← Slow Burn
Slow Burn
Watergate | 2. The Defeat of Wright Patman
00:28:54
The first Watergate hearings didn't go so well.
Loading summary
Transcript69 lines
- [00:00]
Apartments.com Advertiser
Ever walk past a place for rent and wish you could just take a peek inside, Maybe even explore the layout? Envision the natural light streaming through the windows, or plan where your vinyl record collection would go@apments.com you can. With tools like their 3D virtual tours, you can see the exact unit you could be living in. Really envision yourself in your new home with Apartments.com, the place to find a place.
- [00:28]
Susan Matthews
Hi, I'm Susan Matthews, one of the hosts of Slow Burn. Thanks for joining us for episode two of this season. I hope you're enjoying the story so far. I want to let you know that after this episode, the rest of the season will be available exclusively to Slate plus members. Becoming a member gets you full access to every season of Slow Burn plus ad, free listening and exclusive bonus episodes from your other favorite Slate podcasts, and it helps support the work we do here at Slate. Stick around to the end of the episode for more about why Slate plus is so essential, how you can join, and what you will get when you do.
- [01:06]
Leon Neyfak
The following podcast contains explicit language Wright Patman was a congressman from Texas. He was a populist who hated Wall street banks and the politicians who coddled them. He was sort of the Elizabeth Warren of his time. Strictly speaking, the Watergate affair wasn't really any of Patman's business, but he had a couple of questions anyway. Why were the burglars who broke into Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate carrying thousands of dollars in hundred dollar bills? And why were the serial numbers on those hundred dollar bills in sequential order? And why had one of those burglars received a deposit of $89,000 in checks from a Mexican bank?
- [01:46]
News Reporter
That bank account belongs to one of the men arrested June 17 at 2:30 in the morning in the national headquarters of the Democratic Party.
- [01:54]
Leon Neyfak
For Patman, all that money was a huge red flag. It suggested that this was not a third rate burglary as the White House was insisting, but rather a well funded, high level operation.
- [02:06]
News Reporter
The case is still being investigated and the mystery remains.
- [02:12]
Leon Neyfak
Patman was a Democrat who had been in Congress since 1929. At the time of the break in, In June of 1972, he was just shy of 80 years old and in the twilight of his career as chair of the House Banking Committee. Patman's mission had always been to represent the interests of common people, small business owners, farmers, veterans, and to limit the power of greedy executives and predatory lenders.
- [02:35]
Wright Patman
The first 10 or 15 years I was in Congress, times were very hard and people were in distress. Millions of people unemployed.
- [02:45]
Leon Neyfak
Patman really didn't trust the big banks. He believed that they should be run like public utilities, not profit generating businesses. The fact that the Watergate burgers had so many sequential bills on them made Patman suspect that there had to be some kind of banking connection to explore.
- [02:59]
Nancy Beck Young
When Patman learned about the Watergate burglary, immediately after it happened, he smelled a rat.
- [03:06]
Leon Neyfak
That's Nancy Beck Young, a historian at the University of Houston who wrote a book about Wright Patman.
- [03:11]
Nancy Beck Young
He thought that something was off and a congressional investigation was necessary, and he thought that his committee was the proper place for that.
- [03:21]
Leon Neyfak
Patman had the power to open a congressional investigation into pretty much anything as long as it had a banking angle. In the past, he had used that authority to look into drug trafficking, stock manipulation, and tax evasion. So when he got curious about Watergate, he assigned a couple of his best people to look into it, and they did aggressively. Now, I should tell you right off the bat that Patman's investigation did not end well. He and his team got pretty much dismantled by the Nixon machine and their efforts were mostly lost to history. Remember, this all took place nearly two years before Nixon's eventual resignation. At this point, the White House cover up was holding together quite well. Nixon and his people took the Patman threat very seriously. They could see that his team was doing real detective work, flying around the country, meeting with Republican fundraisers. Even more concerning was that Patman was demanding that White House aides come before the Banking Committee and answer his questions in public. Richard Nixon did not want his administration subjected to high profile hearings on Watergate before the 1972 election. Such a spectacle could prove disastrous to the campaign. And so Nixon and his cronies neutralized Patman's investigation with both surgical interference and brute force. This is a story about being thwarted. It's about what it feels like when you realize there's a swindle going on and the swindlers are just going to get away with it and there's nothing you can do to stop them. During the summer and fall of 1972, Wright Patman was one of a handful of people who tried to stop Richard Nixon from getting away with it. As the old congressman from Texas and his team of investigators scrambled to find out the truth about Watergate, Election day hung over them, a point of no return.
