[0:00]We're in an era where we hear a lot about facts, what's true, who to believe, what is real
[0:06]journalism, and we turn now to an actual icon of traditional factual journalism. The Pulitzer
[0:13]Prize-winning reporter Bob Woodward is the author of over 20 best-selling books spanning
[0:18]10 presidencies, and he usually gets to his sources talking to presidents, the people around
[0:23]them, including President Trump, countless times. Of course, his reporting with Carl Bernstein
[0:27]helped uncover the Watergate scandal that ultimately led President Nixon to resign.
[0:32]His most recent book, War, follows the literal and political wars faced in the U.S. over the last
[0:36]four years. It's out now, and he is, of course, at work on another book, which we'll hear about.
[0:41]Joining us now, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, Washington Post journalist, author Bob Woodward.
[0:46]Thanks for being here. Thank you. Great to have you. We have so much to get to. I want to
[0:51]start with investigative reporting and new evidence. We have this rather salacious
[0:59]birthday book from Jeffrey Epstein. This is something that President Trump denied
[1:04]submitting a card to, but now, from the Epstein estate, which is quite a source,
[1:09]it has been released under subpoena to the Congress and now to the public.
[1:13]What is the import, in your view, of getting the hard evidence like this? What does it tell
[1:17]us? There's nothing better than a first-hand source or a document or contemporaneous notes,
[1:26]something that has an automatic validity with readers and viewers.
[1:34]So this is compelling and is a mess for Trump. What I know about it is not a whole lot,
[1:46]but it sure looks like a lot of young women were abused in a way that is so appalling,
[1:56]so awful, so leveraging the seniority and the masculine identity, which Epstein was
[2:09]a practitioner of, I guess. I mean, he's now dead for six years, so he can't be interviewed.
[2:17]But this, my heart, quite frankly, goes out to the women who were abused in this
[2:26]way in such a massive, ugly way. Really ugly way. And what the birthday book,
[2:34]which is new, shows was a high degree of awareness by multiple people, including
[2:41]Donald Trump, what has been called the body or lecherous references, the drawing.
[2:50]Legally, and we have it here, it doesn't mean Donald Trump committed crimes with Epstein,
[2:57]but as evidence, it means he shows an awareness of some of what Epstein was doing,
[3:02]as do other entries. An awareness of fascination with it and a kind of participation
[3:11]in some of it. Now, it's not yet conclusive, but if you're looking at this as a reporter,
[3:20]you say, wow, Trump is, as they say in poker, all in on many of these phases that are
[3:30]now known and documented. And you've done this type of reporting with so many different politicians
[3:37]going at people in both parties. You were also sued by Trump at one point. He sued the Wall
[3:42]Street Journal saying there was no card. Now, as opposed to last week, we have the card from
[3:49]the Epstein estate. What should that tell us about how to assess these types of denials and
[3:55]even lawsuits from him and politicians who play this game? Well, in the case of the lawsuit
[4:01]against me, the judge has dismissed it and given Trump an opportunity, as he should,
[4:08]or as lawyers to come back and raise new questions. And that's what happens. But that's
[4:16]that's been dismissed. And it's about the publication of Trump's voice in interviews I did
[4:27]that Trump did voluntarily, acknowledged it was being recorded, acknowledged it was on the record.
[4:36]So it's very much a clear case. And I think the judge understands this. But again, you never
[4:45]know what's going to happen in a court case. But with Trump suing the Wall Street Journal over
[4:49]something that's now been highly corroborated, how do we take that lawsuit? It's all for show.
[4:56]Well, there's a lot. I mean, Trump definitely thinks that if you sue somebody
[5:03]and it's not just his supporters, but I think there's well, somebody suing, there's at least
[5:09]a question. And it is a way to gain the appearance or the reality of leverage. And
[5:19]then we see some lawsuits. I mean, you know this as a lawyer that in lawsuits, sometimes
[5:28]it's good at answering questions. And sometimes it's terrible because it gets settled or
[5:36]it goes off on some side issue and so forth. So this will play out.
[5:44]The other reporting this week from the New York Times is deep investigative work, interviews,
[5:50]documents, some material that had been under seal to show that this big bank,
[5:55]J.P. Morgan, really did look the other way while these crimes were occurring
[6:02]and had some of its bankers allegedly involved in some of the very business
[6:08]Epstein was up to, which is a conflict, if not worse. I wonder what you think we
[6:15]should do with this kind of reporting in a time where-
[6:17]Well, we should appraise it. It's a masterpiece. I've read it twice, I think,
[6:25]of that kind of in-depth reporting and it takes a new angle. J.P. Morgan, what did they know and
[6:35]when did they know it and what did they do? I salute the New York Times because that clearly
[6:44]took a great deal of effort and investigative chops and experience and probably entered
[6:55]I'm sure editors. What about this? What about that? Go back to so and so.
