- Share your favorite videos with friends
- Comment on videos and join the conversation
- Get personalized recommendations
- Enjoy exclusive offers
Purchased a FORA.tv video on another website? Login here with the temporary account credentials included in your receipt.
Sign up today to receive our weekly newsletter and special announcements.
Hi and now it's my pleasure to introduce our distinguished speaker Egil "Bud" Krogh and he is said call me Bud, so I will. He is the former head of the special investigation unit under the Nixon administration. You will hear a lot more about that later. And the author of a wonderful book which I have read with great interest called "integrity, good people, bad choices and life lessons from the white house". Now let me tell you little bit about "Bud" Krogh. In 1968, at the age of 29, a Seattle lawyer Egil "Bud" Krogh joined president Nixon's staff and rose quickly to positions of responsibility - age 29, in the white house serving as deputy council, deputy assistant to the president for domestic affairs and under secretary of transportation. In 1971, his world really changed when he was assigned the task of plugging leaks of sensitive national defense related information starting with the pentagon papers. As co-director of a special investigation's unit known eventually as the "Plumbers" which the president had impressed up on him was a matter of the highest national security, but approved a covert operation to obtain information about the source of this leak of the pentagon papers. Dr. Daniel Ellsberg was the source of the leak. The burglary was the search for evidence in the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist Dr. Lewis Fielding, Bud came to the realization that his conduct could not be defended and eventually he pled guilty to the charge of conspiracy to deprive Dr. Fielding of his civil rights. By the age of 34, then he was serving a prison term in the Allenwood federal prison for a serious constitutional crime. He was the first Nixon staffer to plead guilty to avoid any possibility of receiving a lighter sentence by implicating others, he insisted that he be sentenced before testifying before grand jury. In an all too it was an all too public example the difficulty peoples face when they do not adhere to their own personal sense of integrity and that's what his book is all about. Bud Krogh made headlines of the Nixon administration official went to prison for his role in what will be known as the "Watergate Scandals". He eventually obtained his law license again and went up to practice law in Seattle for his now or prominent well established lawyer. It gives me great pleasure to introduce "Bud" Krogh. Thank you Bob very much and thank you to the commonwealth club for inviting me. I feel like I am coming home. Right after I left Washington in 1975, I came to San Francisco; I lived here for five years and stayed may be as a refugee from those periods and that - those times. And I will get into some other things that happened while I was here in San Francisco during that time period. Tonight I have many friends here in the audience; it's wonderful to see you all. My son is here, Peter and his wife. And my mother in law is here. I think taking notes to report to my wife is to what I say and may be the Jamie, my 13 year old son who is at home in Seattle. What I wanted to do tonight is just basically start with, how did I get to this job in the white house. How did that happen? And then I will go through some of the things that I did during the early years on the white house staff and I will talk a little about the white house "Plumbers". Why we did some of the things we did, and what we learned about it later. First, how did I get there? Well, my family had been very close to the Ehrlichman family in Seattle since 1951, the relationships were very tight. My parents knew John Ehrlichman's uncle very well. My sister Joegle is very close to Jean Ehrlichman and Joan Horton. There was a group of ladies, they were very close friends. I got to know the Ehrlichman children very well and this was starting at the age of 12. I went to law school at the University of Washington and during law school I clerked in John Ehrlichman's law firm. I became a land use lawyer because john Ehrlichman was a land use lawyer. And during the 1968 campaign, he served as tour director of the Nixon campaign and I I wanted to be an advanced man, - I cannot be an advance man I really like to do that he said, no elections usually have two out comes you win or you lose and if we lose I will be coming back to Seattle and I would like you to have carried on my cases while I am gone. If we win, life might be different. Well right after the election in 1968, john returned to Seattle, came to my office in the law firm, he had then been appointed council to the President, he came into my office, sat back in his chair, put his feet upon my desk and said do you like your work here? I said, yes sir, I I like my work here very much, he said "so you are enjoying the zoning law?" Yes sir I like zoning law. "Would you consider leaving the law firm, to come to Washington DC to be staff assistant to the council to the president?" Yes. Now, that was the new definition of a nanosecond it's - usually I think the time laps between when the light turns green in New York in a minor section in the first horn to the car behind you, but I would think it was a run on sentence and I had three days to disengage