were asked how they felt, and one of the options was this: "If Knoller gets out soon, she better leave San Francisco." It goes to the dilemma the judge confronted today. He agreed that Knoller and her husband had acted despicably, negligent about their dogs before the crime, unapologetic after; but the law isn't a popularity contest.
Did Knoller know her dogs would kill? Essentially, the judge said the jury did not have enough evidence to make that call, and so the murder charge was never made.
Here's CNN's Anne McDermott.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JUDGE JAMES WARREN: I believe, unfortunately, Mr. Noel, Ms. Knoller that you are the most despised couple in this city. I don't believe anybody likes you.
ANNE MCDERMOTT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Even so, the judge threw out a second-degree murder conviction against Marjorie Knoller.
WARREN: There is no question in this court's mind that in the eyes of the people, both defendants are guilty of murder. In the eyes of the law, they are not.
MCDERMOTT: Marjorie Knoller and her husband Robert Noel, both lawyers, still stand convicted of manslaughter in the death of Diane Whipple. But that wasn't good enough for Whipple's longtime partner Sharon Smith.
SHARON SMITH, WHIPPLE'S DOMESTIC PARTNER: I'm in shock. We're all in shock right now. What keeps going through my head is, why now? Why am I hearing this now? Justice was done, and now I feel justice has been undone.
MCDERMOTT: Earlier, she spoke directly to the defendants.
SMITH: To aggravate my pain, neither of you could say you were sorry. You were too busy being lawyers to be human. Of course, this goes beyond saying I'm sorry. It's about accepting responsibility and, again, you failed. You failed to accept that your actions killed a person, and even as Diane lay dying in the hospital, you began your lies; lies that included blaming her for her own death.
MCDERMOTT: Before sentencing, friends and other family members spoke of their sorrow at Whipple's death.
SARA MILLER, ASSISTANT LACROSSE COACH: It was very eerie to me that Diane was murdered by those mean dogs and their irresponsible owners, but Diane loved dogs so much.
MCDERMOTT: Robert Noel was sentenced to four years for manslaughter. His wife will be sentenced later, as prosecutors try to get the judge to reconsider and reinstate the murder conviction.
JIM HAMMER, PROSECUTOR: I fear what you've done today, and that's why I'm going to ask you to reconsider it, that you will forever have robbed Sharon Smith and Diane Whipple and everyone who knew the woman, and 12 jurors in Los Angeles and 19 grand jurors in San Francisco, and everyone in California of a sense of justice.
MCDERMOTT: The defendant's said nothing.
Anne McDermott, CNN, Los Angeles.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Well, you don't often see prosecutors or lawyers pointing their finger at the judge like that. Judges don't throw out verdicts very often. We can't imagine they ever do it lightly.
The heart of the system, of course, lies with jurors. And yet, this judge, knowing the emotional power of the case, set the verdict aside. It is pretty remarkable stuff.
Jeffrey Toobin, our legal analyst, is here to talk about that. I don't recall I've ever seen that. It's just gold to have a judge like that.
TOOBIN: I have to say, when I -- I don't talk about when I was a courtroom lawyer much, but I remember thinking to -- when I saw that this afternoon, I was thinking of what judges would have done to me if I had pointed my finger like that.
I would have been thrown out of court so fast. But, you know, he was angry. And everybody in that courtroom was angry. It was just stunning.
It wasn't just the anger, which is to be expected at the defendants, but those victims, they looked at the judge with fury in their eyes. And you can understand why.
BROWN: On the law, does it make sense?
TOOBIN: Well, just the stakes were so enormous with this decision. Marjorie Knoller, with the murder conviction, was facing 15 years to life. Now she's facing zero to four years. So it was an enormously important decision for her.
The legal standard is this: The -- in order to prove second- degree murder, you have to prove that you, the murder suspect, you the defendant, knew that there was a high probability that your actions would result in the death of another. High probability is the standard.
I can see why the judge said to Marjorie Knoller, you know, I think you're a liar, I think you're a despicable person, but I don't think you knew that dog was going to kill.
BROWN: But this argument that the jurors had those instructions. They knew precisely what the definition of murder was -- second-degree murder. They heard all the evidence, and they said, in the wisdom of jurors, we think this is what it is.
TOOBIN: It's a very unusual thing to overturn a verdict like that, especially when, as you point out, the jury heard this exact argument. The judge recognized that this case had enormous emotional impact, even though it was moved to Los Angeles...
BROWN: Yes.