[7:01]How is that different from the world we're in where everyone has an opinion or a conspiracy
[7:05]theory about Epstein versus that kind of dogged reporting?
[7:09]Well, we need more dogged reporting and an old theme. There's nothing like a first-hand
[7:19]witness. Somebody who's a reporter can sit with and say what happened? When was it?
[7:25]Do you have any notes? Are there any documents? What do you think this means?
[7:31]The last question is always who else knows about this? What's their phone number? How
[7:38]can I get in touch with them? Have you spoken with them? And again, the variable in all of
[7:47]this is time. As somebody who's worked for the Post for over 50 years and done what, 23 books,
[7:58]I have the luxury of time. No one says you have to turn it in now, even a book. If I say I need
[8:08]new time, more time, the publisher Jonathan Carpet, my publisher Simon and Schuster,
[8:17]yes, I mean, take it. But then you're putting yourself out and say, you know, it's going to
[8:24]be worth waiting for. You mentioned that you had the president on tape and that was agreed to
[8:30]and that was part of the dispute. I want to pull from some of that as we've done before
[8:35]because it's this evidence of how he was thinking then in the White House in the first
[8:39]term. Some things he was thwarted. Now he's back and we've seen what the second term feels
[8:45]like. Here he was saying, when asked about achievements, what he wanted to do to people
[8:50]in government. Take a listen. I will consider this one of my greatest achievements, getting
[8:56]the scum out of government. And it's scum. It's the lowest form of human garbage. These
[9:02]people. And I don't mean FBI people. I mean top people in the FBI. What do you hear there?
[9:09]And is that part of his agenda today? Well, I mean, it's retribution, it's vengeance now
[9:17]and people who've investigated him or people who've crossed him, he will say things like
[9:24]that and make judgments. But that's his style and he thinks it's worked for him.
[9:32]And is it worse? By which I mean, is it testing or crossing legal and governing lines more in
[9:42]the second term than the first when he did seem held back by some?
[9:45]Well, people say that and there's some evidence of that. I don't know if you can make a full
[9:51]comparison. But let's see. In the Epstein case, it came up a couple of months ago
[10:04]and now all of a sudden there is this avalanche of new evidence, including drawings and
[10:11]allegedly Trump's signature. And it's the old boys club meeting and talking about girls.
[10:23]It's the undertow and on the surface, some of it's pretty racy and sexist.
[10:33]Sure. And there's been sex trafficking and crimes convicted there. When you hear that
[10:38]language, because he's on the phone with you, that was 2019. He sounded more raw in the call
[10:44]than in say a press conference at the time. The scum, the garbage. And you were recounting
[10:49]from your notes how at times hate was a theme and you were down in Mar-a-Lago and
[10:55]you're reporting. Tell me about that. Yeah, I'm sorry, I gathered some background
[11:01]on this, which is you have to understand it. And I make inevitably and I think based on evidence
[11:12]a comparison between Nixon and Trump. And if you go back and you look at Nixon the day he
[11:20]resigned, he said, I mean, this is two years after Watergate and he was held accountable by
[11:30]the system, the media and the investigators. And Nixon said, always remember there are those
[11:42]who hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them and then you destroy yourself.
[11:51]What an amazing point. I mean, hate is the piston. Hate is what really destroyed him
[12:02]and you see his downfall in all of this. Now if you fast, so this is 1972 to 1974,
[12:13]fast forward to 2020. Now this is 45 years later. I'm down in Mar-a-Lago interviewing Trump,
[12:27]President Trump in the last year of his first presidency. And in this interview, Trump has
[12:38]his media person, Dan Scavino. Do you know him at all? Yeah, he did a lot of internet,
[12:45]social media. Now he's still at the White House this time. That's right. He's kind of the chief
[12:50]Trump media aide and he got out his laptop to show me some videos. Okay, so you're there
[12:58]with the president at his place, Mar-a-Lago. So you listen, the first video is of Bernie
[13:06]Sanders, the Democratic progressive senator from Vermont, you know. I mean, he's an outspoken
[13:14]anti-Trumper, but it's just a picture of him and not him speaking or Trump speaking and
[13:24]there's just background music. It's very strange and Trump is there right behind me
[13:30]and he looks at Bernie and he says, hate, see the hate, see the hate. And you know, Bernie Sanders
[13:40]was sitting there quite calmly. I was baffled. And then Trump, again, he's orchestrating all
[13:48]of this. He's producer, he's director and I'm listening. There's a video of Senator Elizabeth
[13:58]Warren, a progressive Democrat from Massachusetts there. And again, Trump's right here and looked
[14:06]at this and looked at what she was, just her picture, not something that really communicates
[14:15]a lot. It's kind of because there's the background and Trump, his voice with the
[14:22]deep conviction that sometimes you hear, hate, hate. So he's getting a rise out of this imagery.