from the practice of law, files were flying out of my office and landing in front of other lawyers offices and they took on the responsibilities that I had had and I found myself in New York city in the transition office. Now my first assignments while I was there in the transition office was to read full field investigations that were prepared by the FBI on nominees that were going into the federal government and that that is not the most scintillating reading, just to go through full field investigations they go back to people's experiences, to the forth grade experiences, they had had the teachers, but you have to read it to see if there is anything that might be problematical in a person's past that might crop up when he is in a new position in the federal government. One of experiences that I had there and I should say that our offices were in the Hotel Pierre is not usual for federal government officials to be working out of the Hotel Pierre as an office place, it's a fairlyl elegant hostelry in New York and one of the first experiences was with the governor of Massachusetts John Volpe who had been nominated by the President to be secretary of transportation, there was a federal statute that prohibited the appearance of a conflict of interest, not just an actual conflict of interest and there was a sign out in front of the new building, the new department of transportation this building brought to you by the John Volpe construction company. So we felt that there probably was an appearance problem and we met with the governor and his his lawyer and suggested that may be they could transfer managerial responsibility to someone else and may be change the name of the company because I thought that sign up there would raise questions when he became secretary. Well, they did, they came back about a week later and said we have been taking care of it, I said, how how would we solve this problem governor and he said well I have transferred all the managerial responsibility to my brother who is now managing the company and we have changed the name to the Volpe construction company. I said you know, governor we are getting closer but it's really not the first name that is our principle problem, we we do need to work on on the last name and he agreed to do that and it's - these are sort of funny incidents but but they are real. We had another nominee to the cabinet command to a meeting with us and I should say that configuration of our office was that all the beds have been taken out, we had two desks that faced each other and three chairs and then there were three doors, one went into the hall, one went into the closet and one went into the restroom and we finished talking with this gentleman's lawyer and he left and then this nominee turned around and and he walked into our closet and shut the door. Now, the there is no no there is no problem if you come out right away because you you can say you know, sorry I I made a made made a mistake, I don't know how I ended up with the closet, and leave. But but he didn't and and I I tell the story because it is it is singularly the most amusing and funny and it it drove Ed Morgan and myself to a point where we could not function. I am looking at Ed, he is looking at me, we are biting inside of our mouth. We know this gentleman is on our closet and Ed timed it, he said, he timed it after 27 seconds we noticed out of our peripheral vision, the doorknob begin to turn and this gentle man and his best rendition of the pink panther oozes out into the hall at which point Morgan and I looked each other, realized we were hopeless, we were helpless and hopeless, shut down the office went out in fifth avenue and sang Broadway showtunes for the next two hours until we could calm down calm down a little bit. So that was my experience and in in New York, FBI full field investigations reading a lot of peoples stock holdings to see whether or not that were potential conflicts and then we move down to Washington DC on January 20th 1969, now when you are in the White House for the first time, you are sitting at your desk and there is nothing there, because every thing has been taken out by the out going President, every thing that isn't a fixture has gone, and you are hoping somebody will call you up and ask you for advice and you are scared to death, some body is going to call you up and ask you for advice, because you don't know very much, most of the people that have been brought into the Nixon White House were young lawyers and business men, they had not been advanced men, they were really not experts in high government, well I had been there for a few weeks and there was a call that was supposed to go to Ed Morgan, who was responsible for consumer affairs but somehow it came into came into my office because he was away in a trip and it was from Virginia Knauer who was the Presidents consumer affairs advisor, you might remember that name, she was a wonderful person and she called up and she said Bud, I have been asked to testify tomorrow before house agricultural committee in support of reducing the fat content in the American Hot dog from 32 percent to 30 percent. Now I am a busy man, I mean I am reading full field investigations, I am reading stock holdings, a lot of the serious stuff and I said well Virginia that that it sounds good to me, we lets go with it and she asked the question a second time, she said Bud, now I have been asked to go before a house authorizing committee