The Chris Voss Show - The Chris Voss Show Podcast – The Watergate Girl: My Fight for Truth and Justice Against a Criminal President by Jill Wine-Banks

Episode Date: August 1, 2020

The Watergate Girl: My Fight for Truth and Justice Against a Criminal President by Jill Wine-Banks Jillwinebanks.com Obstruction of justice, the specter of impeachment, sexism at work, shocking revelations: Jill Wine-Banks takes us inside her trial by fire as a Watergate prosecutor. It was a time, much like today, when Americans feared for the future of their democracy, and women stood up for equal treatment. At the crossroads of the Watergate scandal and the women’s movement was a young lawyer named Jill Wine Volner (as she was then known), barely thirty years old and the only woman on the team that prosecuted the highest-ranking White House officials. Called “the mini-skirted lawyer” by the press, she fought to receive the respect accorded her male counterparts―and prevailed. In The Watergate Girl, Jill Wine-Banks opens a window on this troubled time in American history. It is impossible to read about the crimes of Richard Nixon and the people around him without drawing parallels to today’s headlines. The book is also the story of a young woman who sought to make her professional mark while trapped in a failing marriage, buffeted by sexist preconceptions, and harboring secrets of her own. Her house was burgled, her phones were tapped, and even her office garbage was rifled through. At once a cautionary tale and an inspiration for those who believe in the power of justice and the rule of law, The Watergate Girl is a revelation about our country, our politics, and who we are as a society. Jill Wine-Banks is currently an MSNBC Legal Analyst, appearing regularly on primetime and daytime shows. She also appears on PBS, Canadian and Australian networks, Sirius XM, NPR and other radio shows, including Stephanie Miller’s, and podcasts. A sought-after speaker, Jill appears before professional, political, women’s and business groups, universities and law schools. In addition, Jill has written OpEds for the NBC.com, Chicago Tribune, Politico, and Huffington Post. She has also been featured in several documentaries and films, including Academy Award winner Charles Ferguson’s Watergate, or How We Got Control of an Out of Control President, Robert Redford’s All The President’s Men Revisited, ABC 20/20, and Michael Moore’s Farenheit 11/9.

You wanted the best. You've got the best podcast, the hottest podcast in the world. The Chris Voss Show, the preeminent podcast with guests so smart you may experience serious brain bleed. Get ready, get ready, strap yourself in. Keep your hands, arms and legs inside the vehicle at all times. Because you're about to go on a monster education roller coaster with your brain now here's your host chris voss hi folks it's voss here from thechrisvossshow.com uh coming here with another great podcast we certainly appreciate you guys tuning in uh be sure to give us a like subscribe to us on youtube.com where you can see the video version of this podcast and i think you want to do that because we have an extraordinary guest today.

Today, we have Jill Weinbanks. You may have seen her. She's an MSNBC contributor, legal contributor, I should say. She's also the author of the brilliant book we're going to be talking about today, a book I really enjoyed. I just got done going through it the past 24 hours, and it is a fun romp and a beautiful story as well. The Watergate Girl, My Fight for Truth and Justice Against a Criminal President.

She has a storied, holy crap, a storied bio. If you go to her website, it is so long, all the extraordinary things that she has done through her life. I don't even think we have time to read on air legally i think there's a legal clause that we can't read it that long but she did give us a shortened version and what's really cool about her is she's been the first woman on most of her jobs uh doj organized crime prosecutor watergate special prosecutor general counsel to the u.s. Army, Illinois' deputy AG, and solicitor general. You don't want to mess with this woman. She's now the SNBC legal analyst and author. And besides law, she had a corporate executive positions at Motorola and Maytag

in international business development and was an officer for career and tech education for Chicago. She served on a committee studying sexual assault in the military and the board of Better Government Association and GSU. She also loves adventure and travel and fun fact, she was married in a headhunting ceremony in Borneo, parachute training and more and a lot of that you get in the book too as well. Jill, welcome to the show. How are you? I'm great. Thanks for having me, Chris. Thanks for coming. I want to give a plug to this book if I could really quick, Jill. This thing is a fun read. When I first saw it, I was like, oh, Watergate Impeachment. Is this going to be a great read? And it really is. And so I want to just give it that plug.

Those of you who see it out there, pick up this book. It's not only a fun read where you get just totally ingrained in Jill's life going through the Watergate hearings and everything else through the span of her life, but it's got everything you could ever want. It's almost a novel. It's got sadness, anxiety, darkness of dealing with the Watergate. She's fighting Nixon, basically. And so I love the book.

I had a fun run, and I was cheering for you the whole way. I'm like, go, Jill, go, Jill. And it kept me engaged to the whole thing. So I just want to give a plug out. Jill, your website is jillwinebakes.com, and I'm sure people can find this on Amazon. Is that correct? Yes, it's anywhere you

can buy a book, your independent bookseller or Amazon or any of the other sources where you might buy a book. It's available. And, and I'm glad that you had fun with it because when I was writing it, um, part of my goal was to make it a story that would be relatable to everyone. But also what I found was I was doing a lot of speaking. And I did one program at Chapman Law School in California. And the audience was a very big mix of students and parents and local businessmen and local lawyers and judges. And some of the students came up to me afterwards and said, you know, that was so fascinating. I felt like I was watching a movie. And I realized that in doing that speech, I was telling them as if I was talking to friends. I was telling a story.

And I decided that that was the way I wanted to have the book read was my sharing my life with friends. And so it gets very personal. It's not just about the legal things that I encountered. It's about my life and what I was going through internally during this whole time. And so I'm glad that you got that part of it because that's really important. It really was. And that's what really captured you and takes you through it because you're cheering you're cheering for you the whole time you're going, we're going through your ups and downs. And that's what kept the page turning. Cause you're like, I got to find out what happens to Jill next. And you're like, Oh my gosh. And you know, there's, there's different parts in it that are exciting and thrilling. And then of course,

and you can, you capture a great feel because this is exciting for you. You're at a very young age. You're a woman who is in a field that's just surrounded by men in the 70s, which is, you know, that was one of the things I looked at the front of the book cover. You know, one of my, I remember that time. That was a time where it was very tough to be a woman as a professional and everything else. And I remember looking at the front of the book going, this might be interesting in the read as to how she navigated all the stuff, and we'll get into it as we go through.

When you became an attorney, were there a lot of women in your class? I laugh because the answer is definitely not. There was a quota. Five percent of my class were female. Five percent were African American. And so that meant that there were 15 women out of 300 students. And we've stayed close because if you're that small a group, you get to know each other. And there was so much sexism back then. I, of course, did not realize that I would be in a quota when I applied.