[14:32]He's saying that they're the haters, but he's feeling some sort of strong energy about it.
[14:37]Well, he is and he sees hate when it's, you know, the videos are kind of passive. Then
[14:46]Kamala Harris comes on. And again, he's right behind me and he points at this video that he's
[14:56]asked Gavino to put up. Hate, hate. And I thought, what the hell is going on? And still
[15:06]a mystery to me. I mean, obviously he feels some hate. No question about that. But he sees
[15:14]in others this hate. And, you know, and then you look at things Trump has said, you know,
[15:23]there is the famous, I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody
[15:30]and I wouldn't lose any votes. I mean, who in American life or American politics would
[15:40]say that? But then he goes on. I mean, in one of his giving, he's giving a speech and there's
[15:47]some ruckus around there. And this is 2017 and the police are arresting people and Trump is
[15:56]again producing and directing. He said, please don't be too nice. Then there's another
[16:06]gathering and Trump says about the Montana governor who assaulted a reporter said,
[16:14]any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type. You know, so there's.
[16:21]Right. And you talk about being aware, involved in glorifying what Epstein did,
[16:27]that type of crime against minors. You talk about rampant violence here,
[16:32]there's a theme of him condoning. Yeah. And, and a scene when it isn't necessarily
[16:41]there. I mean, he, he says, and he said this often, there has to be retribution
[16:48]that he really believes now retribution is a form of vengeance, isn't it? I mean,
[16:57]he says it. And now we know he is practicing it when it. Well, let me press you on the
[17:03]comparison to Nixon because on his way out the door, Nixon is still saying,
[17:09]whether he acted that way or not, he's saying, don't give into the hate.
[17:13]By contrast, you're, you're showing evidence about Trump giving into it and having a team
[17:19]around him that wants to almost work him up. Well, yes, but, but Nixon's resigning. Yeah.
[17:24]The, as I recall, Trump never, I mean, one of the things interview in 1989, we,
[17:34]Carl Bernstein and I did with Trump, Trump laid out some of his, and this is, he's not
[17:41]in politics. He's a New York real estate entrepreneur at this time. And one of his
[17:48]doctrines, he says, don't fold, never fold, never give in. And we see that practiced
[17:58]in his presidency. Absolutely. And we just saw him join together with Putin again,
[18:05]but not seem to get anything out of it for the United States or our interests in the region.
[18:09]Best we can tell. And when you talk to him, you, you raise the question of this
[18:15]relationship and he did sound somewhat gullible while you raise sort of the foreign policy
[18:24]implications. Take a listen.
[18:27]Put respects me and I respect Putin. I think Putin likes me. I think I like him.
[18:33]So do you want Putin to be afraid of you?
[18:38]I want Putin to respect our country. Okay.
[18:41]And what would he respect?
[18:43]Well, you know, first of all, you know, it's sort of interesting. He said very good things about
[18:46]me. He said Trump is brilliant and Trump is going to be the new leader and all that.
[18:50]And some of these clowns said, you should repudiate Putin. I said, why would I repute
[18:55]him? But respect the former KGB lieutenant colonel force. I think power, I think he
[19:02]respects strength. Okay. Isn't it so nice to be able to interview him that way where I can
[19:11]try to prepare my questions and there are follow ups. Maybe you can think of, I certainly
[19:19]looking at and listening, I can think of more questions I should have asked, but there's some,
[19:25]I mean, the line, I like Putin. I think he likes me. What does that mean?
[19:34]Well, we have intelligence experts, veterans in both parties who say that other leaders,
[19:40]KGB experienced or not, do try to manipulate in foreign policy. That's part of it. And as
[19:47]effective as Trump has been about certain things in his conversation with you and in general,
[19:53]he sounds almost unaware of that. He just says, they like me. They're bringing me gifts.
[19:58]I mean, he sounds almost naive, although we know in many respects, he's not.