to testify that this administration supports reducing the fat content by two percent, at two percent now only minds I, a Hot dog is six inches long, two percent is not much of a Hot dog, please go ahead and do it Virginia and so she did, well the story the next day in the Washington Evening Star went some thing like this, the just of it was "major administration shift on weenie". Then the call started coming in from outraged meat packers in Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Illinois, Oklahoma and Texas, Iowa and the questions were usually framed, who is the idiot in the White House who approved that the two percent reduction fat content ought to go forward, who was that idiot? Now all the vectors were coming into my office, and if things had gone a little bit differently, this would have been one of the most short lived White House staff experiences and in retrospect, that would have been a good thing, and but and I was thinking about heading home to Seattle because it was a really un pleasant time, well I was saved by the most unlikely party, the President himself, when he saw the article like me, he did not connect the economic dots, and he called Virginia Knauer. Right after he did, she called me to tell me what he said, and she knew that I was probably packing my bags and would be interested in how the President had responded to this story, now I am going to try to paraphrase it in his language just of what he said to Virginia. "Sticks to your guns Virginia, I am behind you 100 percent, I came from humble origins why - we were raised on Hot dogs and Hamburgers, we have got to look after the Hot dog", to put it lightly this was music to my ears, and I personally believe one of the most memorable phrases ever uttered by a President was, "we have got to look after the Hot dog", when she told me this I asked her to call News week, Time magazine, The Print Dailies, New York times, Philadelphia Inquire, Washington Post, Chicago Tribunes, Los Angeles times, and she did, and she told that story, and the call stopped, it was so cool, and I am happy to report to you that you can Google Virginia Knauer Hot dogs fat content and the story will come up right before you. Okay that's the end of my talk. Bob are there any questions that we should sorry I just skipped just kidding okay, so we do you have to talk about some other things here. I tell the story as an example of not thinking through the consequences. Pat Moynihan was on the White House Staff at the time and he urged all of us, whenever you make a recommendation to the President think through the consequences second, third, fourth order consequences. Just don't make a snap decision because the effect of your judgments is going to be very far reaching. You have to think things through. And I think that's one of the key tests to whether something has integrity, have you really thought through the consequences, have you understood the facts at a deep level before you make a judgment, and we didn't do that in the hot dog story. It turned out fine, I mean the President did save my bacon, but that was just by accident that that happened. So now I would like to turn to what Bob talked about earlier; it was the creation of the "White House Plumbers" in July of 1971. By the way we weren't known as the plumbers right at the start, we were known as the Special Investigation's Unit, David Young who was my Co-director was on the phone with his mother in law and she said, "What are you working on, dear?" He said "Well, I am plugging leaks." She said "Oh how nice, we had carpenter in the family, now we have a plumber." And he thought that was very neat name and so put that word "plumbers" on the inside of the door of our office on room 16 in the White House and when we were asked under oath, what did you call yourself, we did admit that we were called the "plumbers". And that has gone in to the political lexicon as many of you know. The President set this unit up in San Clemente and in the book I described two decisions that he made in two days. The first one was on July 15th 1971. And I think may be some of you were tuned in at that time, because he said to basically the world that Dr. Kissinger had just returned from China, bearing an invitation from Mao Zedong for him to visit China within the next six months. And it was a very short announcement that he said I have accepted the invitation. It actually had been tendered specifically by Zhou Enlai, the Premier and not by Mao Zedong himself, but this was an absolutely electrifying statement. I thought I would just ask how many people here remember that statement when he made that a lot of you do. I think it changed the geopolitical map in the world, changed things fundamentally. I know there was great celebration afterwards on the Western White House in San Clemente. I could not share that, I was still returning from a trip to Vietnam where the President had sent me to help solve the heroin addiction problem among our soldiers, in South Vietnam at the time. I came back on the 16th, I reported into the President about the progress that we had been making in Vietnam on that drug program. We had set up urinalysis programs in Cam Rahn Bay, in Long Binh. One of the facilities was designated the Pee House or the August Moon. The title sort of tells you what went on there. And I reported into the president that he didn't have a drug problem in Vietnam, he had a drug condition because it wasn't something we were