And if I had known how hard it would be, I might not have done it. I'm not sure because I do like taking risks and going out there. But, you know, we would be asked questions like, what are you doing here? You'll never end up practicing law. You're a woman. And besides, you're taking the rightful place of a man in this class, and they're going to die in Vietnam because they lost their student exemption because you took their place. That was something that all of the women in my class heard. And when we were interviewed for jobs, we'd be asked things like, what kind of birth control do you use?

How many children are you going to have? If you were having a dinner party and a client had an emergency problem, what would you do? I mean, and these questions back then, there was no law that barred it. So you either answered them or you'd be blown off. You would never get the job. And I'm glad things have changed and that there are laws that protect us now. But I think people today need to understand how easy it is to slip back into that era when you have misogynists running the government. And part of the reason for telling the story and talking about this is, you know, this was not a how to survive book. But I am hoping that when

people read the ways that I found solutions, or how I navigated, as you just said, how I navigated the problems, that they will see ways that they too can navigate through things. I speak in law schools now, and I'm telling you, I hear from the young students that they're going through the same things, that they get asked the same kind of questions. And so we need to stay alert to that and figure out the right ways to respond. And we'll talk about some of that in the book. Some of the points where we were like, oh, man, is where judges and different lawyers would interfere and be sexist towards you and undercut you in different places, and we can talk about that.

But during those parts of the story, you'd be like, oh, man, this sucks. I mean, because you man, this sucks. I mean, because you had just this bright energy and this useful vigor and what comes out in the book, and you're like, man, that's not right. And I remember that time. It was very difficult. One of my girlfriend's father had been an alcoholic, and her mom had finally gotten divorced in the late 60s. And it was so hard to be divorced back then.

It was such an anomaly that she, she actually had to remarry him because there was just, she couldn't function. Whoa. Yeah. That was tough. Yeah. No,

it's when, when I was going through my divorce, I was at the Pentagon and it was hard enough to be a woman in the Pentagon. I was the first female General Consul of the Army. And there were a few others. The General Consul of the Department of Defense was a woman. Several Assistant Secretaries of different service branches were women. And we had a wonderful group of women, but we were all the first. And I felt that being single would be an added impediment to me, because the wives of military officers play a very significant role in their careers. And I didn't want to have them worrying about that. And so I kept my divorce

secret for quite a long while until I was firmly established in the Pentagon. Once I felt that they had accepted me as a lawyer and as an advisor, then I felt that I could share that because I wanted to have a social life, which I couldn't have if I was hiding, you know, I would say for all social events, oh, my husband's out of town. Oh, my husband is working tonight. My mentor was Charles Ruff, who maybe is one of the most brilliant lawyers I've ever known. And he was the one who gave me my first opportunity to try a case. But that only happened when I realized that I was being discriminated against. It took me a year.

When you start at the Department of Justice, at least at that time in organized crime, all the lawyers start out handling appeals, which is a great background for lawyers because you get to see the mistakes that trial lawyers make so that hopefully you won't make them. But if you're hired as a trial attorney and you want to have trials, that's not where you want to stay. And then I suddenly realized that the guys I started with were trying cases and I was still doing appeals. So I went to the head of the section and I asked, how come? And he said, and this in part plays into the title of the book, he said, well, Jill, you're a girl and you'd be much more vulnerable in a courtroom. In appeals, you're only there with lawyers. In the courtroom, you'd be with made members of the mob. And, you know, that's just as dangerous. And I said, Henry, what didn't you notice about me when you

hired me as a trial lawyer? I mean, it was pretty obvious I was a woman. And then I brought it to Chuck and Chuck had a trial coming up, which was in Alaska. And I think they thought, well, Alaska, that's so far away. How bad could it be? It'll be all right. And so that's how I got my first trial. And then one of my other friends in the section had a trial coming up in Boston against a boxing promoter and asked me to second share that. And once I got through those two trials, everybody went, oh, you know, she can actually do this and it's all okay. And then I started trying cases on my own. So once I got established, it wasn't a problem. And I will say that my Watergate team was very welcoming and was wonderful. I cannot tell you how terrific the group of people in the Watergate, well, the ones that I worked with on the trial were fabulous.

And I really felt totally accepted. Now, if you read the book, as you have, you know that there were a lot of sexist episodes even then, and certainly many more before that. And Chris, for every story that's in the book, there are 10 that aren't in the book that are the same sort of thing. So it's just a question of, you know, we wanted to keep the book short enough that you could sit down and actually breeze through it that we didn't include all of the stories. I'm sure that was a tough era. And even today is still a tough era that

we're going through and just getting awareness and changing people's minds. So how did you get on the team for the Watergate Special Prosecutor and how young were you? So I was quite young. I was basically, I was hired, I think I had just had my 30th birthday. Wow. And I had been at the Department of Justice just for under five years and had only been trying cases for part of that time because of the discrimination that kept me away from it the first year. But Chuck Ruff was one of the first people hired to be part of the team, and he recommended me. And I got a call to go in for an interview, which was the shortest interview I've ever had. Jim Vorenberg, who was one of the top assistants to Archie Cox, called me in, and I sat down.

He said, well, when can you start? And I was like, well, I'm here, ready to. He said, no, I well, when can you start? And I was like, well, I'm here ready to. He said, no, I mean, when can you start work? And I said, don't you have questions? Don't you want to ask me anything? He said, no, I've checked out your record and we want to hire you. When can you start? And I said, well, I really probably need a month to clean up my office at Justice, but I'll do it in two weeks. He said, you'll do it sooner than that. You're starting next week. And somehow I sort of worked two jobs when I first came to the Watergate office and got everything transitioned at the Department of Justice. I had a wonderful going away party and I knew I would miss all my friends at the Department of Justice, but I knew I'd especially miss them when I saw the gift they gave me.

It was a beautiful red Chinese fabric box with three brass balls in it and a note that said, Because you have more than most men, something I've treasured forever. You know, there's a great story in the book. I was like, wow, okay. And, you know, you go through the book, and what really captures it is you guys are this young team of lawyers, and you guys are going up against the president and his dirty tricks men. And this was daunting.