[20:03]No, but on this, he might be, and there is this debate in the intelligence community about,
[20:12]has he been taken in by Putin? Because the Trump-Putin relationship is one of the most
[20:21]important in the world and having reported on it for years, it's not clear. There are
[20:29]elements of, I like him, he likes me, and then there are elements of,
[20:35]hey, he's got to stop some of these things. Now, if you look at the history of this,
[20:42]which again, I have the luxury of time to do, what happened in Ukraine in 2021,
[20:52]Putin issued a manifesto about Ukraine. And he said, Ukraine really is and always has been part
[21:03]of Russia. And one of his pieces of evidence is, it goes back to the ninth century. What
[21:10]an American politician can say, part of the basis for this is what happened in the ninth
[21:18]century. But here, Putin is unfurling this. And if you look at what's happened in Ukraine,
[21:28]it's been manifest, clear that Putin thinks it belongs to Russia and he's going to take it.
[21:39]And the little element of it, it goes back to the ninth century. I remember reading and
[21:47]thinking, wow, that's, you know, he's making as forceful an argument as he can in the year
[21:56]that was 2021. Do you think the United States got anything out of the Putin summit? Because
[22:04]he got to be on the world stage at a time where he has, of course, been really viewed
[22:08]as an outlaw or an alleged war criminal. Trump, of course, famously vowed things that
[22:16]didn't happen, like a ceasefire. But did the U.S. get anything out of it? And does Trump then
[22:21]just move past that in your experience? He just sort of ignores the fact that he failed
[22:25]the objectives he'd previewed? Well, he's capable of that. But what's important,
[22:31]what's really going on is, I mean, that war has gotten worse, much, much more violent.
[22:38]Russia really attacking Ukraine in a brutal way, attacking civilians, attacking apartment houses.
[22:51]I mean, that's the kind of war you don't want in your country.
[22:56]Yeah. I also wanted to ask you about the power of history. We sometimes hear the term
[23:03]history. Watergate is seen as a high water mark where you're reporting other independent
[23:10]accounts. And ultimately, what a coequal branch did in the Watergate committee helped
[23:16]reveal facts in not real time, perhaps, but close to it. The January 6 committee was given
[23:24]high marks by many for doing that and expanding our understanding of what led up
[23:29]to that terrible day. The DOJ, of course, prosecuted many people. Donald Trump won,
[23:35]came in and issued the widest pardons for crimes against the U.S. in modern history,
[23:39]a very controversial thing that many people have just sort of moved on from.
[23:43]Now it's not enough. They should.
[23:45]Well, go ahead, and then I'll show you something.
[23:46]Because that's very significant. That's a reward for service.
[23:51]There's a headline I'm sure you've seen. Beyond even the pardoning of the people
[23:56]who stormed the Capitol, you have Republicans establish a new committee, which they say will
[24:02]investigate the January 6 attack, political reports, the latest chapter in the Republican
[24:06]effort to rewrite the history of events at the Capitol. And I just wanted to get your
[24:11]view on that, because the high water mark can be a factual investigation. The January
[24:16]6 committee was bipartisan. It just wasn't people who supported Trump and opposed him.
[24:22]Some of the Republicans who were on there, famously Liz Cheney, were conservative Republicans
[24:27]who were critical of Trump for Jan 6. What do you think of the danger or the problem if
[24:34]the government, rather than trying to uncover facts, gets involved in
[24:39]rewriting the history of propaganda? But the element that is so different
[24:44]in the case of Nixon, and it was Katherine Graham who was the publisher owner of the
[24:50]Washington Post, after Nixon resigned, said to Ben Bradley, the editor, you know, we were
[24:58]fortunate enough to have a president that we were investigating who was mad enough to tape
[25:06]himself. In other words, Nixon provided the devastating evidence about his criminality.
[25:18]We don't, at least at this point, know whether Trump is taping himself. Maybe he is.
[25:26]We're treated to surprises every day in this era.
[25:30]But can you think of any other time where a government public fact-finding would be trying
[25:37]to erase the facts, in the same way that he erased the convictions?
[25:41]Yeah, well, it's all about the quality of evidence, I think. And do they have, firsthand,
[25:50]I suspect and hope in the coming years we're going to learn more about
[25:57]what really went on in the White House. I don't know that Trump has a secret taping system.
[26:05]I suspect probably he does not, but if he does, we may be beneficiaries of much more
[26:17]firsthand information here.