going to be able to stamp out. But we did find ways to diagnose those who were addicted and treat them before they came back. After that meeting with the president which occurred on July 17th 1971, I was in the mess eating with my colleagues and I got a call. Actually Jana Hruska, who is the John Ehrlichman Secretary said "John Ehrlichman wants to see you right away". So I got up and I went into his office and he shut the door, which was quite surprising because I was already in the most sacred and secret part of the Western White House; to shut the door seemed to be a little bit excessive. And he handed me a large file that said Pentagon Papers on it. He said "While you have been gone junketing around the world, we have been trying to solve this problem of the release of these documents to The New York Times. The President has decided to set up a special investigation's unit. You are going to be a Co-director of that unit with David Young, from Dr. Henry Kissinger staff. Your job is to examine and investigate all aspects of why those papers were released to The New York Times. To find out whether those who did release them are likely to release other top secret information. And you are to start this right now." And I said "Well, John I said I've been assigned to set up an international narcotics control program." He said "I know that, this in addition to that, you got to do that. Now you can hire some people, bring some people in to help you. And by the way your Co-director is going to be Dr. David Young from the Dr. Henry Kissinger staff." David was one of the personal advisors to Dr. Kissinger. So I said "Fine, I'll get right at it". He said "Well, there is one more thing the President wants you to go back to your hotel and read the first chapter in his book "Six Crises", which is in the chapter about Alger Hiss. And derive from reading that chapter just how strongly the president feels about your investigation of Dr. Ellsberg. Now some of you might recall history that Mr. Nixon was one of the principal probably the principal investigators of Alger Hiss, when he was serving on the House Unamerican Activities Committee in the House of Representatives. I did read that chapter that night; I did derive from it that he viewed this as a national security crisis and that we were to proceed with all due zeal to find out why Dr. Ellsberg had released those documents, was he in fact a traitor, have words like that were used on the White House staff? We left San Clemente about two days later and flew back to Washington DC. I set up the unit the unit you know, a room in the basement of the old executive office building, room 16, you can have things changed quickly in that building when you have emergency reasons for doing so and that office was created literally overnight. Sensors were put in the building so that no body could go into it except those of us that were authorized to do so. E. Howard Hunt; some of you might remember that name, just wrote a book called American Spy, he has written many books mostly novels, was assigned to the unit by Charles Colson because Colson's assignment was if you get any information about Dr. Ellsberg that can be used to discredit him I am going to be your channel for doing that. So that was E. Howard Hunt's assignment on the unit. I hired G. Gordon Liddy; brought him over from Treasury, some of my friends have told me, personnel is not your strong suit; but when it I'll have to answer for that comment at some point I am sure, but but anyway I had worked with Gordon who was a very, very smart person and he had worked in the Treasury Department for two years, he had been a former FBI agent. I felt that he had some skills that could be useful in this investigation. And so there were the four of us; David Young, E Howard Hunt, David Young and myself. On July 24th we had been back on Washington about a week; I got a call from John Ehrlichman that said the President wants to see you right now. There was release to The New York Times yesterday of the fall back position of the United States government on the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in their discussions with the Soviets in Helsinki. I did go over to the West Wing; actually I ran over form my office, I went into the Oval Office where John Ehrlichman and I had never seen the President so enraged before; he was pacing behind his desk, slamming his fist into his hand and basically telling us "I will not put up with this kind of leak." He said that this has jeopardized his negotiations, and you are to take steps right now to polygraph. He listed different groups, almost 400 or 500 people he wanted polygraphed. And I pointed out to him that that that's a lot; probably we don't have that many machines. But he was very strong that this is something we had to get to right away. He concluded the conversation with us which wasn't very long one, he said, the Pentagon papers this these leaks are matter of national security and they shall not stand or we will not allow it, and I am not going to use the language Bob that he actually did use, but for those you have read transcripts, you'll notice things in parenthesis that says expletives deleted; when you listen to them, they are not deleted, it's good thing in writing that they are deleted because he was a man with the gift for the pungent phrase and he was able to convey to us just how strongly he felt about it, and I took that seriously. And I left that office ready to do