- [05:05]
Nancy Beck Young
Patman thought the investigation before his committee needed to happen before the American people voted. He thought that for the investigation to not happen, the election would be a travesty.
- [05:17]
Leon Neyfak
What happens when the President uses the machinery of the government to protect himself against an outside threat. What does it feel like when you are that threat? When the most powerful person in the country shuts you down. This is Slow Burn, a podcast about Watergate. I'm your host, Leon Naifak.
- [05:34]
News Reporter
A lot of hard words were traded in Washington today as Wright Patman issues subpoenas.
- [05:39]
Curtis Prinz
He told me, I want you to start investigating the Watergate break in.
- [05:44]
Wright Patman
How far has this administration gone to put down and harass its enemies?
- [05:50]
Leon Neyfak
Episode 2 the defeat of Wright Patman. Patman became a congressman just a few months before the stock market crash that preceded the Great Depression. He didn't waste any time. In 1932, he did something unthinkable for a young congressman. He moved to impeach the Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon. The charge and see if this reminds you of anyone was profiting from private investments while in office. The impeachment inquiry ended when President Herbert Hoover forced Mellon out of office and made him the ambassador to England. For young Wright Patman, it counted as a victory. Patman didn't get any mellower over the next 40 years. And he didn't like Richard Nixon any more than he had liked Mellon. They were on opposite sides politically, of course, but it was personal, too. Back in 1946, when Nixon first ran for Congress, he beat Patman's friend Jerry Voorhis in an election. And he did it by accusing Voorhis of being a secret communist.
- [06:52]
Nancy Beck Young
From the beginning, Patman didn't like Nixon's tactics. Nixon had taken down someone he respected and so he had not been keen on Nixon for decades.
- [07:05]
Leon Neyfak
When Patman decided it was his duty to look into Watergate, he called on an investigator named Curtis Prinz. Before he came to work for Patman, Prinz had been a reporter for Financial News Service, where he covered Patman and the Banking Committee. Prinz's bosses at the publication were bank people and they hated Patman and they pushed Prinz to write stories slamming the congressman. But Prinze refused and he got fired for it. When Prinze told Patman he was out of work, Patman gave him a job. It was eight years later that Prinze got the assignment to investigate the Watergate burglary. He still remembers Patman putting him on the case.
- [07:43]
Curtis Prinz
He told me, I want you to start investigating the Watergate break in. That was it. He didn't announce it to anybody on the committee. He didn't announce it to the ranking Republican. He didn't put out a press release or anything. He was a one man committee.
- [08:02]
Leon Neyfak
The investigation formally began on August 17th. This was a few weeks after the Washington Post had reported that one of the burglars had received an $89,000 bundle of Mexican bank checks deposited in his account. Patman wanted to know where this money had come from. So Curtis Prinz started trying to retrace its steps. He went to Florida, he went. He went to Texas. He met with people in D.C. and he hit some dead ends. At one point, he got fixated on the burglar's latex gloves.
- [08:30]
Curtis Prinz
Back then, you couldn't just walk into Costco and get 300 pairs of latex gloves. You had to go to a doctor or someone like that to get them.
- [08:43]
Leon Neyfak
So Prinze obtained phone records for one of the burglars and he saw that there had been tons of calls between the burglar's house and a veterinary clinic in Virginia.
- [08:53]
Curtis Prinz
So the light bulbs went off and we figured, aha, that's where they were getting the latex gloves. Maybe that will help with a further trail.
- [09:03]
Leon Neyfak
It turned out that the burger's daughter had a sick poodle and she had been calling the vet nonstop to check on it. Prinz never did figure out where the burglars got their gloves. It wasn't all sick poodles, though. Pretty quickly, Prinz and the others confirmed that those Mexican checks worth $89,000 were political donations and they had passed through the Committee to Re Elect the President. In other words, a Watergate burglar had been paid a whole lot of money by the Nixon campaign. Prinze and his fellow investigators wanted to find out who approved the payment and exactly what services it was buying. On August 30, 1972, Patman's staff got a chance to ask Nixon's finance chief about it. His name was Maurice Stans. And Prinz and his colleagues met with him at the headquarters of the Committee to Re Elect the President. When they walked into the office, Prinz noticed a door leading to another room. At first he thought it was just a closet, but then he realized it was full of people.