I mean, did you feel the weight of that, and is their dirty tricks man. And this was daunting. I mean, did you feel the weight of that, or was it more just more exciting and the thrill and the fun of going through their experience, at least first under Archibald Cox? It was both, I would say. It is daunting when you think about the fact that your Rick Benvenista, he's now known as Richard Benvenista, was just about a year older than me. Jim Neal, who was the third trial attorney, was actually about 10, 12 years older than us. So he was like the senior person, but even he was, probably in his 40s. And we were up against the president and all of his top aides and all of the top lawyers in the country. So, you know, you think about that.

But really, we were career prosecutors. We were interested in finding the truth and doing justice. And we just approached it as we would any case and just went about our business focusing on what we had to do. Yes, you're aware that everything you do is in the public eye, and that does have some impact on you, I think. But one thing that was sort of interesting, our press officer convinced Archie Cox that in order for the American people to trust us and to accept whatever we found, they needed to know us and to know that we were not out to get the president. So he arranged for interviews of us, you know, personal interviews, not about the case. We never, ever talked about the case, but, you know, just who were we, what were we like as people, and where did we come from? And I think that it actually helps that people knew us. And it

stands in stark contrast, for example, to the Mueller team, who were almost anonymous. We now know Weissman because he's on MSNBC, and you know him now. But back then, I think that if you had asked 100 people to identify a picture of him, I don't think people would have been able to. They would have known his name because it appeared in court papers. And I do think that it helped us a little bit that people accepted our results because they trusted us. You know, one of the fun things about the book is it is an adventure and that's what keeps you page turning. You were bugged during the thing where they bugged your phone. Yes.

Yeah, it was actually the same day as I was cross-examining Rosemary Woods, which is one of the turning points in the case and certainly in my career. And I came home from court and the door was ajar. And these, you know, the days before cell phones, because in days of cell phone, I probably would have called the police and not gone into my house. But the only way I could call the police was to go into my house. And so I did. And they showed up. And then they also, because they didn't have cell phones, they asked if they could use my phone to call for a mobile crime lab. And when they picked up the phone, the officer hung up and said, something funny about your phone. There's some interference on it that sounds like, he said, I don't know exactly what. So I, having been part of organized crime and having been involved in legal wiretaps, had some fear that it might be that. So I called the FBI agent, Angie Lano, who was assigned to our team, and said, Angie, here's what's happened. And they sent a team out

to do a check to see if there was a bug on my phone. And they said, you know, there were markings on screws that looked like someone had unscrewed things, but that whatever had been there had been removed. So they speculated that there had been an earlier break-in that I had never really thought about what it felt like to be tapped. And, of course, our taps were all done with probable cause to believe that the phone was being used as part of a crime. And mine was clearly not based on that. So I was very concerned, not that I had leaked anything about Watergate, because first of all, I was hardly ever home. Our hours were quite long, and I was always at the office. But, you know, maybe there was something personal, and I was keeping a secret at the time. And I thought, oh, my gosh, if the White House did this, if the Plumbers Unit, which was the group that had

broken into the, well, for example, Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers, his psychiatrist's office was broken into by them, and the White House was behind that and the break-in at the DNC, I wondered if they had heard anything that might be personally embarrassing to me. That's, you know, that's the interesting part about the story and the adventure, because you're like, holy crap, what's going to happen next? And the story about Watergate, and like I say, it was much, it was a lot of fun. Just the adventure, and you're just like, wow, and you were so excited to go through it. And then there was the other elements of the story, like the one you just told.

And you're like, oh, and there's the suspense and everything else. There's different parts that go through your personal life or different parts where you come across sexism from judges and other attorneys. And you're like, oh, that wasn't right. But you cheer for you through the whole thing. And that was the fun part about the book to me. And the adventures of like, I never had my phone book. That would have freaked me out, especially during the Nixon era, you know, when all that, like you say, all that stuff was going on and everything else. You know, the day after the break-in, there was a, in those days, the White House used to have regular press briefings.

And during the regular press briefing, a New York Times reporter asked whether they could say that it wasn't the plumber's unit that had broken into my house. And the response was, are you sure you can't say it wasn't the New York Times that did it? So there was this sort of exchange about who had broken into my house. And there was also an episode of another network wanting to film how they had broken into my house that took the intervention of Leon Jaworski to the head of the network to stop them from doing that because I was afraid, oh, that's just what I need is someone showing, A, my house, B, my address, and C, how to break in when I'm not home all day. Here's the door of Jill's house, and here's how they broke in.

So if you want to do it again, you know, Leon killed a few stories that they were trying to run with. Well, yeah, this one in particular, and which other ones are you talking about? I think, wasn't there another one, or maybe it was Leon, that there was another story that they were going out with? Or maybe I'm thinking about the time that Bernstein was in your office, and I think you overheard something. Oh, well, I was at lunch and said something about, without realizing that Carol Bernstein was sitting nearby. But they never went with that story. There was another one that you may be referring to,

which was early on we were not shredding documents, and our garbage was being taken out in clear plastic bags. I mean, I don't know. I guess that was standard practice then. They were left on the loading dock for pickup. The Washington Post offices were very near ours, and, they must have gotten our garbage. Because one morning, I woke up and the first thing I always did was get my paper, my Washington Post from my doorstep, and, you know, look at the headlines. And there is a story with a memo with my name on it. And it's, I mean, it's a picture of it. It's not just the content

of it, which meant they had somehow gotten it. And of course I rushed to the office and what we figured out was that it had to have been taken out of the garbage. And eventually what we heard was that one of the maintenance people from our building had actually taken it over to the Washington Post. And there was a conversation with the publisher of the Post in which he basically said, you have a garbage problem, which is how we learned how they had gotten it, and we started shredding all of our documents. So that was, you know, we didn't stop the story. It was published, but we stopped any future repetition by not allowing our garbage to be put outside. And this was the fun part about the book.

It wasn't even a final draft, by the way. It wasn't the final draft but it was damaging to have that happen that's the fun part about the book is these little antidotes these little stories that you're just like oh wow where's that gonna go and uh and just a lot of fun um but then but then the one part of the story you know uh le Leon or yeah, no, Archibald Cox Jr. I mean, he seems to really like you. He likes the team. The team seems really energetic during that time. And then suddenly Nixon's hammer comes down Saturday night massacre.

And you guys have the FBI swarm in Nixon's basically henchmen. I believe Dr. Bork come in and then you're just like, whoa. Well, yeah, it was, what happened, you're referring to the Saturday Night Massacre, and we've had repetitions in this administration, mostly on Friday nights, though, which was, we got to a point where we had subpoenaed the tapes. We believed we had a legal right to them. And the president was stonewalling. And stonewalling is much worse now in this administration than anything we encouraged.

