← 005-126005-128 →

Conversation 005-127

TapeTape 5StartThursday, June 17, 1971 at 9:29 PMEndThursday, June 17, 1971 at 9:35 PMTape start time03:48:03Tape end time03:53:55ParticipantsNixon, Richard M. (President);  Haldeman, H. R. ("Bob")Recording deviceWhite House Telephone
AudioNARA Description

On June 17, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon and H. R. ("Bob") Haldeman talked on the telephone from 9:29 pm to 9:35 pm. The White House Telephone taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 005-127 of the White House Tapes.

Nixon Library Finding Aid
Conversation No. 5-127

Date: June 17, 1971
Time: 9:29 pm - 9:35 pm
Location: White House Telephone

The President talked with H.R. (“Bob”) Haldeman.

     Pentagon Papers
          -Night's news
          -President's call to Ronald L. Ziegler
          -Administration's response
          -John D. Ehrlichman
          -Lyndon B. Johnson's public statement
          -President's conversations with Henry A. Kissinger and Charles W. Colson
          -Administration's response
          -President's forthcoming public statement
          -Form of delivery
                -Revenue sharing
                -Welfare
                -New York Times
          -Egil ("Bud") Krogh, Jr., and the President's June 17, 1971 statement on drug abuse
                control
          -Length and content

     President's schedule

**********************************************************************

BEGIN WITHDRAWN ITEM NO. 1
[Personal Returnable]
[Duration: 27s ]

END WITHDRAWN ITEM NO. 1

**********************************************************************

     President's possible statement on Pentagon Papers
Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

Yeah.
Yes, sir.
Well, I was wondering how the news came out tonight on TV.
Do you know?
No, I don't have one.
I didn't see any of them.
If I can get it and give you a call.
No, no.
I called Sigler.
He's out.
That's all right.
I'll get it in the morning.
But we'll check it out then.
I still don't have John's stuff yet.
Apparently, they're still working on it.
I'll look at it in the morning.
Let's see what he suggests.
Hi there.
Did you get a report back on Johnson?
Yeah, I talked to Colson and also to Henry and so forth.
They're going to talk about it at the staff meeting in the morning, give me a recommendation after the staff meeting.
Perhaps it may be that John is waiting for that before he gives me the recommendations as to what to say
I'm not going to say too much.
It's a tough question as to know how much to say anyway, you know what I mean?
It's one of those things where you can jump in and hit the thing.
Did he raise the thought with you of reading it?
Not yet, no.
Because I was discussing it later this evening that
Well, the thing is, if he wants anything done, Bob, I've got to see it.
That's the problem.
It's now 9.30 and 9.35 is not here yet.
But do you want to read a statement to him on television?
Well, it's a question of whether on television or not, but to read it rather than just... Well, I won't read it.
I'll just issue it then.
I'd prefer to issue it rather than read it.
I think that's much better.
I mean, reading it is not a good idea.
I mean, I don't think that's...
particularly effective to read something on that.
It's just not good at all.
I mean, if he wants to issue, if we want to issue a statement, that's fine.
But let me put it this way.
If I read something before a group like that, then it elevates it to the standpoint of a presidential statement and all that sort of thing.
I'd just rather just low-key it than just issue the goddamn thing, let them run it, and then I'll just talk about the domestic things.
But that's my view.
No, I don't want to sit up there and talk about revenue sharing and welfare and the rest of it.
I want to read you a statement about the New York Times problem, you know, about this whole issue that has arisen.
We get into this, we're falling into that too often, I think, because it's the easiest thing just to read something, you know, and it just takes too much away from getting it across to the people.
Well, for example, I'm sure that
Bud and the rest would have rather that I had read that thing on drugs today.
No, I don't think so.
But that isn't the way to do it.
I mean, I made the point better by talking for a couple of minutes.
Oh, yeah.
No, I don't think anybody... Do you think so?
Absolutely.
I don't think anybody had any question on that.
The argument for reading this, I think, was because it involves a legal case.
Because it involves a legal case, then the thing to do is to issue it and not read it.
You know what I mean?
I just don't like to sit up there and read something.
What the hell good does it do to read it?
That is, if it's a statement, we'll just issue a presidential statement on it.
That is, I'm not sure anything should be done anyway.
What's he got?
Is it just too long?
Is that the problem?
I'm not sure.
Could be.
It was.
That was the problem earlier.
To try to boil it down.
I know you said they had four pages.
That would be ten minutes.
Well, that's too long.
Make the points and still...
Yeah.
But I'm afraid, Bob, it's too legalistic from the way I've heard about it so far.
It's, you know, getting into all the legalisms.
And that isn't going to sell anybody.
I don't think anybody gives one damn about the legalism.
That's absolutely right.
That isn't, Bob, the point for me to make.
Right.
If I'm going to do anything, I've just got to go and make the point, look, this is not any of our doing.
This is the, we, but I have to protect, I have to do this because it involves the
the ability to conduct the presidency and to conduct foreign policy.
I really don't think it lends itself to reading because of that reason.
If we get into all the legalisms, well, the law has been passed and the law has been violated and all that sort of thing.
That's what they're trying to get away with.
Actually, there wasn't much of that in it.
There were some long words and it made more of a case than they... Yeah.
Well, I'll take a look at it in the morning.
Fine.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I guess.
So that takes care of that one.
Good.
And that's, everything's fine.
Well, I'll take a look at it, but when you're in your staff meeting, I just don't, I mean, I'll either do one thing or the other.
I'll either issue a statement or I'm going to ad lib something very brief.
That's my opinion at the present time.
If it's so long that it has to be read, then we'll issue it.
But I'm not going to stand there.
I see nothing to be gained by reading to a bunch of editors a statement on this.
That just doesn't sound right to me.
It doesn't feel right.
Because then I'm getting too much into the legalisms.
Okay.
Okay, good.
← 005-126005-128 →