- [10:03]
Curtis Prinz
As soon as we asked the question Prince, he and his lawyers would go to this room and open the door and it was like a clown car in there. There must have been 20 people in this little tiny room. They were all in suits and ties, and you could tell that they were people who were connected to something bigger than just a Committee to Re elect the President.
- [10:31]
Leon Neyfak
Prinz and the other two staffers, Jake Lewis and Paul Nelson, talked to Stans for two hours. He Stonewalled them the entire time.
- [10:39]
Curtis Prinz
Every time we'd ask a question, Stans would run to this room and then he would come back and say, well, I can't answer the question. It was clear he was trying to find out what we knew.
- [10:53]
Leon Neyfak
Prinz was furious and he couldn't help but show it.
- [10:57]
Curtis Prinz
At the end of the interview, Jake Lewis and Paul Nelson shook hands with Maurice Stans. And he came to me to shake my hand and I said, I'm not shaking your hand. And that kind of threw him back a little and it got him very upset.
- [11:16]
Leon Neyfak
After the meeting, Maurice Stans publicly denounced Patman's staff.
- [11:20]
Wright Patman
The manner in which certain staff members of the Patman Committee have behaved in this entire matter is the most shocking example of partisan misbehavior and discourtesy that I've encountered in all of my years in public life. They were rude and insulting to the point of using foul obscenities.
- [11:40]
Leon Neyfak
Stans said it was clear to him the Patman investigation was purely political. But Patman was not cowed. As he told reporters, it was actually Maurice Stans who was out of line.
- [11:51]
News Reporter
What about his attacks on the committee staff?
- [11:53]
Wright Patman
That they're acting, that's terrible. He, he's the one acting. Bad days.
- [11:57]
News Reporter
A lot of hard words were traded in Washington today as Congressman Wright Patman, chairman of the House Banking Committee, said he would ask his committee to issue subpoenas for John Mitchell and Maurice Stans.
- [12:09]
Leon Neyfak
Not long after the Stans meeting, Patman released a list of people that he wanted the Banking Committee to subpoena. Prince called it a phone book subpoena, a list of everyone who might conceivably have something relevant to say. So they cast a wide net. Even so, it's an impressively prescient list. Patman included not only John Mitchell from Nixon's re election campaign, who might have been an obvious choice, but also John Dean, the White House lawyer, and Fred LaRue, who turned out to have been in charge of paying hush money to the burglars. There was an obstacle though. Patman couldn't subpoena these guys on his own. He needed a majority of the Banking Committee to go along with it. Given that the committee was made up of 21 Democrats and only 14 Republicans, it might seem like it should have been easy for Patman to get the votes he needed. It wasn't. Nixon and his cleanup crew did everything they could to prevent the Patman investigation from getting anywhere. If they could stop the committee from voting for the subpoenas, Patman wouldn't be able to compel anyone to appear at his little hearing. It was a test of whether the US government could hold itself accountable, and Nixon's people were resolved to make sure their colleagues in the legislative branch would fail. Around this time, Nixon gave a press conference in which he assured reporters that his administration was cooperating fully with the Patman inquiry. His remarks now seem astoundingly brazen.
- [13:29]
News Reporter
I think that under these circumstances that we are doing everything that we can to take this incident and to investigate it and not to cover it up. Now, what really hurts in matters of this sort is not the fact that they occur because overzealous people in campaigns do things that are wrong. What really hurts is if you try to cover it up.