TOOBIN: ... from San Francisco. He said simply, even though there were 34 witnesses who testified in that courtroom that that dog had engaged in menacing behavior in the past, including lashing out at people physically. It's a very tough call. Usually I have a sense of, you know, whether one's right or wrong. This is a really tough call for the judge, and I can see why people are furious.
BROWN: Without getting into whether what he did was right or wrong, there's a part of me that admires the courage it must have taken in a moment like that. He obviously believed strongly that the conviction was unfair, and he did something about it. A judge in Boston in the nanny case, if I recall this correctly...
TOOBIN: Sure.
BROWN: ... did precisely the same thing. It was a murder case that he brought down to manslaughter. So it does happen.
TOOBIN: But it's very unusual. And yes, I mean, this is an example of judicial independence at its most visible, because he is doing -- Judge Warren was doing anything but responding to the public outcry in this case. And you know, you have to admire someone's courage, but it may be in a foolish cause.
BROWN: These guys and the women on the bench stand for election.
TOOBIN: In California they do.
BROWN: Yes. Where do they go? Where does the prosecution go here?
TOOBIN: They have two choices. First of all, they're going to try to get him to change his mind, but that's unlikely to happen. They can try to retry the case, but that seems extremely unlikely because the evidence is what the evidence is. It's not -- he's not going to change his mind. There's not any new evidence out there.
BROWN: Can they get a new judge to hear it?
TOOBIN: They probably can't, not just to do it again. What they can do, and this is unusual, they -- usually prosecutors can't appeal in a criminal case.
BROWN: Right.
TOOBIN: Here they can appeal. They can go to an appeals court and say, reinstate the jury verdict. The jury was right all along. That appears to be what Terence Hallinan, the San Francisco district attorney, wants to do. The one thing that means is months' and months' more delay.
BROWN: Where were you when you heard this, by the way?
TOOBIN: I was here at CNN too.
BROWN: You were watching.
TOOBIN: We were watching here, yes.
BROWN: Did you know it was -- had there been buzz that this might go down this way?
TOOBIN: Well, I mean, this had always been a tough part of the case. I think manslaughter was a given in this case.
BROWN: Yes.
TOOBIN: You couldn't possibly say that these people were anything other than reckless. I think the subtext here is that Marjorie Knoller was charged with murder and Robert Noel wasn't.
The culpability in this case was much more heavily towards Robert. He was the mastermind. He was the one. He was her Svengali. He was the one who wanted to keep these awful dogs. She was in some respects kind of a victim, and it seemed like the judge was really rebelling at the notion of her going to jail for so long and Noel staying in jail only for four years, but she was present at the apartment. He wasn't.
BROWN: Not to get into a whole different area, but a grand jury heard that evidence too, and decided otherwise.
It's nice to see you. Why do I insist on the last word with you? Thank you.
Later on NEWSNIGHT, Michael Isikoff of "Newsweek" magazine -- there's too many "news"-es in that sentence -- with new details on the case on John Walker Lindh. This is a great story that "Newsweek" has this week.
And up next: another twist in the case of the Florida missing girl.
This is NEWSNIGHT on a Monday from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: The case of Rilya Wilson, the Florida child lost by both the state's child welfare agency and the caretakers who were supposed to watch over her was back in court today. There is no break in the case. The child remains missing and no one, not the caseworker and not the so-called caregivers, have been charged with any crime.
But the caretaker or caregiver was back in court today asking permission to visit Rilya's sister. It is fair to say the judge was not impressed with the arguments.
Here's CNN's Susan Candiotti.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Ever since Rilya Wilson's disappearance, the girl's caretaker Geralyn Graham has been under scrutiny for, among other things, applying for food stamps and Medicaid for Rilya when Graham's sister, not she, was the girl's legal caretaker. So showing up in court to ask permission to visit one of Rilya's little sisters didn't go over well with the judge.
JUDGE CINDY LEDERMAN: Did you apply for public entitlements for taking care of this child?
GERALYN GRAHAM: Yes, ma'am, I did.
LEDERMAN: And only as the caretaker? Don't you think that's against the law?
GRAHAM: Judge, Your Honor, when Miss Muskelly came...
LEDERMAN: No, no, I don't want to hear about Ms. Muskelly. You told me you didn't have legal custody of the child because you're the caretaker, and you also told me you applied for public entitlement when you're only the caretaker.