what I whatever I thought needed to be done, to try to find out who had linked those documents to The New York Times and who was behind the Pentagon paper's release. Now, I was pushing our unit pretty hard based upon that meeting with the President. I went back and I talked to Gordon Liddy and I said, the President views this as a matter of the highest national security importance. He said, "Well we need to find out about the mental state of Dr. Ellsberg and we think may be his psychiatrist will have some notes that will tell us what that state is." I said, "Now, what do you mean by that? How would we get that information?" He said, "Well we'll just have to do a covert operation." I said, "What does that mean?" He said, "Well, they are called black bag jobs." Then he proceeded to tell me what the FBI had done for many, many years since World War II, when they wanted to get information from targets. They would go into offices, they would photograph information and then they would leave. And I did not ask the question "Is this legal?" I didn't ask question, "Is this right?" I didn't ask question, "Is this good?" I just said, "Is that necessary? Is that something that you all felt was essential when doing your job" He said, "Absolutely." He and Howard Hunt talked and then they came back and said, "We think a covert operation ought to be undertaken to examine all of the files still held by Dr Ellsberg's psychiatrist." I thought about that for a while but did not give it the attention that it deserved. I joined in a memorandum that was drafted up by David Young, he and I would sign the memorandum, we sent it to John Ehrlichman and here is the words that we used. "We recommend that a covert operation be undertaken to examine all of the files still held by Dr Ellsberg's psychiatrist." There were two options underneath that statement. One was approved, the other was disapproved. John Ehrlichman put his big E and underneath it wrote, "I'll give you an assurance, it is not traceable." I took that as authority. That has been a matter that has been contested in court, is to whether what he authorized was really what was carried out. A Jury found that he had authorized it. Based up on that an operation took place in September of 1971 into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, in Beverley Hills, California. The group went in, they broke a window on the way in, to make it look like somebody was looking for drugs, they trashed the office while they were in it. They did not get any information. They didn't photograph any information. But they did take pictures about what they had done. And they came back to Washington DC feeling somewhat elated that they hadn't got caught. They came to my office and showed me the photographs. And I asked them "Was there some thing unclear about the word covert?" And he said, "Well, no but we we had to camouflage this" and tried to justify and explain it. I realized at that point that something fundamentally wrong had happened. I took those pictures over to show John Ehrlichman and he looked at them and he said, "This is far beyond anything I authorized, shut this down and shut it down immediately." And I did. The two that had come back, Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt had proposed another operation. And we felt that this was enough and nothing more was done, nothing was obtained. But you can see that we had moved from talking about these kinds of operations in 1970 to actually doing something in 1971. The premise of my book is that the operation in 1971 lead inexorably to Watergate the next year, because the two gentlemen who worked for me went on to work for the committee to reelect the President, proposed the operation into the Watergate hotel. Of course that was carried out with the same skill and aplomb that they carried out the operation in 1971. I think they left the tape on the door, I am not quite sure how they were pick up the bread crumbs and lead directly to it, but it wasn't the Varsity squad in some of these things. But in any event Watergate occurred June 17th, 1972. I was on St. Louis at the time. As I was walking back to my hotel I went by a newspaper kiosk and I saw the headline about the break in. I knew exactly what had happened and how it had happened and who the people were. I felt that what we had done at the time was a national security imperative. I was responding to what I thought the President wanted us to do, but there was no way that you are going to kid yourself into thinking that the Watergate operation had any national security ramifications at all. But I don't think Watergate could have happened but for what happened in 1971. They knew, those two gentlemen knew, that under certain circumstances the White House would accept covert action to obtain information. If we had said no in 1971, this White House will not tolerate that kind of conduct, and they had done it anyway, they would have no stranglehold back on the White House staff, which they did, after the 1972 break in of the Democratic National Committee. I am going to fast forward here to work through some of the analysis of this that I went through with the next two years. After Watergate 1972, I was asked to testify before an Assistant US attorney. I was told no national security information was going to be covered. I was asked the question, "Do you know of any travel by Mr. Liddy to California in 1971?" Another key point of this was that they had left some film in