[26:19]The flip side is that some people look at the Watergate era as catalyzing
[26:26]a posture for the press where everyone wanted to be Woodward and Bernstein, even if they
[26:34]didn't have the goods, or they wanted to go on the attack first. We dug up,
[26:39]because we like to get into it here, you and Tom Brokaw, 1978, discussing that
[26:48]temptation, perhaps. And as we know, there are plenty of people on the internet who are
[26:52]critical of traditional journalism and say, oh, it's also negative, or it just is critical
[26:57]first. So let's take a look at this. This is from 1978.
[27:00]Do you think that that standard has been sliding some, that the press has been kind of
[27:06]thrashing about in an effort to capitalize on another Watergate and finding more shadow
[27:11]than scandal often?
[27:13]I don't think the press collectively is aware of, or fully aware of the power
[27:18]that it has and we have. And I think with that comes a responsibility and a caution that
[27:25]perhaps is not there that it should be.
[27:28]Ever measured, Bob Woodward? Does that apply today as well?
[27:34]Well, I mean, I'm sorry. I noticed that my hair was not gray at that time.
[27:41]First things first. Those were the days.
[27:43]Yeah, first thing. I mean, wow. It was a long time ago. I'm sorry, your question.
[27:49]Well, you said already.
[27:50]Because I was, I'm sorry.
[27:51]You were mesmerized.
[27:53]Well, I apologize for my...
[27:55]You said the press isn't always collectively fully aware of its power.
[28:01]And with that comes a responsibility and sometimes perhaps a caution that's not there,
[28:06]which should be.
[28:08]Yes, I think that's exactly right. And again, this goes to being the beneficiary
[28:15]of having time. You have no... Each night you do your show. You sit here and you can't
[28:23]say to the director and the producer, oh, well, let's hold all that and I'll do it tomorrow
[28:29]and do nothing. But in daily journalism, you have to produce.
[28:37]For having the license the Washington Post has given me to take time
[28:44]and publisher Simon & Schuster to write books, I can always say I need more time.
[28:51]And time against the problem is the golden variable here.
[28:58]It's interesting you say that because I'll share. I was talking to someone recently about how
[29:01]in print, when it's not ready, it shouldn't be published.
[29:07]And sometimes, as you said, the writer says, I don't have it, I need more.
[29:10]Sometimes the editor says, I don't think you have it.
[29:12]But having done both types of journalism, when we're doing print, writing,
[29:19]you have that checkpoint. And with TV, right, live TV news, we're going on the air.
[29:26]If you're sick, someone else will replace you, but we're going on the air either way.
[29:30]And so the responsibility then becomes, how do you talk about something if it hasn't been
[29:34]fully confirmed? Classic breaking news example is, in the first moments of a shooting,
[29:42]we don't expect to know a lot. And we try in real time to tell the viewer,
[29:46]we don't know yet whether it's one or two active shooters, or the authorities said this,
[29:50]that's preliminary. We try to really be clear about what we don't know.
[29:54]But unlike the article, we're still out there.
[29:57]And then the internet, of course, has made it even faster. Your thoughts?
[30:00]Yeah, I mean, and again, this idea of caution is really important.
[30:06]I remember after Nixon resigned, Catherine Graham, the owner, publisher,
[30:12]again, wrote Carl Bernstein and myself a letter, but it wasn't on stationery.
[30:18]It was just a yellow legal paper. And it said, Dear Carl and Bob,
[30:27]Nixon's gone. Don't start thinking too highly of yourselves. And then she said,
[30:34]let me give you some advice. And then she pulled out all the stops and she said,
[30:41]beware the demon pomposity. Great advice to all of us. Beware the demon pomposity.
[30:54]And especially in this town. Yeah, well, and I think in any town,
[30:58]I mean, I just think it doesn't work and it can be very self-defeating.
[31:04]And I love that and keep a copy of it on the wall in my office.
[31:10]You do. You still have it. Yes. Because the demon pomposity is out there.
[31:18]And one of the things that I think it takes a while to understand,
[31:24]people don't like that. Readers, viewers, if you come on and you're not,
[31:30]I think you're very restrained. But if you come on and you sound pompous,
[31:35]uh, doesn't work. People can really nullify and crucify really what you do.
[31:45]You're absolutely right. Especially because we're dealing with information.
[31:50]People have different expertise and access to information. So to say,
[31:57]oh, you might know more about this means you know more than everyone is always going
[32:01]to be false. Someone is going to know more about other things, you know,
[32:04]as for the pomposity, I still, it's a perfect lead into a great film that might have gotten
[32:11]other journalists high on their horses. Because you were both portrayed,
[32:17]you and Carl by such big actors, especially in that, in that time.
[32:20]Let's take a look at all the president's men.