(CROSSTALK)
LEDERMAN: I want to hear the answer. I don't want to hear about Deborah Muskelly. I want to hear about you, Ms. Graham.
Explain it to me.
CANDIOTTI: Rilya's caseworker Deborah Muskelly remains under criminal investigation for allegedly faking reports she visited the child.
As for Rilya's caretakers, the judge ruled for now they will have no more contact with Rilya's 3-year-old little sister Rodericka, who's now in another foster home.
GRAHAM: This is the U.S. of A. It's called justice.
LEDERMAN: She has no right whatsoever, legal or otherwise, to have any contact whatsoever with these children ever again.
CANDIOTTI (on camera): Geralyn Graham denies she played any role in Rilya's disappearance. It's been 16 months since she claims she turned over the child to a social worker, and police admit unless they get a big break, the child may never be found.
Susan Candiotti, CNN, Miami.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Three quick items from around the country tonight. First, the fires burning in Colorado and the possibility a broken heart caused this all to happen. Terry Barton was in court today. A judge ordered the fire prevention officer held without bail. Federal officials say she admits starting the fire. She reportedly told investigators she was so upset by a letter from her estranged husband, she burned it, and that set off the fire.
Three airborne firefighters died battling a blaze in western Nevada today. The tanker plane went down just across the California State line, not too terribly far from Reno, Nevada. There is no word yet on what caused the crash.
And from the Supreme Court today, a number of rulings.
This is the plane crash. Go ahead and let it play out if you can. This was captured on home video, and it doesn't get much uglier than that, does it?
As we were saying, from the Supreme Court today, a number of rulings to note; one in the criminal justice area, perhaps remotely having to do with the war on terrorism, but not much. The court said today police officers can search busses for drugs or weapons without first reading passengers their rights. Another ruling narrowed the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court has done that two other times already. And a third ruling reaffirmed the free speech rights of religious groups to go door-to-door, spreading their message without a permit from the city that they are working.
Coming up on NEWSNIGHT: Washington's longest-lasting secret. A little bit later, we'll talk about Deep Throat on the 30th anniversary of Watergate. And up next: The devil's in the details; how to create a Department of Homeland Security, the latest from the White House and the turf wars.
This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Last week in Kansas City, the president told an audience of his plan to create a giant Department of Homeland Security. It could get scuttled by turf battles, and they should contact their representatives to make sure that didn't happen.
The president's vision of turf battles seemed to be congressional committee chairmen who wouldn't want to give up their power, and that may happen still. But the first significant turf battle is not centered around Congress at all.
It turns out the Secretary of State is unhappy that the State Department may lose its authority -- its absolute authority to reject visa applications; a power that in part, at least, would go to this new super-department.
White House Correspondent Suzanne Malveaux joins us with more on that,
Suzanne, good evening to you.
MALVEAUX: Good evening, Aaron.
Well, the controversy really is that the Homeland Security Department would actually take away this power from the State Department, from the Secretary of State Colin Powell, and give it over to Homeland Security Department.
This concern, this very idea, led Secretary Powell to call Governor Ridge late Sunday evening to voice his concerns about this, to voice his objections. The main objections being that it makes this visa application process confusing, that it undermines the chain of command for those foreign service personnel as well as ambassadors overseas.
But most importantly that it would limit the State Department's ability to set foreign policy by actually rejecting the possibility they would be able to grant or issue these visas. That's simply because they would not have the power.
You know, foreign countries would simply say, well, if we don't have to deal with the State Department, we'll go to the Homeland Security Department and you guys just rubber stamp this, though homeland security officials today said that this whole thing was really overblown, this tension, the whole story.
They do say that this is going to be a power sharing deal, that the State Department will still have the power to issue or reject visas, but that also Homeland Security will take the INS from the Justice Department and also exercise that ability as well, but that ultimately Secretary Powell would be the primary foreign policy official.
BROWN: And did Secretary Powell say, that's a great explanation, I'm happy, I'll take my argument and go back home?
MALVEAUX: Well, you know, really what's happening behind the scenes is that you have a lot of haggling. You've got a lot of jockeying for turf, for resources, for power.
This is the type of thing that is not going to be settled in 24 hours, 48 hours, weeks or months. This is really something that they're going to have to work out. It's something that Congress, too, is going to be looking at in the weeks to come before September 11, when they hope to pass this legislation. That's one of the many issues that they're going to have to deal with.
BROWN: Suzanne, thank you. Suzanne Malveaux at the White House for us this evening.
MALVEAUX: Thank you.