- [13:53]
Leon Neyfak
What really hurts is if you try to cover it up. John Dean, who would later turn on Nixon in dramatic fashion, watched Nixon's press conference on tv, and he was stunned that the President would lie so baldly instead of just dodging the issue. A couple of weeks later, Dean would find himself in the Oval Office having a detailed discussion with the President about how to stop Wright Patman, or as Nixon put it, how to screw this thing up. As Dean describes the scene in his memoir, Blind Ambition, the meeting began with the President reclining in a swivel chair with his feet propped up on his desk as he looked at Dean through the V formed by his shoes. Initially, the conversation bounced around from topic to topic, but when the Patman problem came up, Dean threw out some ideas for how to deal with it. The challenge was to convince the Democratic congressmen on the committee that it would be in their best interest to vote against Patman's subpoenas. Dean's suggestion basically was to threaten them to look up fundraising records for every member of Patman's committee, with the goal of finding some who had violated campaign finance laws. The audio you're hearing was picked up by Richard Nixon's secret White House taping system. We'll hear more about that in a future episode. It's hard to make out the words, but what Dean is saying is that these congressmen needed to be put on notice. At that point, Nixon jumped in to ask Dean a question. What about Ford? Did you catch that? He said, what about Ford? He was talking about Gerald Ford, who in two years time would replace Nixon as president and then pardon him of all of his crimes. But in 1972, Ford wasn't even Vice President yet. He was just the House Minority Leader. Still, he was about to make himself very useful to Nixon. Nixon needed all 14 Republicans to vote against the subpoenas. Because the Democrats had a majority. The President needed his own party to stand fully behind him if he was going to have any chance of shutting Patman down. This was not as much of a gimme in 1972 as it would be now. The Republicans in the committee couldn't always be counted on to vote as a block, which is why Nixon wanted Ford to make sure they fell in line. When Nixon talked to Dean during that meeting in the Oval Office, he suggested that he would speak to Ford about the assignment personally. This is the big play, he said. I'm getting into this thing. He's got to know that it comes from the top. That's exactly what reporters and investigators would end up debating for the next two years. How high up did this thing go? Here was the President himself saying it plainly. It came from the top. The following year, Ford would admit to using his position as House Minority Leader to help thwart Patman. But he denied acting under pressure from the White House or doing anything improper. Indeed, the members of Congress who blocked Patman's investigation claimed that they were doing so out of a high minded concern for due process and the rights of criminal defendants. More on that after the break. Welcome back to Slow Burn. I'm Leon Neyfak. So Richard Nixon wanted members of Wright Patman's Banking Committee to prevent Patman from holding hearings on Watergate before the election to help Nixon's allies made up a talking point. Holding hearings on Watergate at that moment would have been unfair. Here's how the argument While Patman was preparing his subpoenas, the five Watergate burglars, plus Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt, the two Nixon staffers who had organized the bugging, were being prosecuted in criminal court.
- [17:30]
News Reporter
Federal indictments were returned in Washington today in the Watergate bugging affair, a case.
- [17:35]
Leon Neyfak
Which began, lawyers for Nixon's aides argued that if Patman held congressional hearings about Watergate while those criminal proceedings were taking place, the jurors in those cases would be influenced by the publicity which would make it impossible for the so called Watergate 7 to get a fair trial. To help bolster this argument, John Dean reached out to Henry Peterson, head of the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. Dean asked Peterson to write an official letter objecting to the Patman hearings out of a concern for the Watergate defendants civil liberties. Essentially, the Nixon administration was asking its doctor to write a note saying it didn't have to participate in gym class. And Peterson was only too happy to accommodate the request. Soon, Republicans in Congress had a newfound passion for championing the rights of criminal defendants. One Republican member of the Banking Committee talked about how you can't be for civil liberties one moment and then throw them to the side when the situation suits you. A skeptical commentator for the Washington Monthly described this line of reasoning as ill fitting legal camouflage. On October 3, 1972, Patman's committee was set to vote on whether to issue subpoenas and hold public hearings in connection with the Watergate affair. The 14 Republican members of the committee gathered outside the hearing room. And then, as Nancy Beck Young writes in her book, they marched in as if they were infantry headed for battle. To start things off, Patman gave a speech listing some of the valuable investigations the Banking Committee had undertaken up to that point. It would now seem strange, he said, if this committee were to ignore the international transfer and concealment of massive campaign contributions which may have been used to finance the greatest political espionage case in the history of the United States. Then came the vote. The optimists on Patman's staff hoped and expected that the chairman's Democratic colleagues would want to stick it to Nixon ahead of the election and therefore would vote yes on the subpoenas. If they did, Patman would carry the day comfortably. Peggy Ray Hawk Lewis, a committee staffer who worked on Patman's Watergate probe, was in the room at the time. She still remembers how she felt when she heard one of the committee's most reliably liberal Democrats give a speech about why he would be voting no when he started.
- [19:51]
Peggy Ray Hawk Lewis
And it was clear this is a Democrat voting against the supremas and, you know, being vocal about it. All those senior Democrats just turned to the right to just stare at him like, what in the hell is going on?