[32:25]I don't think you're saying what you mean. I know exactly what I mean.
[32:29]Not here. I can't tell from this whether Hunt works for Colson or Colson works for Hunt.
[32:32]May I have it?
[32:33]Some of your conclusions.
[32:34]May I have it?
[32:34]Yes. I'm not looking for a fight.
[32:36]I'm not looking for a fight either.
[32:37]You're going to do it. Do it right. Here's my notice.
[32:39]If you're going to hype it, hype it with the facts.
[32:41]I don't mind what you did. I mind the way you did it.
[32:45]Uh, did your life change at all after the movie? And, and I know the point about not being
[32:52]taken in by it all, but it also must've been a kind of an interesting thrill.
[32:56]Well, I think it's something that, again, you,
[33:01]Katherine Graham's advice, beware the demon pomposity. And I remember seeing that movie
[33:09]with Elsa and my young daughter, and I think she was about six, and I'm sitting next to her,
[33:17]and we're watching it, and she's kind of uneasy in the chair the whole time.
[33:23]And at the end, I asked Diana what she thought, and because she's from Washington, she talks as
[33:32]she says, A, the guy playing you doesn't look at all like you. B, boring, boring, boring.
[33:44]Wow.
[33:45]Yeah, she knew how to stick it to dad.
[33:48]Well, as you and I know, and I say this with all, you know, all good humor, there aren't a lot of
[33:55]movies about the process of journalism for good reason. Real journalism is a lot of
[34:00]reading and checking and digging, and that doesn't make for some great film. I mean,
[34:05]it's sitting in a room double checking facts and footnotes doesn't usually make for a movie.
[34:10]They found a way, of course, to get into it, to make it a story.
[34:15]Yeah. Well, of course, the All the President's Men movie goes through
[34:22]the bulk of it until we made a mistake. We said that the testimony to the grand jury
[34:30]about Nixon's number one aide, Haldeman, and that it implicated him, and it turns out we
[34:38]were wrong. And of course, the lesson we learned there, one of them was keep checking.
[34:46]But we had a very good source who's the treasurer for the Nixon campaign, Hugh Sloan.
[34:54]And after we ran the story and it was denied, we talked to Sloan and said,
[35:01]Sloan, I mean, you said that Haldeman controlled the secret fund that funding
[35:08]Watergate and some of the other undercover activities and said yes, but at the grand jury,
[35:15]no one asked. I mean, that's a stab. And when we corrected it, but the fact was true,
[35:28]but the attribution was wrong.
[35:32]Right. And you're making a subtle and important distinction, which is something could be true.
[35:36]There could be corroboration for that claim, but whether the investigative process had presented
[35:42]it that way was different. And at that time, while you were a fair and objective reporter,
[35:48]there were plenty of people in the country who already decided and thought Nixon did something
[35:52]wrong. And who defended him, silent majority. But whether people thought he did something wrong
[36:00]was not the biggest reporting issue. You were reporting on whether this investigation and
[36:06]this process was going to actually change his presidency, right?
[36:10]See, this is the joy again of having time. And Watergate
[36:18]had more than 50 years. And one of the things I just realized, this was some actual months ago,
[36:28]is the mistake Nixon made in his people that the break in to the Democratic headquarters was
[36:38]a felony. It was a crime. And as we know, there are lots of shenanigans that go on in
[36:44]Washington that are investigated, but are not certified crimes. Breaking and entering
[36:53]is a certified crime. That gave legs and power to the investigative authorities
[37:03]in the Justice Department and in the Congress and frankly in the press. This was not just
[37:12]a shenanigan. This was an ugly felony break in. And of course, that was the mistake
[37:24]that Nixon and his people made. And they could have done and they did all kinds of other things
[37:31]that were just as distasteful and ugly, but never that kind of crime where you could,
[37:40]ah, that's a felony other than the break in. And the courts were a backstop. The district
[37:47]court dealt with the Watergate burglars. There were heavy sentences ultimately handed out.
[37:52]By Judge Sirica. Yeah, Judge Sirica and other prosecutors talked about how that
[37:57]fortified the investigative process. And ultimately, very famously, the Supreme Court
[38:03]ruled against Nixon. It seems we're in a bit of a different situation today. I was
[38:07]thinking about your book, The Brethren, which covered the Supreme Court at a different time.