BROWN: On next -- you're welcome.
On next to the case of the so-called American Taliban, John Walker Lindh; not a great day for his defense team. A federal judge refusing to move the trial from northern Virginia to Lindh's home state of California.
That is not terribly surprising. Trial is set to begin in late August. And central to the case is what Lindh told interrogators after his capture last fall in Afghanistan. From the beginning, those interrogations have been both at the heart of the prosecution and the defense, and "Newsweek" magazine is reporting that those interrogations were subject to considerable concern within the Justice Department itself.
Attorney generals always dismiss those concerns. E-mails say his aides believed otherwise. We've read some of those e-mails, thanks to the reporting work of Michael Isikoff of "Newsweek," who joins us again tonight.
It's nice to see you, this time here in New York.
MICHAEL ISIKOFF, SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, "NEWSWEEK" MAGAZINE: Thank you.
BROWN: Characterize -- give me the essence of the e-mails. What do they say?
ISIKOFF: Well, this comes at a time in December, shortly after John Walker Lindh has been picked up in the battlefield in Afghanistan.
His family has hired a lawyer, James Brosnahan, prominent defense attorney in San Francisco, who's been sending repeated faxes to the White House, to the FBI, to the Justice Department, to the Defense Department saying: "I've been hired to represent John Walker Lindh. He's a U.S. citizen and I want access to him, and I would ask that you not interrogate him until I can talk to my client."
The FBI wanted to interview him right away. The question came up within the Justice Department, should that happen? And a prosecutor in the criminal division in the Violent Crime and Terrorism Section queries an ethics unit within the Justice Department called the Professional Responsibility Advisory Office.
It's set up to answer questions like this. And they say, given these set of circumstances, can the FBI interview John Walker Lindh, knowing he's got a defense lawyer? We've got the e-mails on this query and the answer comes back on December 7, no. We've consulted on this. He should not. There's ethical guidelines that govern this, and they say it is not -- a lawyer in that office says it's not authorized by law.
That's on December 7, the day that Lindh is flown to Camp Rhino in Afghanistan. Over that weekend -- it's a Friday -- over that weekend, the interviews take place. An FBI agent questions him.
BROWN: And when Justice hears about that, or the office of professional integrity, or whatever the precise title is, the reaction is?
ISIKOFF: Well, the response from the lawyer in the criminal division who made the query in the first place is "ugh."
BROWN: Ugh. ISIKOFF: December 10, 2001 at 1:54 p.m. because they didn't think the interview to be ethically consistent with DOJ guidelines should take place under those circumstances.
And then there's a lot of scrambling about, is this admissible, is this a matter, can we use it for intelligence purposes but not for the criminal case?
Now this goes on for about 10 more days, while they're sort of seeking information about what took place. They get back 10 days later a classified report, FBI report that says, we read him his Miranda rights and he waived them.
Now this is going to be the heart of the case against Lindh, and it's also going to be the heart of the defense case...
BROWN: Yes.
ISIKOFF: ... the circumstances under which that interview was conducted. For one thing, John Walker Lindh had a bullet wound in his leg. He was sleep deprived. He had been -- you know, he was naked. He had been strapped to the stretcher. You know, according to the defense, he didn't know where he was.
More importantly, he didn't -- was never told that his family had hired a defense lawyer for him. And, in fact, according to the defense anyway, he asks to see a lawyer and is told there are no lawyers available.
BROWN: Let me ask a couple quick things here before we run out of time.
ISIKOFF: Sure.
BROWN: The judge is generally aware of this set of correspondence and has ruled that the defense is essentially not entitled to it.
ISIKOFF: That's right. In fact, these e-mails were submitted under seal in camera to the judge overseeing the case, and he ruled they were work product and did not have to be turned over to the defense. So the defense has never seen these e-mails.
BROWN: Well, they have now.
ISIKOFF: Right. You can read them on "Newsweek's" Web site, newsweek.com.
BROWN: Yes.
ISIKOFF: But certainly the issues at stake are going to be central to the defense argument.
BROWN: And in a half a minute, ultimately the attorney general has said we dotted every "I," crossed every "T."
ISIKOFF: Right.
BROWN: At the very least, what this suggests is it was a pretty ferocious debate about the appropriateness of it.
ISIKOFF: There were ethical questions being raised within the Justice Department about the treatment of John Walker Lindh. And remember, unlike most others who have been scooped up in the war on terror, he was a U.S. citizen, and he was the first of the U.S. citizens picked up.