Ours was really only the stonewalling related to the criminal case, not to the administration of government. But we decided that the best way to handle this was to go public and to explain to the American people why we needed the tapes and why we had a right to them and why we couldn't accept the crazy compromise that Nixon had proposed, which was to have Senator Stennis, who was very old and very hard of hearing, he was going to listen to the tapes instead of us. And he would tell us if there was anything that we needed to know in them. And that was completely unacceptable because, first of all, we couldn't trust him. We couldn't trust any person except ourselves. And because anything he said would be hearsay.

We needed the actual evidence. If there was proof of crimes, we needed to have the tapes and be able to admit them into court. So we had a press conference on a Saturday morning. And there was an – I actually was supposed to be in New York. I stayed for the press conference and then said, I'm not going to leave because I don't know what's going to happen. And my whole team went, well, what could happen? What could the president do? It's Saturday. Nothing's going to happen. Go to the wedding. Don't worry about it. So I left town for the wedding. And about midnight, when I got back to my hotel, the desk clerk ran out from behind the desk, handed me a note that said, the FBI has seized our offices, return immediately. So I, of course, did. And in the interim,

I had no knowledge of what was happening because back then, again, no cell phones. I had no way of knowing until I got back to the hotel. And what had happened was the president decided that he had to fire Cox. He ordered the attorney general to do it. And the attorney general said, I committed to Congress when I was confirmed that I would only fire for cause, and there is no cause. He has not done anything that justifies firing him. I will not do it. So he got fired. And then the deputy attorney general, Ruckelshaus, Bill Ruckelshaus became the acting attorney general. And he, too, said, I made a commitment and I will not violate it. I'm not firing him.

At which point the third in command became the acting attorney general. And that was Fork, who was the solicitor general. And as a result, he carried out the order. Cox was fired. And our office was abolished, basically. And although we weren't sure whether it had been abolished or whether only Cox had been fired, had we been fired or not. And we weren't fired. We were actually this is what we had to deal with. And the FBI had seized our offices, had locked up everything, had put, you know, like crime scene tape over file cabinets.

We had removed key document copies. We didn't take any originals, but we had copied documents because we weren't sure how the president would react. And we felt that we had an obligation to the American public, even though it would be illegal for us to use any of that or go public with it because it was all protected by grand jury secrecy. But we felt that America might need to know and that we might need to do something that could get us jailed and that we would be willing to do that. We are very lucky because three days after this, public protests were so extraordinary that the president, realizing that he was losing this battle, said,

okay, I will turn over the tapes and I will hire a new special prosecutor. I still wonder why didn't he just bring back Archie Cox? He was still in town three days later. He could have just rehired him, which of course is why we didn't trust Leon so much when he first came, because if they didn't bring back Archie, why were they bringing in this other person? Was he going to just be a lackey for the president? Was he going to be the Attorney General Barr to Trump? Was Leon Jaworski going

to serve the same role as the personal attorney of Richard Nixon? We worried about that. That did not happen. But we had good grounds for worrying about why they weren't just bringing back uh Archie Cox given that it was only three days after he had been fired uh so they did hire Leandro Worsky and bring him back and this is one of the reasons I really enjoyed the book is because the adventure of it the suspense suspense, the anxiety. Like when I went through that with you in the book, I was like, oh, my gosh, wow. How would that feel to be like you got the FBI, you got the president coming down on you. He sends the FBI after you guys.

And then, yeah, and then Leon Jaworski comes into the picture, and he's a really interesting character in the whole thing where he's very different than Archibald Cox Jr. He's got a whole different vibe. He's really conflicted through the whole thing. Or he seems to be. What do you mean conflicted? Conflicted.

He seems like he doesn't want to be there, at least at the end of it. Yeah, I think he felt it was his duty to do. I think he was lonely a lot of it. I mean, this is my personal interpretation, because he was living in a hotel by himself. His wife visited but didn't live full time with him, whereas Archie Cox's family, his wife had moved with him to Washington to do this task. And he was from a very different background. Archie Cox was, of course, a professor at Harvard, and many of the assistant Watergate prosecutors were from Ivy League law schools, Harvard, Columbia. And I think we just sort of merged into his methodology and his thought processes.

And Leon was more standoffish. And he actually, he liked me quite a lot. And I spent maybe more time with him than some of the others. And I tried to be an intermediary to bring about more of a better relationship. I actually hosted a dinner party because things had gotten pretty tense between some of the lawyers on our team and Leon. And I think it helped a little. I think that we did bring about more of a good relationship with him as a result of that. He and his wife came to dinner with the entire team. And I think it helped. It was a good move. So one of the questions I had for you is, if I understand or recall correctly, he did not want to prosecute the president or name the president and go after the president. And I think you guys wanted to. Do I understand that correctly? We did. You are completely correct. And, you know, in part, it's because we knew the evidence better than anyone. And this, by the way, is an issue that

I think came up when Mueller testified. Leandra Worski would not have, or even Archie Cox, who I, you know, have obviously the highest regard for, doesn't know the details of the evidence, didn't hear the voice of witnesses, didn't see the documents. Because they're doing a much bigger picture job, whereas we as the trial team really knew the evidence. And so we knew clearly how guilty he was. And I will say that so did Leon, because I remember his reaction when he heard the first tape. You could just see how deflated he was at listening to the president commit a crime on a tape recording and confirm everything that John Dean had said, proving that John Dean was telling the truth and making him a very credible witness.

But I think that he also, I mean, he was obviously much older than we were. And his opinion was that there was a legitimate impeachment investigation going on. And there was a legitimate chance that there would be a vote to impeach, something that was very different, again, in this administration, where there was no chance that there would be an impeachment. And that might have, maybe that would have led to a different decision on the part of Leon. But he felt that rather than indicting the president, we should, well, that we should not indict. And so we came up with a sort of compromise proposal, which was, one, that we would name him an unindicted co-conspirator. And in part, that was absolutely essential to the admission of the tape recordings, because if he was a co-conspirator, all of his words would be admissible against the other conspirators. And so we really needed him to be a conspirator.