[38:12]And you write there from your observation that those justices, quote, were horrified at the
[38:19]prospect of major decisions being reversed in a year's time. The court would appear to be
[38:24]political. It's decisions less rooted in the law than in the personalities, politics of the
[38:29]individual justices. I wonder how you compare that to now where the fairest way I can say
[38:36]it is the Senate's process for picking justices has gotten far more political and partisan than
[38:43]even then. Well, I mean, the president's pick justices. No, but the Senate, that's the way
[38:48]the Senate has the way the Senate has dealt with the process. The litmus tests, you know,
[38:54]what they want vis a vis the president has gotten, I think, more partisan on both both
[38:59]parties. And then the Republicans more on their side than the Democrats have been able
[39:05]to effectively get more judges onto the Supreme Court, famously not going through the process for
[39:12]Obama. So that's what I would call a very partisan act. They didn't even hold the hearings.
[39:18]And then, of course, Trump got several justices on the court now. They all
[39:23]insist they're independent. But I'm going to put up a bunch of cases on ICE raids,
[39:30]on an approach to government firings, Trump won, at least the early round
[39:36]on removing agency heads, which previous to the second term was not something the president could
[39:41]do without cause on certain types of deportations. I should mention he's also lost
[39:46]many early rounds on other cases. But your thoughts? No, I mean, it's very important
[39:53]here. And people are writing or broadcasting that the Supreme Court has
[39:59]become kind of a rubber stamp. Do you think that's do you think that's happening?
[40:03]There's some truth, but I know something about the Supreme Court having written about it and
[40:10]followed it. And the really important character is the justice, the collective
[40:19]justice, as I shouldn't say, it's the characters. The thing they hate the most
[40:26]is for somebody to say they're a rubber stamp. And there will come a point, if they are a
[40:32]rubber stamp now, where they will declare in a very emphatic way their independence,
[40:40]as the Supreme Court did with, say, Nixon tapes or some other time. And they will
[40:49]do something. What issue? I mean, do you think that would be elections or we just don't know?
[40:54]Obviously, I don't know. But I know from no one likes to be. I mean, it's like if you're a
[41:02]reporter, they say, oh, so and so is in the bag with the Republicans or the Democrats. No
[41:11]reporter, even some that are, don't like that. They want to be independent. And I think the
[41:18]Supreme Court, a moment will come where they will say in order to declare our independence,
[41:28]and maybe for good legal reasons, they will do something that will surprise everyone.
[41:34]Interesting. And that's very interesting coming from you. Before we get to the end here,
[41:39]and I have something fun at the very end, we're speaking at a time of tremendous strain
[41:45]in the media industry. I put up some headlines where big companies and some billionaire
[41:52]individuals have more sway than ever. At Washington Post, where you've been a long time,
[41:58]Jeff Bezos has been making some changes. Over at CBS, we've seen a lot of controversy
[42:04]about Skydance taking over Paramount. Metta, which is Facebook, and we don't think of
[42:09]as traditional journalism, reaches more people than many journalist outlets. And they made this
[42:14]announcement in conjunction with Trump's coming back into office that they would end
[42:19]fact checking. That's their term. I mean, it's not criticism. They just said, you know,
[42:23]we're not going to do a lot of facts around here. Amazing, wasn't it? Yeah, I mean, it's
[42:28]really. And then, of course, Musk was a billionaire who's been close to the president
[42:32]then had a falling out with the president, bought one of the biggest platforms, which had,
[42:36]X had been a real partner in getting a lot of stories out. Now, they've changed the algorithm,
[42:42]they've changed the political orientation. He has the legal right to do that as a publisher,
[42:45]of course, but it's had profound implications. The question, big picture.
[42:51]Should people who care about journalism be concerned about this level of billionaire
[42:58]control and sway? Yes. Go ahead. Yeah, I mean, more than concerned, it's worrisome. But
[43:06]interestingly enough, just like going back to Watergate, the character of the editor really
[43:16]matters. Yes, the character of the owner and the publisher matters. We are lucky at the
[43:25]Washington Post to have an editor, Matt Murray, who I know a little bit. Not well,
[43:32]but I've followed his work of colleagues of mine at the Post. And he is independent. He
[43:42]is interested in the facts and no publisher or owner. And that includes, up to this point,
[43:51]Jeff Bezos, is going to tell him what to do. And so there is a clarion call of independence there.
[44:02]I find very comforting. Not certain. I'd rather say you own the Washington Post.