BROWN: Michael, thanks for coming by. It gets tiresome to say, yet again, nice work.
ISIKOFF: Thank you.
BROWN: You do a lot of it.
ISIKOFF: Thanks.
BROWN: "Newsweek" magazine this week, if you want to read the e- mails.
Still to come, 30 years after Watergate, what have we learned? What haven't we?
We'll talk about Deep Throat. We'll talk with John Dean, Carl Bernstein, Daniel Schorr, David Gergen, a cast of thousands as NEWSNIGHT continues from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Just before 2:00 on a Saturday morning 30 years ago, a burglar stuck a piece of tape on a door to keep it from locking shut behind him. A security guard saw it, called the cops, and pretty soon we were all learning new words. There was a plumber, which had nothing to do with pipes; bugging and slush fund, which had nothing to do with snow; then cover-up and special prosecutor, Saturday Night Massacre, executive privilege.
We wondered what the president knew and when he knew it. And then we watched a president resign. Watergate. And it is impossible to overstate: This changed everyone who lived through it. Thirty years later, we'll revisit some of the players and the moments and the memories and the mysteries of Watergate.
We begin with this question of change, and CNN's Bruce Morton.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRUCE MORTON, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): If we're old enough, we remember the fallen president, the phrases "third-rate burglary attempt," "cancer on the presidency," all that.
But looking back 30 years later, did it matter? Did it change us? Oh yes. DAVID BRODER, "WASHINGTON POST": Even after the Vietnam War and the disputes over what was going on in Washington and in Saigon, the American people still wanted to believe that their president would level with them. And I think Watergate, more than any other single event, probably shook their confidence that they could believe in their president.
ADAM CLYMER, "NEW YORK TIMES": The country became more suspicious of the government in Washington. The Vietnam and the sense if it hadn't been leveled to, followed by a president who, despite what he said at Disneyland, I think we were all there when he said, "I am not a crook."
Well, he was.
MORTON: And that affected all the politicians who came after Watergate.
LINDA WERTHMEIMER, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: I think it ended any concept that you might call benefit of the doubt for politicians. Everybody is on the hot plate all the time. There's no respect attaching to any office or to office-holder any more.
MORTON: It changed how congresses look at presidents.
SEN. FRED THOMPSON (R), TENNESSEE: It was an era of trauma. And it probably led to Watergate being the capstone in many respects to an era of somewhat cynicism. And Congress certainly was not unaffected by that.
CLYMER: It made Congress much more disdainful of taking the president's word for things than it had been.
MORTON: That peaked during the Reagan administration, when national security office officials plotted to aid the Nicaraguans Contra rebels, even though Congress had refused money for such aid.
And the press, did we change?
THOMPSON: I think it's also led to a more aggressive press.
MORTON: But Watergate reporting was careful, well sourced. Many feel that since then the line between news and gossip has blurred.
WERTHMEIMER: I think it was a very high standard of proof involved in Watergate. That doesn't exist anymore.
MORTON (on camera): Big changes then involving presidents, congresses, the press; and one thing that over 30 years hasn't changed: the riddle of Richard Nixon. Detentes with the Soviet Union, the opening to China, and Watergate.
He was a complex, tormented and clever man. And I've never understood why he didn't just burn the tapes.
Bruce Morton, CNN, Washington. (END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Bruce was at CBS News in those days. He was right in the thick of it. And so was John Wesley Dean, who joins us tonight. It's nice to see you...
JOHN DEAN, NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Nice to see you.
BROWN: ... 30 years later. We all look older, don't we? Look at these tapes?
DEAN: We are.
BROWN: You've written about Deep Throat. Why put yourself in it again?
DEAN: Well this has been a great mystery for me. And I've played with this for a long time. And the 30th anniversary, it occurred to me this was an appropriate time to see if I could surface him again.
I think of him as somebody who was very courageous. And I really want to tip my hat to him. I was only able to narrow it down to a small thimble-full of people, and couldn't complete it at this point.
BROWN: Two names on the list that people probably know pretty well, and two they don't know at all, or don't remember. Steven Bull and Ray Price. Talk about them first.
DEAN: Steven Bull was the person who really was just an aide that sort of got the president's papers together when he was going to give a speech, held his coat before he got on the stage. Until he took over the responsibility to Alex Butterfield had for the taping machine. Steven admits that he knew all the information that Deep Throat knew, but he denies he was Deep Throat.