a camera that belong to the CIA that showed Mr. Liddy standing in front of the parking space of Dr. Fielding in Beverley hills. And I explained that I did not know about any travel of Mr. Liddy. That was a lie. I felt that I did not have a choice under those circumstances to have said, "Oh yes, I know about that travel and it was part of this operation" would have been to disclose in August of 1972, two months before an election, something that could have been explosive. I could have said "I can't answer that question because it's national security at which point that assistant US attorney goes back to the justice department, gets the clearance, comes back, gets me, puts me under oath and says answer the question. And if you don't you are condemned". And I looked at that and I said, "I could not answer that question truthfully". In retrospect that was a grave error, because I think if all of the stuff had been disclosed right away after Watergate, history would have been different. I have talked about that in my book about why didn't I go into the Oval Office right after the Watergate event and say "Mr. President here is what happened the year before that I was involved", and he did not know about it at that point. He would have enforced to prosecute us at that point. But it would have ended that story. I mean it would have been out, it would have been over. But by not doing that, Watergate cover up, the payment of hush money, false declaration, obstruction of justice, perjury, all of those things occurred over two year period. So I am trying to point out the chain from the start, the Houston plan in the 1970 when the discussions occurred. Then what happened in 1971, 1972 Watergate and then the ensuing two years. I was nominated at the end of 1972, to be the under secretary of transportation. I got no questions during my confirmation hearing about this event. I was confirmed. I went to work at the department and three months later, the story broke about what it happened in 1971. That's all part of John Dean and others just deciding that they could not live with this anymore. I resigned from the government. I defended myself for about five months that what I had done in 1971 was in response to what I felt that president wanted me to do. That he had described what I was doing as a national security matter. I was not at that point in my life at the age of 32, in a position to question the president's judgment. To be quite honest that I felt that was about my pay grade. When he decided something needed to be done, my job was to say yes sir and then trying to figure out how to accomplish it. So that's where things stood. I had resigned from the government. I was defending myself in various quarters, and House of Representatives. I had invoked the Fifth Amendment 37 times which is excruciatingly that's the difficult thing to do. Now before our grand jury in California, Los Angeles, I took the Fifth Amendment several times. And then something happened, I went before Judge Gerhard Gesell where I argued the national security defense. This is what I did and why. And his response was that defense that you were able to lie under oath to an assistant US attorney because of national security is directly contrary to the rule of law in which this government and this country is based. It's not acceptable and actually it made the point stronger than that. But I took that very seriously. About a month later, and things were happening very fast at this point for me and for other people. My family we went down to Williamsburg, Virginia for thanksgiving. And we were out behind the house of burgesses. Now I am under indictment in Washington D C - I am under indictment in California. And there we were. Peter and my son Peter was back over here. You might not remember that day, may be you do and Matt they're out there playing. And Suzanne is not too far away. And you have times in your life when things become crystal clear. And I was out there watching them play and the light shifted a little bit. I said "Isn't this amazing". You are under indictment in Washington D C under indictment under indictment in California. And yet under our system of law, you are able to drive down here with your family, you are able to talk to a reporter, you can associate with whomever you want. You can go to the church of your choice. You could exercise all of these rights, now what are you defending. Well, I am defending the right of someone in government under some questionable doctrine of national security to strip away from another American citizen his right to be free from an unwarranted search under the fourth amendment. How can you enjoy all of these rights and defend that without being the worst form of hypocrite? Anyway just sort of stunned me because I hadn't thought that through before. And then the second thing that came at the same time was that conduct in 1971, here approval of an entry operation into someone's office without a warrant strikes at the heart of what this government was established to protect against, which is the unwarranted intrusion of the government into the private lives of the citizens. And the question is what side do you want to be on? And I said "I don't want to defend that anymore", I turned to Suzanne and I just said, I am going to plea guilty that was on a Friday, in the following Tuesday I was in the office of a special prosecutor Leon Jaworski told him that I wanted to plead guilty, but the deal was he had to