[44:10]I'm not in the running, but thank you. Not that I know of. But what about CBS,
[44:16]where the 60 minutes long time executive in charge of the entire editorial left
[44:25]over the new ownership because he said there was meddling? Yes, and he was right. I've done
[44:31]lots of 60 minutes interviews for six or seven books I've done. And it's never been
[44:38]edited or taken a political position. And what's happened here I think is tragic. And I
[44:48]feel that it's very important that the people find their legs and their strength. And the
[44:58]strength is never in bowing. That's a weakness. The strength is saying this is what I see. This
[45:08]is the evidence. This is what we're doing. And that's very clear going back to Vietnam and
[45:18]the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. And there have been interludes of real strength
[45:26]demonstrated by the media. And there have been some quivers of weakness. And the people who
[45:36]do this and own it have a real opportunity to say this is the business we're in,
[45:44]not the business of catering or bowing or kowtowing to some independent authority
[45:54]that wants things to go a certain way. But the job is very old Walter Cronkite.
[46:03]And that's the way it is. And that's the way it is. Yeah, I like that. All right,
[46:10]I have something fun. And then we're going to close up. But we get this special time with you.
[46:14]And I've said it. You're very patient. Thank you. Well, I've said it. I've enjoyed
[46:18]our conversations. And it's not, I don't think, overly complimenting you because the
[46:24]record and history speaks for itself that we value the time with you and the lessons of
[46:28]journalism and what you said, the lessons of hard work and humility. We also have a little
[46:33]fun around here. You've seen the show. You know, we don't take ourselves too seriously. We
[46:36]dug up some of the pop culture Bob Woodward Watergate references. We're talking about
[46:43]cartoons. We're talking about sometimes it's maybe they love you. Sometimes it might just
[46:47]be you're the most famous reporter, print reporter the writer's room could think of.
[46:54]But it's kind of fun to see. Let's take a look. This is a big story. Can you believe it? It's
[47:00]like we're Woodward and Berenstain. Follow the honey. I'd like to talk about a huge
[47:05]threat facing our nation. A new book written about me by the highly discredited Bob Woodward.
[47:15]You'll be careful. Careful enough. Well, stay on it. You bet. I love this. We just had
[47:21]a very all the president's men moment. Very. Moving around the newsroom like that.
[47:25]Well, good. He famously remarked, we are all the president's men,
[47:29]giving Woodward and Bernstein their title.
[47:34]Had you seen all these and do you ever get to sit back and enjoy it for a second?
[47:42]You know, I go back to that Katherine Graham line. I knew you were going to say that.
[47:48]I mean, it's on the wall that it's it's in my head. Beware of the demon pomposity.
[47:55]But had you seen the cartoon? Have you seen Family Guy?
[47:57]I've seen some of them and not all of them.
[48:00]And the Bernstein becoming Bearstein, a nice animal bear pun, you know,
[48:07]low hanging fruit, but still fun to do. Yeah, that's fine. I mean, we're all game,
[48:12]right? In closing, I like to do this sometimes with you. You know, finish the sentence.
[48:19]Now, more than ever, real journalism must be tough and independent.
[48:29]The thing I've learned from being a reporter, being Bob Woodward now 50 years is
[48:36]it's easy to be wrong. And the only way the only insurance policy
[48:44]is time and skepticism and great producers and editors who will go, wait a minute, what the?
[48:56]The thing people underestimate or under appreciate about President Donald Trump is
[49:05]that he has captured the presidency twice. That's a big deal. It's unexpected.
[49:18]And so the real question is going to be how will he be judged in history? And
[49:28]it history can be a lot tougher than people who are living, I think.
[49:38]And the thing a journalist has to do when you're covering a politician who constantly lies is
[49:48]wake up and your first thought needs to be what are the bastards hiding?
[49:54]Final two. What concerns me about America right now is
[50:08]I mean, there's so many concerns. One of the questions is leadership and independence and
[50:17]who do we serve? Who do we serve? The people. I mean, I wrote something down here
[50:27]what the job of the president is once I asked Trump and he said it's to protect the people.
[50:36]That's a good answer. But there's a better answer. The job of the president is to find
[50:42]the next stage of good for the greatest number of people in the country. I like that big task.
[50:51]But it's possible to do. You and I could spend a day going through what's the next stage of good
[50:58]really for the country, not partisan, not personality driven. And I think that's
[51:06]ultimately the job of the president. Find that next stage of good, not just for a party or
[51:14]group, but for all the people. And you're elucidating something the
[51:19]founders talked a lot about, which was fighting against factionalism and partisanship
[51:25]and trying to create a system that would engender public service for all the people,
[51:30]for the greatest good. That certainly is a danger sometimes. The final question was
[51:37]what makes me optimistic about America right now is
[51:42]the strength and character of its people.
[51:49]Bob Woodward, thank you so much. Great to have you back on the beat.