BROWN: Ray Price was speechwriter for the president.
DEAN: Ray was a speechwriter. He's written very negatively about Bob and Carl, their reporting. Bob Woodward and...
BROWN: Bernstein.
DEAN: Right, I shorthand too often when I'm with somebody who knows this.
But what happens is, when I narrow the information down, when I take the 14 conversations that Bob had with Throat, the information narrows as to who could have known that information. And Ray is one of those people who stays in at the end as a possible person who could have known all this information.
BROWN: You put Pat Buchanan on the list. Everybody knows Pat, I think. And when we heard that in the office today, we went, he's too partisan; he never would have done it.
DEAN: Well, all these people, all I can do is follow...
BROWN: Yes.
DEAN: I don't follow the money. I follow the evidence, if you will.
BROWN: He had the information.
DEAN: He had the information. And the same with Ziegler. He had the information. And that's...
BROWN: That's the press secretary for people too young, or don't remember.
DEAN: Yes.
BROWN: Now there were lots of people, Mark Felt over at the FBI had the investigation -- Pat -- or the information, Pat Gray. Certainly the guys in the CIA had the information. Richard Helms, others.
DEAN: Not so. Not so.
BROWN: You think not?
DEAN: One of the things I've done this time in the book, that I've posted on as an e-book as on salon.com, is I've been able to really establish beyond, I think, any doubt that this person had to be in the White House to have the information he had when he had it.
And really, one of the stories that Carl and Bob wrote on November 8 identifies Deep Throat when you match the story with the book...
BROWN: Yes.
DEAN: As somebody who's in the White House.
BROWN: We're down to about a minute. Let me ask you one of those questions I bet you've been asked 10 million times. I apologize.
When you walk into a restaurant or anywhere you go, do people go, "You're the guy!" Do they still do that 30 years later?
DEAN: They do it when I'm with my wife, who's still a beautiful woman.
BROWN: Yes, as Susan was then. Otherwise, have you been able to live reasonably anonymously?
DEAN: Oh, as time has passed and I've gotten balder and grayer, it's helped to find anonymity again, yes.
BROWN: And when you look at yourself in pictures of that incredible June day when you sat down and talked about the cancer of the presidency in this very dry monotone, that's how I remember it.
DEAN: I did that on purpose.
BROWN: Does it seem like another guy in another place? Or do you go, "That was me, and I was a kid?"
DEAN: Well, it actually reminds me when I look at the person there, somewhat of my son. But I know it was me. And I remember the experience vividly. And it was a very maturing experience for a young man.
BROWN: That's about the most interesting way I could imagine anyone put it -- "maturing."
Nice to meet you.
DEAN: Thank you.
BROWN: Good luck.
DEAN: Thank you.
BROWN: Thank you, John Dean.
Tonight when we come back, Carl Bernstein, who actually knows the answer. That's the most galling thing, by the way, about talking to Carl.
Former presidential adviser David Gergen and journalist Daniel Schorr. Nice group of people when NEWSNIGHT continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: All of our next set of guests played a part in the drama that was Watergate. David Gergen was a young special assistant to the president. He would go on to serve a number of presidents, Republicans an Democrats alike. Daniel Schorr, a seasoned reporter for CBS News, tough and smart at a time when TV news was a simpler and some might argue, even better business.
The Nixon White House hated him. Carl Bernstein was a kid, a young reporter at the "Washington Post" who, by good fortune, landed the story of a lifetime, and by hard work turned that story into one of the most important pieces of journalism of our lives.
We are pleased to have them all here.
David, let had me start with you. We're going to deal with the Deep Throat stuff, and then we'll move on.
Are you Deep Throat?
DAVID GERGEN, KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT, HARVARD: No. And John Dean doesn't know who Deep Throat is. And I think it's worth remembering -- you just had him on as a guest -- it's worth remembering, as everybody now asking questions about his what he thinks. This is a man who bears very large personal responsibility for one of the greatest scandals in the history of the American presidency.
BROWN: Does he also not bear a considerable responsibility for uncovering it?
GERGEN: No.
BROWN: You think not?
GERGEN: No. I think that Judge Sirica , Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward bear a lot more responsibility than John Dean.
BROWN: OK. Carl, I thought I saw you nodding your head. And you're off to my right here.
Were you on the Dean -- on David's comment on Dean?
CARL BERNSTEIN, CO-AUTHOR, "ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN": Meaning?
BROWN: Did you agree with him that Mr. Dean did not have the role of uncovering Watergate that some would...