So that was part of the reason we were able to convince him to name Nixon an unindicted co-conspirator. But the other thing we were able to convince them was that there was a reason to believe that there was an exception to grand jury secrecy that would allow us to turn over what I named a roadmap to impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee. And we needed court permission. So on the day of the indictment return, we also asked permission to give the House Judiciary a huge amount of evidence and an outline that said, here's testimony that says X. Here's testimony that says Y. So we were very careful not to be drawing conclusions. We just gave them the facts. And in fact, they used that evidence to create articles of impeachment. So we felt we accomplished a great deal, even though we weren't able to indict the president. I believed

then, and I still believe now, that there's nothing in the Constitution that says that the president cannot be indicted. And when there is overwhelming evidence of the type that we had, I believe it's the right thing to do, that he is not above the law. Hopefully someday she is not above the law, but hopefully the she will never behave in the way that he is not above the law. Hopefully someday she is not above the law, but hopefully the she will never behave in the way that he's have behaved. And so I strongly argued for indicting. And we had a second chance at that when the president resigned. And again, let's put into context, it was a bipartisan vote for impeachment articles. And when the evidence got to the Senate, the three top people in Congress from the House and the Senate went to the president and said, we've seen the evidence. Your support has evaporated. You will be convicted by the Senate if you do not resign. And they had already passed three articles of impeachment in the House.

So it hadn't gone to the Senate yet for trial. But Senator Goldwater and the leader of the minority in the Senate and the House went for the Republicans, went to Nixon and said, you have to resign. And he announced his resignation and was gone within a day. So it was bipartisan. It was not a partisan effort. And I think that's important to keep in mind. People looked at the evidence and were persuaded by the facts. They didn't go, well, I don't care. I don't think it's impeachable. And for me, fast-forwarding to the impeachment trial against President Trump, the part that hurt me the most was when senators who had said,

yes, he did the things he's accused of, but I don't think it's worthy of impeachment. But that's not what the most was when senators who had said, yes, he did the things he's accused of, but I don't think it's worthy of impeachment. But that's not what the vote was. It's not impeach or not. It was guilty or not. And they knew he was guilty, but they had to say not all the evidence that was clear of guilt. So back then, they were willing to say guilty. And what's extraordinary, and the thing that is gripping about the book as you read it, is you guys are laying down for the first time. Like Mueller kind of had it, we didn't have it easy, but you guys laid down a foundation of how to impeach a president and treat him with crime.

This, you guys were pioneers in this, like, and watching you go through, you came on MSNBC and different shows a lot to talk about what Mueller was doing and the different aspects of the case. But it was interesting to me because here you're living this juxtaposition where you laid this foundation, you pioneered it 20 years before-ish, and now you're on the other side seeing this whole reinvention of, it's like we're here again. And would Archibald Cox, would this story have ended differently? Would he have gone after Nixon?

It's very hard to know. I think he might have been willing to. It turned out fine in a way. I mean, we ended up with America understanding the crimes of the White House, of the president and his top aides, and with his being removed from office, not by impeachment, but by resignation. And again, once he resigned, I argued with Leon again, saying, OK, you said we couldn't indict a sitting president because it might interfere with the conduct of his office.

He's not the president. Why not now? But in the time that we were discussing this, the President Ford, who had taken over, and it's sort of interesting for historical reasons, the original vice president was Spiro Agnew, but he had to plead guilty to accepting bribes as the governor of Maryland and then later while he was vice president. So for the first time, a new vice president had to be appointed. And Gerald Ford was selected, who had been a congressman from Michigan. And so he was suddenly, you know, this unelected person who was now the president. And he chose to pardon Nixon for all crimes that he might be guilty of, you know, prospectively, because he hadn't been indicted yet.

And once he was pardoned, there was nothing we could do. I mean, that stops an indictment. And I'm sorry that he didn't have to stand trial. I worried originally that the jury would maybe go easy on the defendants that we had on the grounds that the chief of all of them was not standing trial. But luckily, they didn't see it that way. And, of course, by then he had already resigned before we went to trial. So it was easier to say he has suffered a consequence of his criminality. I think what always gripped me about this book is I've always studied

leadership. I've been a CEO of my company since I was 18. And I've always looked at the moment where Barry Goldwater goes up on into Nixon in the White House and says, you have to resign. And I've always thought, what is that moment like, that darkness of being the first president to fail. I forget the German gentleman's name. I think he's German-Israeli who sat down with him, kneeled and prayed with him. I always forget his name. Kissinger? Kissinger, yeah.

And you listen to the story, and you're just like, this is heartbreaking. This is wrenching. You reference it in the book, too, as well. One story I want to get to. It's heartbreaking to hear the tapes. I was raised to respect the president, regardless of whether it was someone that I supported. It was just part of my upbringing to think that government was good and that the president was somebody really special. So when you hear the president in his own voice saying, well, I know where we could get a million dollars to pay hush money to keep people from saying that they were hired by us. When you hear

him saying, let's get the CIA to claim that it's a national security issue and that the FBI shouldn't investigate the chain of money. And the reason they didn't want the money followed was because the dollar bills on the burglars when they were arrested could have been traced to cashing a campaign check in Florida. And that would have been clear proof immediately that the White House had paid for the burglary. And when you hear that, it's very depressing. I mean, it's very hard to accept that the president is a crook. I didn't want to believe that, but you listen to the evidence and you have no choice. The precedent is a crook. And the other gripping parts of the book that I really enjoyed reading and just really engaged me was the, and I had never heard about this before, the Rosemary Woods,

the Rosemary Stretch, and how you caught her on that. And of course, the 18 minutes missing on the tapes, which I would just kill to get a hold of, but I'm sure you would too. Well, yeah, we would have loved to get them. But even today with modern technology, it hasn't been able to be resurrected. But the story was a wonderful story, and it goes back to when we first learned that there were tape recordings of White House conversations. It was the same day that America learned. It was during the Senate Watergate hearings led by Senator Ervin, who was absolutely a fabulous leader of that, and who worked in very close coordination with Senator Baker, who was the Republican.

Again, it was bipartisan. And when Butterfield, who was an aide to the president, testified that there were tapes, we immediately went, well, now we have a way to prove that John Dean is telling the truth. All we need is, for example, the tape of March 21st, in which John Dean says he told the president that there was a cancer growing on the presidency and laid out the whole conspiracy, not realizing, John Dean didn't realize when he was doing this, that the president had been part of it from the beginning and knew all the bad things that were going on. He knew about the hush money. He knew about all of it.

So we quickly put together a list of tapes that we felt would withstand any claim of executive privilege because there's no executive privilege in a case where it's a crime. There's a crime fraud exception. And so if you can establish that the conversation is in you know perpetuating a crime then you can't protect it and we subpoenaed nine tapes and of course the president stonewalled and said no we had no right to them and he wouldn't give them to us and we went through the courts and eventually eventually, after the Saturday Night Massacre, he said, okay, I'll give you the tapes. But then a few weeks later, he said, well, two of the tapes are missing.