- [20:04]
Leon Neyfak
She sat in disbelief as more and more Democrats came out against the subpoenas. Maybe the most surprising no vote came from Brooklyn's Frank Brasco, a liberal whose constituents hated Nixon. Faced with a chance to help defeat the President in the upcoming election, Brasco turned it down. And in explaining his vote, he basically parroted the talking points that had been cooked up by John Dean and the other Nixon aides. He said he was concerned about the rights of the Watergate defendants. Politics should stay out of justice, he said.
- [20:33]
Peggy Ray Hawk Lewis
It's when Brasco voted, then I felt like I had been kicked in the stomach. That was awful. I mean, we just, we had worked so hard to get, you know, good evidence in front of them for the vote and everything. That was when it was a kick in the stomach and I knew we had lost.
- [20:49]
News Reporter
It looks now as though the Democrats will not get something they wanted badly before election day. A full scale public congressional hearing on the financial aspects of the Watergate bugging case.
- [21:00]
Leon Neyfak
The final vote was 20 to 15.
- [21:02]
News Reporter
Against ordering subpoenas, with six Democrats voting no, along with all 14 of the committee's Republicans.
- [21:10]
Leon Neyfak
Now there are lots of theories about why the various Democrats voted no. One of the committee members, Richard Hanna from California, later went to prison for taking bribes from the Korean Central Intelligence Agency. And Frank Brasco was indicted for taking payoffs from a mafia run trucking company. So it's possible the Nixon administration knew what they were up to and threatened to reveal it. Or maybe they were just very, very concerned about the burglar's right to a fair trial. After the vote, Patman had to acknowledge that he had lost the battle. But he said he was sure that Nixon would eventually lose the war. Before adjourning, he said, I predict that the facts will come out and when they do, I'm convinced that they will reveal why the White House was so anxious to kill the committee's investigation. The Wright Patman wasn't done. Subpoenas or no subpoenas, the Congressman from Texas was going to hold a hearing on Watergate. He would invite four witnesses, among them John Mitchell and Maurice Stans, to testify before the banking committee on October 12th. This was less than a month before election Day. Of course, without subpoenas, no one could force them to come. But, well, but nothing. None of them came.
- [22:25]
News Reporter
Congressman Wright Patten made another attempt today to investigate the Watergate affair. He got nowhere.
- [22:30]
Leon Neyfak
Here's Curtis Prinz again.
- [22:32]
Curtis Prinz
The witnesses, all told through their lawyers, told Patman they weren't coming. So Patman still went on with the hearing and he set up four empty chairs at the witness table. Patman asked the empty chairs questions for an hour.
- [22:50]
Leon Neyfak
A photograph of Patman lecturing the empty chairs appeared in multiple newspapers the day after the Washington Post even ran it. Above the fold. It's a really fantastic photograph. You can see the nameplates for Stans, for Mitchell right there in the foreground. And up above you see Wright Patman in the middle of saying something. As he spoke, Patman was full of theatrical indignation. He called the absence of the four witnesses a sad spectacle, a massive cover up.
- [23:16]
Wright Patman
President Nixon is responsible for those four empty chairs. He was responsible for his secrecy, for the elimination of the people's right to know.
- [23:25]
Leon Neyfak
Their decision not to appear, Patman said, was an insult to every single American who believes in free open elections. It is an arrogant act, an amazing act for those who are supposed to be seeking the votes of the American people.
- [23:37]
Wright Patman
How far has this administration gone to put down and harass its enemies and the two party system on which this government rests? We better find out before it's too late.
- [23:52]
Leon Neyfak
On Halloween 1972, just over a week before the election, Patman released a report prepared by his staffers stating that we cannot allow wiretapping, burglary, espionage and sabotage to become ingrained as an accepted way of politics. Nixon's campaign responded with a statement accusing Patman of being a tool of Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern. This latest dishonest collection of innuendo and fourth hand hearsay, the statement said, is nothing more than an 11th hour attempt to save Mr. Patman's candidate for president from what may be one of the worst defeats in American political history. When you talk to Curtis Prinz and Peggy Rayhawk Lewis about the end of the Patman inquiry, you can hear that they're still offended by what happened on Patman's behalf, but also their own.
- [24:41]
Peggy Ray Hawk Lewis
Everybody on that team believed in what we were doing. Not always the case with congressional committee staff. We really did. We really did. It's safe to say I felt a real sense of betrayal. And for myself it was the beginning of a political cynicism.