DEAN: He was a participant...
BROWN: Right.
DEAN: ... who got found out.
BROWN: Yes.
DEAN: And in the process, he cut a deal with the government, and told the truth.
BROWN: Yes, OK.
I want to come back to you on Deep Throat, and then I'll leave you alone on this, I promise, forever and all time. This is the last one.
But let me ask Dan: This game that everyone plays, Mr. Schorr, of trying to figure this out. Why are we so consumed by this?
DANIEL SCHORR, NPR SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Because it's a mystery, and America loves mysteries. And this is a mystery which involved, also, the destruction of a presidency. So first of all, it's interesting in itself. And secondly, it's very important to know who would betray a president who worked for a president, and decide to talk to couple of reporters about him. It's a fascinating thing to know.
Incidentally, I don't know who Deep Throat was, but I know who Nixon thought it was. Nixon was told by John Mitchell, his former attorney general, that it was Mark Felt, associate director of the FBI. Very angry because he had been passed over for a promotion after J. Edgar Hoover died. So whoever else may think it was one or another person, Nixon went to his death convinced that it was Mark Felt.
BROWN: The most basic of all reasons: I'll give you $10, Carl, if you tell me right now who Deep Throat is?
BERNSTEIN: Not tonight. Not tonight.
BROWN: Come on. OK.
BERNSTEIN: You know, I want to say one thing about why this remains a secret, because we wish that it were disclosed. But, you know, when we wrote "All the President's Men..."
BROWN: Yes.
BERNSTEIN: ... we went to all our sources on the book. And our reporting and said, can we use their names? Many of them said yes. Many, including Deep Throat, said no.
And you know, your lifeblood as a journalist, as a reporter, is the agreements you enter into with your sources.
BROWN: Right.
BERNSTEIN: And we have not been released from that. But when he dies we will identify him.
BROWN: Here's my question: Has this moved beyond journalism? This is an important player in history. And that, God forbid, I mean this, you guys get had hit by a car tomorrow.
BERNSTEIN: We've made arrangements that should we...
BROWN: But you understand what I'm saying?
BERNSTEIN: Oh, absolutely. No look, I agree with you. And I agree with Dan. It has become important, and people need to know.
At the same time, it also has become a bit of a circus. And particularly on this anniversary.
BROWN: Yes.
BERNSTEIN: But people need to know. And I wish that they could know now, but they will when the individual dies. And if we were to reveal it now, we would have no credibility as reporters anymore, as principal journalists.
BROWN: Twenty bucks.
All right, I just thought I'd try.
SCHORR: Could I just add something? Is it true, Carl, that your son at summer camp told who it was? BERNSTEIN: No. My son at summer camp said he thought he knew who it was because his mother thought that she knew who it was, and she thought that, like Mr. Mitchell, that it was Deep Throat -- that it was Deep Throat. It was Deep Throat. She thought that it was Mark Felt.
SCHORR: But she was wrong, huh?
BERNSTEIN: Well, no, in fact, you know, Bob and I have said many times that the reason that this secret has kept is that neither of us told our former wives at the time.
BROWN: All right. Carl, I don't want to go there. I promised you we wouldn't spend it all on Deep Throat, and we won't.
David, how are we different because of Watergate?
GERGEN: I think that, as your piece by Bruce Morton said, that we are very -- we're much more cynical about government, the loss of faith in government traces back to Watergate.
But what I thought Bruce left out of his piece was that Watergate was very much twinned with the Vietnam War, and the line that accompanied that war. And those two things coming together really broke the back of faith in government.
BROWN: How different -- I mean, this is almost ridiculous -- but how different our view of Nixon who was, in any case, a complicated and difficult person, would be absent that? Because we talk always about China and the rest, and not so much about this other stuff?
GERGEN: Nixon -- Richard Nixon was the most fascinating man I've ever met in public life, because he was so complicated. He had this enormously dark side. He had demons he could not control. He was paranoid. And he wanted to smash his enemies. And that's what got him into so much trouble.
He also had a very bright side, as Dan Schorr and Carl know. And he could have been one of the significant presidents if that side had been ascended, because he did -- he was the one -- best strategist I've seen in that office. And he did do some important things right. But he will be remembered for the dark side.
BROWN: Dan, how's journalism different because of it?
SCHORR: Oh, journalism is much different. Not so much because of it.