They weren't properly recorded. Judge Sirica ordered a hearing in which we were able to question White House staff to find out whether that was a true story. And then that ended, and it seemed to be true that one of them was from the private residence, and that wasn't on the taping system. So that conversation wasn't recorded. And the other was a malfunction of the backup machine not turning on. And we believed it, and so that we were expecting now seven tapes. And then on the Wednesday before the Thursday of Thanksgiving, we get a call to come to court, and we are told that there's a problem with the third tape. There's an 18 and a half minute gap where there should be conversation.

There's nothing but a hum. And the White House cannot offer any legitimate explanation. They think there is nothing good about it. And that only Rosemary Woods, who was the president's executive assistant, only she could explain it. They didn't say how she'd explain it or what it was,

but she had been my witness in the first hearing when she was just someone who was called, what we call a chain of custody witness who had handled the tapes, the two tapes that were at issue then that were missing. And so I just assumed she would be my witness the second time when she was accused of a crime. And it was my first time ever giving a witness the Miranda warnings, because usually that's done by the FBI long before a lawyer gets involved. But this was one where she was being called into court and was clearly the prime suspect in what could be an obstruction of justice by erasing a tape.

And that hearing turned out to be extremely important because it really, for the first time, showed that the president was doing something funny. There was no one believed her story. She said, and we had her tape machine brought into the courtroom. So I had the opportunity in cross-examining Rosemary Woods to ask her to demonstrate how she did this creation of an 18-and-a-half half minute gap in the tape. And her testimony was that she had accidentally pushed the record button instead of the stop button on the machine she was using, and that she had kept her foot on the pedal, which kept the reel-to-reel tape revolving,

while she reached for a ringing phone. And she said she used her left foot on the pedal. So I want everyone to try this at home. Put your left foot underneath your desk and then try to reach. You're facing this way. Your desk is perpendicular. And you are reaching six feet back as far as you can to get a phone and see if you can hold on long enough to have an 18-minute conversation with your foot on the pedal. And the reason I know it didn't happen is because when I asked her to demonstrate in court, in the witness box, her foot came off the pedal

when she made a slight movement with her right hand. And the press box emptied and went to call in the story. And she muttered, well, it's different in my office. I did it in my office. I could do it there. And I said, well, then, Your Honor, maybe we should adjourn to the White House. And no one objected. And we did. So I went for the very first time to the White House and adjacent to the Oval Office, which is somewhere most people don't ever get to go, and she did a demonstration there, which was captured by the White House photographer and became the front page news in every newspaper and magazine the next day, a great photograph showing the impossibility of her having done what she said. So basically, I was able to prove she lied by her testimony. In retrospect,

I think she actually may have believed she did what she did, but that she was deceived by the president into believing that. And they wouldn't let us bring a photographer. I had to use the White House photographer to take the pictures. Those pictures became every newspaper and every magazine that week showing what became known as the Rosemary Stretch. It was part of, there were so many great cartoons. I wanted to include some of the cartoons in my book, but there wasn't enough room, but there were some great Herb Block cartoons that showed her all twisted up, being carried into an ambulance because of the Rosemary twist. And then there was one of Haldeman and Ehrlichman in a record store advertising the 18-minute hum as a record. And so I, in retrospect, feel very badly for her because she was thrown under the bus, and she did not do what she did.

There's no question she said something that is not believable. But I think she might have actually believed that that happened and that Richard Nixon, who probably is the one who erased it, let her believe it and let her take that suffering, and I think that's really sad, after all her loyalty to him, that he was so disloyal to her. And that was an extraordinary part of the book when you talked about it, because not only were you integral in that whole thing, and I'm looking at the picture, the Rosemary Stretch, and they have a picture of her in a White House setting,

and you guys really went into it. I actually have, wait a second, I have my book handy just in case you asked something I needed to read, but let's see if we can point to, I don't know if the camera will catch this. There it is. There it is. It's sort of hard to... There you go. She's got the stretch.

Yeah. And it's... Anybody looking at that picture knows that she did not hold that stretch for 18 minutes while the tape erased. Didn't happen. Yeah. And it was really interesting that you're you're telling the story and the thing um what was also interesting too in the book is and there's so much great stuff

in this book that everyone should read it uh and one thing i was wondering as you're going through it was i was like you know i've seen her and john dean on msnbc talking about uh the moeller thing and uh and i was like i wonder if they've ever become friends. And, of course, as I got to the end of the book, you guys are actually good friends now or friends now at least? Yeah, we are. I mean, what an interesting. Yeah, it's what I met him post-Watergate.

I'm trying to remember now exactly how many years ago. It was in Minnesota. We were on a panel together at St. John's Law School, St. Thomas Law School in Minnesota. And as I walked in the room, I realized it was probably the first time I would have a conversation with John that wasn't me asking him, what is the evidence for X? Or what's the fact? What did you hear the president say? It was the first time I was going to say, how are you? How's Mo? What's your life like? And I was impressed during Watergate with his intellect and his memory, which are incredible.

When he testified before the Senate committee, which was just as we were being formed, he testified without any knowledge that there was a taping system. And when he found out the same day we did that there was a taping system, he wasn't at all frightened. He, he felt that the dates he had given and the words he had said were spoken were accurate. And by God, they were, everything he said was correct. And so we have, we, we, we exchange emails frequently. Our pets have exchanged Christmas presents. And I think very highly of him. And so it's true. I want to go back to one other thing about that Rosemary stretch, which is there's now a new Perry Mason show. So that my reference to Perry Mason is not maybe as dated as it would have been.

But Perry Mason was a lawyer, a TV lawyer, who solved a case every single night on the witness stand. He would get someone to admit that it was them who did the crime and not his client. And that kind of thing does not happen ever in real life, except it happened to me this one time when I was having Rose do the demonstration in the courtroom and her foot came off the pedal. And the jury box was filled with the press because the courtroom was completely full. And obviously there was no jury, so the court clerk let press sit there. And they were close enough to see her foot.