agree that I would be sentenced by a court before I would be obligated to talk to grand jury or to a US attorney. I will be eternal grateful to Leon Jaworski who I think is one of the great Americans for accepting my plea under those circumstances that was on a Tuesday on Friday I stood before Church Gerhard Diesel and I plea the guilty. I said the sole basis of my defense was that I did it on behalf of national security I no longer believe in that defense therefore I have done I had to ask myself what do I want to stand for, for the rest of my experience that meant for my children and the rest, I simply believe it was done in the Ellsberg case his is improper, unacceptable and I do not want to defend it further and that was it. Six weeks later I have the opportunity to go before Judge Gerhard Gesell again, he sentenced me to prison. I had the opportunity to spent the first 10 days in the maximum security jail, the Rockville jail and Rockville, Maryland where they put Mike Tyson, fortunately I had a different time and I I had a couple of funny experiences in Jail, because what I was first put into this lockup there was one other gentle man sitting on a mattress, an African American man, who was who was pretty badly beaten up, and there were two mattresses on the floor and I had a choice where to sit and I decided just to go over and sit down next to my wanted any company I could get, I just sat next to him and he looked over at me and he said Krogh I liked the way you did that. I feel "Oh god he know who is I am", and he said I been watching you on TV and you are a standup guy and I am going to tell you how to live in jail. And I got jail survival 101 from a person who do what he was talking about, but he said something very profound after giving me sort of the clues to how to survive in in jail and prison environment you don't invade people's space, keep to your self until you get to know somebody. He said, now, you come in here as a Nixon guy, a lawyer, a white dude he said, "don't you ever hold your self out better than anybody else in this place because if you do somebody is going to hurt you and don't do it because it ain't true", and after that was just exactly what I needed to hear at that time and just help me go through that experience. Couple of days later I got my first job offer in jail from a guy who took a liking to me and he said I am specialized in stereos, and would you like to work with me when you get out of here or you going to go straight. And and I it has sounded I mean, it was the first job offer I had in a long time so, I was just something that I just wanted to dismiss out of hand but I said, and I didn't say you know, I have given a short hit that world but it was very good at it. Its all that's for sure why didn't you call an expert when you needed help? Then I said, I didn't know your number so but I mean it is a kind of things that you look you look and say how could that possibly be happening to me and yet I was cared for and looked after at every single moment when I was in a Maximum Security Jail and in the Allenwood prison I had one experience for I was in a long queue of prisoners waiting to get our teeth checked and I had in part of the anti narcotics control program on The White House Staff and then pursued some people with with real vigor and one of them that we had put away was a person who was involved in a major heroine smuggling operation that involved the French government and well, this gentleman who we have put away who knew who I was and I knew he was, he was the dental assistant and he had a tray of a lot sharp pointed tools to use to check our teeth and as I get closer and closer to the front of the line and I before going to the into the chair he looked at me and can see that I was a little bit nervous concerned and he started to smile and he step forward and he came forward and very French, heavily French accented English said monsieur Krogh do not be afraid as I see it, you are a professional in your business, I was a professional in mine and we both screwed up. So I I never forgot that I just I laughed so hard, it was just like the guy coming out of that closet there they hotel Pierre I just that is this great or what. He became a very good friend of mine and gave me his jeans when he was sentenced to another prison. So anyway I I went through that prison experience, it wasn't very long, I was sentenced to do six years in prison, I served four years 13 days and 7 hours, I was released in June an I didn't have to testify against my former colleagues which is very difficult, after I was released in 1974, I came out to Seattle Washington, to prepare for hearing before the board of Governors, because it was certain, that I go through an attorney discipline process, before doing that I decided to do something completely different from what I have been doing and I climbed Mount Rainier with my family. And I went up on the 8th of August in 1974, Richard Nixon was President of the United States, we summitted about four in the morning, on the ninth of August we came down from the summit, we are going down the Muir snow field and I see another team of climbers, walking up and they are cheering there they are yelling and they are gesticulating and as I got closer, they are signing we have a new President, we have a new President, we have a new President, and I remember that vividly I stopped in the snow, most people when they have to climb like that they are pretty