And it's true, however, when I used to go around lecturing at universities and journalism schools, everybody wanted to be Carl Bernstein or Bob Woodward. And there was a period of 10 or 15 years when enrollment in journalism schools went up, and all the journalists wanted to uncover a Watergate.
BROWN: Yes. SCHORR: I spent my time telling them, listen, there's one Watergate in a lifetime. There are a lot of other things that need covering, some of them in your communities, and some of them having to do with dispossessed people in your communities.
I, in the end, got disgusted with the general idea that the only way to be a journalist was to imitate Woodward and Bernstein.
BERNSTEIN: I want to take a minute to pay tribute to Dan Schorr. He...
BROWN: Any time on this program you can.
BERNSTEIN: No, no. He is a great journalist. And in both television and when he was with the "New York Times." And he really speaks a lot of sense that young journalists ought to listen to these days.
BROWN: And has for a long, long time.
GERGEN: Let me add to that. On this night, we can all celebrate Dan Schorr as well.
BERNSTEIN: Absolutely, absolutely.
SCHORR: Even Nixon would if he were here.
BROWN: I wouldn't go that far, Dan. I wouldn't go that far.
GERGEN: Well no, Bruce, I mean, didn't -- Dan, didn't Richard Nixon offer you a job after it was all over?
SCHORR: Yes, he did. Well, because he had the FBI investigate me and try to cover that up by saying that it was for a possible White House job. And 20 years later, when I saw him at a dinner party one night, I went up and I said, "I don't know if you remember me, Mr. Nixon, but..."
And he put his hand on my shoulder in a very friendly way. And he said sure, Dan, sure; damn near hired you once.
BROWN: What do we got, about a minute left?
Tell me, Carl, how you're different because of Watergate?
BERNSTEIN: Well, I think both Bob and myself have had incredible opportunities in terms of reporting as a result of this. Obviously nothing like this had ever happened to two journalists, that the leader of the free world and the people around him made the conduct of two young 28-, 29-year-old journalists the great issue of the day, rather than the conduct of the president and his men.
But I think what it did is that it awed us and humbled us in terms of understanding both the power of the press and the responsibility of the press, the care that one needs to take, the necessity of context as an absolute requirement of reporting, that just facts don't constitute the truth, et cetera.
BROWN: It's always nice to see you. We should do this more than every 10 years. Dan Schorr, thank you very much. David, as always, 30th anniversary, we'll all gather again 10 years from now.
This is NEWSNIGHT, and we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: And finally from us tonight, soccer. The World Cup. You probably know this by now, but the United States defeated Mexico in the World Cup, advancing to the next round. This doesn't normally happen for the United States. For sports fans in this country, that's a pretty cool deal, but it's not exactly like you're going to take the day off from work to celebrate.
Things are different in Mexico. This is almost a national tragedy. Not quite, but close.
And this is how it was covered by Mexican TV. Their news tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER (through translator): The headlines here and now. One of the most painful losses brings our team back home. Sour awakening for the fans after hearing of the painful elimination of our team from the World Cup.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER (through translator): We welcome you as always with much pleasure. I'm Anna Vinacor (ph).
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER (through translator): I am Horace Arce (ph), and I am so happy to be back here at home.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER (through translator): Welcome, how was your time away?
UNIDENTIFIED reporter (through translator): Well, very well. We have more coming up. Meanwhile, let's go straight to the news.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER (through translator): The bad news: Hope has ended for Mexico in the World Cup. Our team lost to USA by two goals. Contrary to what was expected, there weren't any parties or celebrations. In fact, there were only about 500 people gathered in the streets on this independence year. So the celebration will have to wait for four more years.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER (through translator): Here as well as in many cities in Mexico, the Mexican people were left wanting to celebrate.
UNIDENTIFIED reporter (through translator): It was independence night. Excitement and emotion were everywhere. In the restaurants to the office buildings, everyone was focused on the Mexican team.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER (through translator): Sad surprise?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I wanted Mexico to win.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER (through translator): The scene changed quickly. As the minutes pass, people become more and more nervous, and the mood quickly turns sour.
At the end of the game, many remained dressed in soccer jerseys. Others were expressing their disappointment over Mexico's elimination to the USA: upset, frustrated, heads hanging low.
The went home with no goals on the scoreboard for Mexico. For some, it was enough reason to not go to work or school on Monday.
Ivan Romero (ph), TV Azteca.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: And that's their news, and it's our news. We'll see you tomorrow at 10:00 Eastern.
Good night.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