They couldn't see her foot, which was underneath the, within the witness box. But they could see the revolving tape, and they saw it stop. And they made a mad dash out the door to go to a bank of pay phones to call the story in and it was just one of those moments where oh my god i've just proved she lied right here in the courtroom and it was it was an amazing moment for me no question about it in fact a lot of the research that I pulled, they say this is one of the integral moments of changing public perception of the Watergate hearings and going, aha, like an aha moment, if you will. I think it did make a difference. I

think it was certainly aided by the fact that all of a sudden there were two missing and then all of a sudden, and again, you know, this drip, drip, drip of bad news is very bad trial tactics. If you have three tapes that are missing, say there are three in the beginning. Don't say there are two. Go through a hearing, have it end, and then a week later come back and say, oh, there's a third one. So I think that's something that hurt them as well. But, yeah, definitely this was important. And interestingly, I really wanted to portray Rose as her family and friends knew her.

But everybody I tried to contact hung up on me. They thought I was the enemy. And, you know, from my point of view, all I was doing was my job. I was trying to bring out the facts and do, you know, get justice done. I wasn't out to hurt anyone. And, but I couldn't get anyone to talk to me. And I was telling that story right after the book was published. And I got a call from her grand nephew who said, I'd be happy to talk to you. And I've had some wonderful conversations with him that give me a much better perspective of her. And if there's ever a second edition, I might try to add some of those insights into the book.

And again, even in the book, I portray her as I don't believe she deliberately lied. I think she actually was misled into believing that she did that. She didn't do it. I believe that it was probably either Nixon aided by his chief of staff or someone else. I'm not exactly sure who. And we know that it wasn't one erasure. There were five to nine separate erasures. That's what technology can tell us.

Someone must have listened and went, oh, this sounds bad. I'll erase that. Then they listened some more and went, oh, I'll have to erase that too. And after they were finished with that, they realized listening, and by the way, it was the first tape on our subpoena. So it's probably the first tape that would have been listened to. And then they went to the second one and went, oh, this is bad too. I can't erase all of them. I'm just going to have to stonewall and say they have no right to it. I'm not going to give it to them. So I think that it probably involved Richard Nixon.

This is one of the stories, and all through the book, you do a really beautiful job of talking about the background of the characters, and of course, the real-life characters, her allegiance to Nixon. And you paint a really beautiful picture about a lot of these people, especially her, that in some ways you feel for them because of their predicament. But then also, you know, you realize that they've been up to no good. Or she was so defensive of the president, and then she gets thrown to the wolves by the president, basically, and kind of put it together as a fall guy.

But you capture it really well in the book and and and and so you get caught between when you're reading it you get caught between the whole oh wow i mean this is a real human being but right there you go i think i think part of my goal you know the advantage of this being so many years after is that I've had a lot of time to think about it and reflect on it. And to, you know, also I now have the benefit of being able to research a lot of things that I might not have been able to do contemporaneously. But part of this is, I have to say, it is often thought that women have intuition and different insights than men do. And I think that there may be some truth to that. I think that my observations of people, you know, there's some scenes that I saw that had an impact on me. John Mitchell pushing Martha Mitchell away after the verdict,

which somehow touched me to see that. Not in a good way, but I felt sympathy. And so I tried to capture all of those things that I felt, the things that I was feeling while this was going on, and include them in the book so that it would be putting the reader there with me. And, you know, I don't mention anything about anything other than the book itself is principally from May of 73 when I was appointed until January of 75 when the verdict came in with flashbacks to I went to law school and this is my family. And it's not really until the very end of the book that I talk about the immediate aftermath of the Watergate trial, which included an interview with ABC to be a legal correspondent for them. It included my finally leaving my husband and moving to Chicago to marry my current husband of 40 years. A very happy and good marriage with lots of adventure travel and other things. And it's

not until the epilogue that I even mentioned Donald Trump and any of the possible parallels and differences. And I think, though, from the comments I get, which frequently include what you're saying, which is it reads like a novel and I couldn't put it down. But also about learning things and seeing the parallels without my pointing them out. Because as you're reading it, you can't help but, if you're paying attention to the news now, to see how close things are replicating each other. That I don't need to do the parallels. They're there. You can see them. In the same way that I don't spell out how to deal with sexism or how to advance your career,

I just tell stories about how I did it in the hopes that people reading it, because I'm one of those people who loves biographies, autobiographies, memoirs, because I feel like I learn from people who have succeeded in how to handle things and i'm hoping that that's true both in terms of my career and my personal life is that people reading it will say oh i see the different strategies that jill used you know how do you deal with getting things done and when you're faced with, you know, sexist problems. In the Pentagon, for example, I sometimes would do the work but have a man make the

presentation because then it would be viewed as, for example, a personnel issue as opposed to a woman's issue. And if you want to get the job done, you have to think about those things because that's my goal is to accomplish something. You know, and there's so many great stories in the book. I really encourage everyone to get it. And when you went to the Army, I believe it was, you did a lot of great things for women in the Army.

I hope so. And everything else. I felt you did. At least you tried to do as much as you could with the given at the time uh some of the great stories are the hoffman story which i loved but also the cigar and cognac story that was like a champion story like way to go jill yeah no that was and that was a great general who enabled me to do that, Max Thurman. And yeah, the Army, I loved my job in the Pentagon. It was so fascinating. But I also was able to do a lot of things. Legislation was

passed that abolished the Women's Army Corps, which meant that women could be integrated into the regular army. And the significance of that is that in the Women's Army Corps, there were only two slots for generals, two. Whereas in the regular army, there are hundreds and hundreds of general positions. And a woman in the regular army gets to do all those things that they wouldn't be able to do if they were limited to the woman's auxiliary, basically. And we integrated basic training. We integrated the service academies. We got maternity uniforms for women. We got equipment that was sized to women because women are not just small men. So I did a practice parachute jump wearing men's helmets and boots. And the helmet fell off me because it's not designed for me. And so I made sure that we got proper equipment for women. There are just a lot of wonderful stories. And I came to respect

military officers enormously in terms of how they go about getting things done. And it was a great experience. I got to go to Korea to look at intelligence reports that North Korean troop strength was stronger. I mean, they were just great experiences. Every bit of it changed my opinion of the military. Yeah, I mean, you've lived an extraordinary life. I mean, like you said, as you go through the book, you're seeing the parallels in today's world and the impeachment trial of Donald Trump and Mueller and everything else. And you're just like, does she sit around and pinch herself all the time?