- [24:54]
Leon Neyfak
Prinz remembers having to pack up his boxes of investigative work, all the notes he had taken during his interviews with possible witnesses, all the phone records he'd obtained and the report he'd helped write.
- [25:05]
Curtis Prinz
I was really burned up and quite honestly I'm still burned up. I'm still mad that we couldn't go further with this thing.
- [25:19]
Leon Neyfak
Patman's work on Watergate was vindicated in 1974 when the White House's effort to obstruct his investigation earned a mention in the articles of impeachment against Nixon. But then six months later, Patman was ousted as chairman of the House Banking Committee. Ironically enough, it happened thanks to the wave of Democratic reformers who who swept into Congress after Nixon's resignation. The so called Watergate babies. To those newly elected lawmakers, Patman seemed like a relic of a bygone age. A Democrat who had supported the Vietnam War and whose Depression era populism didn't really resonate with 70s liberals. According to Nancy Back young Patman was hurt by the loss of his chairmanship and he never really recovered. In early 1976 he got pneumonia and he died a month later at the age of 82. For the funeral in Texas, President Gerald Ford, the man who had helped orchestrate the squelching of Patman's Watergate inquiry, sent $50 worth of carnations.
- [26:19]
Susan Matthews
Hi again, Susan here. I hope you're finding this story as compelling as we did. I've worked at Slate for nine years and I now serve as executive editor of the magazine. I also hosted season seven of Slow Burn on the history of Roe v. Wade, which was the most thorough and thoughtful journalism I've ever done. For every season, we track down the people who lived through these historic events and find archival material that helps us see these stories in new ways. That work isn't easy or cheap, which is why we depend on Slate plus members to make it happen. Your membership helps us keep making Slow Burn and supports all of Slate's journalism. If you want to hear the rest of this season and support what we do, now's the perfect time to join Slate Plus. You can join directly within Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or visit slate.com slow burnplus to get access wherever you listen. Thanks so much for listening and for considering becoming a member.
- [27:31]
Leon Neyfak
This podcast is a production of Slate plus, Slate's membership program. Slate plus members get a complete bonus episode of Slow Burn every week. Going deeper into the wild world of Watergate. I'm sharing some of the amazing stuff I found in researching the series and playing extended versions of my interviews with people who watch that all go down. This week, an interview with a Banking Committee staffer who was certain that Patman's office is were being wiretapped during his investigation, as well as a closer look at the millions of dollars in so called hot money that was pouring into Nixon's re election campaign during the spring of 72. Starting this week, I'll also be chatting and answering questions on the Slate plus Facebook page every Wednesday. Slate plus members help support this show and the rest of our work. You can find out more and Sign up for Slate Plus@slate.com Watergate Slow Burn is produced by me and Andrew Parsons. Our script editor is Josh Levine. Gabriel Roth is the Editorial Director of Slate Plus. The artwork for Slow Burn is by Teddy Blanks from Chips. Thanks as well to the NBC News Archive and the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum for the archival audio you heard in this episode. Special thanks to Slate's Chow Tu, June Thomas and Steve Lichti. You can find a full list of books, articles and documentaries used to research this episode on our show page. Next week, the story of how a handful of political journalists tried to make America pay attention to Watergate in the months leading up to Nixon's reelection and why they utterly failed.
- [28:57]
Nancy Beck Young
We were taking Watergate seriously, but it was really hard to develop a story. There would be a burst of information, and then it would die. It would die.
- [29:12]
Leon Neyfak
I'm Leon Naifak. Tune in next week.
- [29:25]
Wells Fargo Advertiser
Picture this Me, Reese Witherspoon in London, ordering fish and chips so often they might start wrapping me in paper. I'm traveling with my Wells Fargo Autograph Journey card, so I earn rewards wherever I book Travel travel five times points with hotels, four times with airlines, three times on restaurants and other travel and one point on other purchases. Imagine getting rewarded for eating a toad in the hole. Wait, what is a toad in a hole?
- [29:50]
Leon Neyfak
Visit wells fargo.com autographjourney Terms apply the.
- [29:55]
LifeLock Advertiser
New year brings new health goals and wealth goals. Protecting your identity is an important step. Your info is in endless places that could expose you to identity theft, leading to lost funds. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Resolve to make identity, health and wealth part of your New year's goals. With LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com SpecialOffer terms apply.