tired any way but the psychic load was just overwhelming, and I stopped and I took off my pack and bent over and I realized, I have to go see him, I have got to go see him because I knew he was probably going to head out to San Clemente went through came back to Seattle, and I went through the hearing where the three lawyer panel recommended a nine month suspension which was later reversed, and I was disbarred, but then went down to Beverley hills first to apologize the Lewis Fielding to his face because you could admit to these things and you can serve the prison sentence, but until you tell the person who you have harmed directly, I am sorry that this happened, there isn't closure, you haven't completed and I will just tell you that Dr Fielding is a prince among men. He welcome me into his office, he said I understand why you are here, I am glad you have come, thank you very much, and that was it. We never saw each other again and I am grateful to him for that. The next day, it was one of the hardest meetings I would ever had, Richard Nixon had now been in out of office for about 12 days hadn't been pardoned by President Ford and we spent about an hour and a half together. And he wanted to know about jail was all about, what's alike there. And he got a call from Nelson Rockefeller at the time and I didn't hear both sides of the bugs weren't that good, but I did hear what Nixon said and he said I just don't think it would be appropriate, for the President of the United States to be serving time in the DC jail. During the course of that that conversation, and it was just the two of us, he said Bud should I plead guilty, I said Mr. president do you feel guilty? He said no, I don't I said well it's not a Public relations game, did you feel guilty and you are willing to take legal consequences, that's one thing. If you don't feel guilty you can't do it just to make it look better, you got to feel that you were basically committing a crime. I had reached that point my self the previous year in November, he never reached that point. But we did talk about taking responsibility from ones conduct which I think is one of the things that Integrity requires, and he was never able to reach that point of seeing that his pattern of conduct for about two years, I think made a very strong case of obstruction of justice, and I think the house impeachment committee did conclude that. Well we we parted after about an hour and a half and I went back home and I wrote him a long memorandum, that I wanted him to to read about how I had worked through these issues, and I was about ready to to get it typed the final form, and went out to get the paper President Ford had granted him a full unconditional pardon for all crimes that he may have committed, had committed or may have committed as President of the United States which rendered moot anything that I might write to him about responsibility. So that was the sort of the end of the piece of this after that I would came to San Francisco, I just took a little tour before coming over here because I went to the Palace Hotel with the Dean of Public Administration of the Golden Gate University in 1975, they said when I came out to San Francisco and he took me to lunch at the Palace Hotel with Tom Fletcher and we have been there for about half an hour. During the lunch and Randy turned to Tom Fletcher who he had known, and Tom had been the Deputy Mayor of the District of Columbia, and I know him and I had just met Dr Hamilton and he turn to Tom, he said by the way Bud is going to teach our course in Public policy analysis this spring. And that was first I heard of it I said I am. So yes you will do great, it's such a good thing for you. You should do this, and I said I think I should do this, I will be happy to do that, so right there at the Palace hotel, I was giving a really great job to teach down the street here at Golden Gate University, which I did for five years. I taught Public Policy Analysis, Administrative Law, Values and Conflicts in Public Management. That's were the ideas that are reflected in the book, that we just wrote over the last two years germinated, and those classes with those students, but before I could finish sort of a getting a Phd I was pursuing a doctorate while I was here at Golden Gate, the Washington States Supreme court well, thank you, Washington states Supreme court they admitted me to the practice of law. I returned to Washington State and I did practice law for the next 25 years, I got to take the Bar exams again which I have to you have a look at law books for 12 years it's an interesting experience. I went into sign up for the Bar review course which had a rule that, if you have taken their their course and fail the exam you could take it again for free, so I went back up and went into pay my money and the lady who is there was just a wonderful person, she said you know, you took it before after taking our course and you pass the written portion but you fail in the practical come in the fourth amendment. Oh well so she said that kinds of series of failure in my book, I say well mine too, I would agree with that so, she giving my free ticket and I took the course. And then I practice law, in the law firm that had represented me for the previous seven years, and I stayed with them for 15 years. I think it's probably a good time to to getting some questions that you all might have heard about this I see that there is at least one. Thank you very much.