Like this is, you know, the whole going from one end of the spectrum to the other and then seeing the recycling of it with another president. Would you have wanted to be on the Mueller? Did you ever feel yourself wishing that you could have been on the Mueller team? Yes, I think I did. I did. You know, it's having had an inside view to one and being able to get results a cadaver and needed a different career. So my undergraduate degree is journalism. And the only reason I went to law school was because I wanted to be a serious journalist. And girls, as we were known back then, were offered jobs on the woman's page. And I didn't want to report on women's tea was served in Mrs. Smithport. I wanted to do hard news. And I

thought law school might be the way to get an editor to take me seriously. So being able to do commentary as a journalist on the Mueller case, the Mueller investigation, brings me full circle back to, I really wanted to be a journalist, and now I sort of am. And when you say, do I pinch myself? I do every single day. I sometimes can't, I mean, I did a event yesterday for Mimi Rocha, who is running to be DA of Westchester County, and who was one of the original, you know, there's a small group of us called Sisters-in-Law on MSNBC, Joyce Vance, Barbara McQuaid, Maya Wiley, Mimi Rocha, and me. And she's running for office, and the Sisters-in-Law were supporting her.

And so was Rosie O'Donnell, and so was Martina Navitrilova. And in her remarks, Martina said, I just want to say, Jill Winebanks, you're not following me. And I went, oh my God, she knows my name. I mean, that's a pinch me moment. Martina Navitrilova knows my name. That's amazing. So I, Martina, if you're listening, I'm following you. I followed you and I do I adore him I think he's a great columnist but he had said something that I thought was wrong and I said here's why it's wrong and within an hour he wrote back saying well Twitter certainly agrees with you and I've changed my mind you're right and I was like I changed Nick Kristoff's mind and then I got to meet him in the green room once. And I was like, hi, you know, I'm Jill. And so it's been, I got to meet several of my heroes, Nancy Dickerson, Nancy Haunchman, when I first met her, who became Nancy Dickerson. And the fact that I got to meet these people was, it's just remarkable and it is a pinch me moment and when people say nice things to me, they'll stop me on the street and say,

I kept them sane during all of this chaos. It means so much to me. I love that and I appreciate it and it makes it all worthwhile. So I'm, I have a lot of pinch me moments. It's a great story. I mean, like I said, it was a, it was a page turner for me. I think it's a great book for women. Uh, and I hope everyone appreciates just, just how challenging and how brave you were back then, because that was a, that was a rough time to, to, to be a woman. I mean, very, very, uh, minority, a lot. I mean, very minority, a lot of sexism. There's still a lot of sexism today, unfortunately. But back then, it was really heavy and very thick in our culture and stuff.

Well, it was not illegal then, and so that's just how it was. And I'm getting amazing comments from men. I feared that people would think it was only a book for women. It is not, because first of all, if you care at all about history, about Watergate, about parallels to Russiagate, it's a book of interest, not just to women. And men are fathers of daughters. They're married to women. And, you know, men are fathers of daughters. They're married to women. They have sisters. And so I think it is a book, hopefully, that appeals to a wide range of people and a wide

range of ages, not just the people who live through it with me, but younger women. And one of the amazing things to me is when I got to be part of this group called the Sisters-in-Law, how many of them said that they became lawyers in part because of me. It's because of me that two of them were U.S. attorneys, which is like one of the highest, most wonderful jobs anybody could ever have, something to aspire to. And they credit me with having broken the ground. And that is an amazing compliment to me. It's just fantastic. That's one of the things I love about the story. I mean, you were just a pioneer. You got captured with your excitement, your enthusiasm, the suspense, your personal life.

You're leading this juxtaposition of this really exciting, fun, professional life and then challenges your personal life, you know, you're leading this juxtaposition, this really exciting, fun, professional life, and then challenges your personal life. And so you're rooting for you on all different fronts. And then, of course, at the end, the story gets better. And there's so many great stories in here that we could probably spend hours going through everything else. But I encourage people to check out the book and everything else. And we could spend hours, Jill. It's just so fun to have you on the show. And the book was great.

And I think it's going to inspire a lot of people. And if you think it's another impeachment story and there's darkness, it's a lot of fun. It is a page turner and it's engaging and it sucks you in and you're so good at all the details and stuff. Anything more you want to give it to us as we part or give us your plugs as we go on? I think one thing, which is this book does tell a story of when democracy

worked, when there was bipartisanship, when justice prevailed, and it does set a model for what we could have again and that I hope we will in November get back to. I will also say there was debate about where to end the book and there was some thought that it should end immediately after Watergate. And I said, you know, the personal story can't end there because I'm still in an unhappy marriage and I'm at a law firm where I'm not very happy, that's not the place it should end. It has to go to at least 1980, where I've had this great experience in the Pentagon and I've re-met my high school boyfriend and I'm moving back to Chicago to get married and start a new

life. And the publisher agreed with me that it had to not end where I was just post-Watergate, still in a bad personal way, and where I finally came to solve my personal issues and move on. So it does have a happy ending. Yeah, I would agree. It was better that way because you're just like, wait, this part, because I had reached the end of the Watergate part, and I'm like, wait, wait, wait, we have some unresolved issues here in our novel yeah great story um and and it was cool that you reached out to a lot of the people that that that were in the story and you're just like wow where did this

go and and and you know i don't know what your plans are but even the second book with all this perspective on uh on what went on with donald trump I'm sure historians are going to be talking for years if the senators had done their job and removed this man from office, if 150,000 people would be alive today. That's a good question. There is a possibility. I have been thinking about a second book, and I'm just going to point to to this which is my pin for the day

because jill's pins have become a thing of let's see if i can get well basically it is my book jacket replicated in a pin and because my pins have become you know hashtag jill's pins on twitter um i have been thinking about putting together a book that will review the Trump administration through my pins, because the pins all have something to do with the issue I'm talking about that day. And there are some really clever pins, and many of my followers have sent me pins that are just unbelievably clever and beautiful and capture something about the administration. So I am thinking about doing a second book,

and we'll have to see what happens politically as to whether it's still relevant. If I had pins, there would be two pins. There would be one of the scream, that famous scream painting. Yes. That would be like every day or every other day. And then the other one would be just one of the middle finger. But anyway, it's been wonderful to have you on. Thank you.

I encourage everybody to get the book, The Watergate Girl, My Fight for Truth and Justice Against the criminal president, Jill Weinbanks. And Jill, it's been wonderful to have on the show and everything else. Thanks to my audience for tuning in. Be sure to see this appearance on youtube.com forward slash Chris Voss. Hit that bell notification. Go to the CBPN. Watch for all the great authors we have upcoming on the show.

And we appreciate you being here. Be safe and we'll see you next time.