On March 24, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon and Charles W. Colson talked on the telephone from 12:54 pm to 1:12 pm. The White House Telephone taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 022-013 of the White House Tapes.
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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
Hello?
Yes, sir, Mr. President.
Anything further to add before I wrap up my appearance before the press?
Nothing that will relate to the press conference.
I think you're...
I just have nothing to say on this thing in there.
Well, I sent in one memo through Buchanan that I thought you would have addressed the antitrust record of the administration.
Yeah, I saw that.
Yeah, I have that in mind in case there's a chance to.
Well, the only reason for that, of course, is that that...
That's one area we sure as hell ought to be getting some credit, and we're not, and it doesn't involve this case at all.
Right.
But, no, on the FBI front... Well, ITT made its greatest growth during the Kennedy-Johnson administration.
Isn't that when it became a giant conglomerate?
Yes, sir.
Yes, indeed.
In regard to the other thing, FBI, what's the deal?
Well, the FBI sent a letter which is just full of outs.
It is not as bad as their original documents.
uh anywhere near as bad it has one sentence in it which which in a sense which partially contradicts the experts that's not fair it's more than partially it it it's pretty clearly contradictory in one sentence but then it goes on to say that we can't conclude anything from this it's very inconclusive and they at the end give us the biggest opening of oral they say that there are other tests now being conducted which may significantly affect
the outcome and the other tests they're referring to are the ones that our experts ask them to conduct which we think are going to come out well right good there's reason that that last sentence then is very important oh sure now what i have advised itt to do and i don't know that they'll do it but uh
I would advise them to have their press conference tomorrow to put their experts out there, and then the Bureau has every reason to conduct further tests.
The point is, though, that ITT puts out tests, but then the Bureau will say, well, now, wait a minute, these are not our tests, or...
Well, the ITT will put out their own tests.
The Titel plus the McCrone tests.
And then the... Well, what about...
I thought the Bureau was using, retaining McCrone.
They're not.
Well, yes.
That's another development today.
As a result of John Berlichman's call, McCrone is at 1 o'clock going over to review his findings with the Bureau, and the Bureau has said, well...
if you can show us where you've done things that we haven't got the capacity to do we'll be glad to take those into account as we conduct our further tests so they're what they're doing is leaving the door wide open most importantly the bureau has leaked a story yeah and they've leaked the story saying that their tests are quote inconclusive it says a top fbi fbi sources
studied the type letters of the memo and the paper stack and the mark as well as the initial D penciled at the top of Mrs., near Mrs.
Beard's name.
The government sources said the D was an insufficient sample to establish whether or not it was a forgery and went on to say that the general conclusions of their analysis thus far are, quote, inconclusive.
So what they're doing is setting the stage.
And in their letter... Let IT&T go then, if they will, if they will.
I'm strongly urging them to.
Why are they backing up?
Well, their lawyers say, let's get the final FBI conclusions, and that will be Monday or Tuesday, and then we'll go.
My point to them is...
Damn well, better go before those senators get out to Denver.
But get it confused.
Also, give a little reassurance to your one witness who's goddamn volatile.
She can go either way.
But basically, they buy that as of now.
Well, they ought to just to show, like last week, Dita Beard going out was essential.
That's what kept this week from being a disaster.
Oh, exactly.
So right now, they ought to put out their own test saying if they have an expert that says it's untrue.
And
then just confuse the bejesus side of it.
Well, all the Bureau can say, if these experts go out there, is, well, our test didn't go as far as theirs, so we can't contradict them.
And that's being... We think we're programming that this afternoon.
The problem we have beyond this, Mr. President, is that Eastland, I think, is playing a partisan game.
I finally have persuaded the Justice Department that that is so, because yesterday Eastland said...
Wednesday, boys, when we're through with Dita Beard, we're going to have a showdown within the committee.
I'm going to assert myself, and by Christ, we're not going to have any more hearings.
Today, he said, we're going to continue the hearings after Dita Beard.
Oh, Christ.
Which means to me that... Now, the others should just start to try to have a showdown then.
Scott and the boys ought to really get tough with Eastland.
Don't let Eastland play his game.
And why in the hell doesn't Mitchell get a hold of Eastland?
I sent one of my...
Well, Mitchell... Well, he does, sure.
And he's got a good relationship, but I don't...
I don't know.
But Eastland is basically...
He's not against this, in a sense.
No.
But he is a partisan.
He's a Democrat.
Well, he voted yesterday, you know, on this equal-time repeal.
He reversed his vote and gave...
He and two other Southerners gave the Democrats the victory in the Senate, 41 to 39.
What's that?
Straight party vote.
Well, that was the suspension of Section 315, the equal-time requirement for the presidential election.
I didn't notice that.
They brought that up again?
Yes, sir.
We beat them last year and had a lot of Democrats on our side.
They brought it up yesterday in the Senate.
Now, does that apply for just presidential and not the...
The amendment that lost was the amendment that would have applied it to all federal offices, which the House would never take.
So in the Senate, by defeating the Baker Amendment, which would have applied it to everyone, they now have pretty well assured themselves of being able to get it through the House, unless we can find a maneuver to stop them.
But the significant thing to me was that last year, the Baker Amendment passed 71 to 20 on a bipartisan vote.
Yesterday, the Baker Amendment was defeated, 41 to 39, on a straight political party line vote.
41 Democrats, 39 Republicans.
So they're playing the game.
It's a partisan game, and anybody who doesn't think it is...
They know the stakes, don't they?
Damn right they do.
I just finished feeding all that to Clawson so that he could start some columns about how obviously partisan the Democrats are.
Now, on this equal timing, do you think somebody's going to ask me about debating them today?
They might, Mr. President, yes.
Wow.
They might.
That's a question that could be asked.
I would just simply say that's premature.
Yeah, I would think you would.
I'm not going to turn it down and out at the moment.
I would just say, well, that's premature.
We've got to see what the situation is.
Yeah, I think that's the right position to take.
There's no sense building... Because they're going to have more than one candidate, aren't they?
This doesn't limit it to two candidates, does it?
Well, the repeal of Section 315, if you had 315 and you had more than two candidates, then you can't have debates.
yeah that's what's always precluded debates if there are by repealing 315 you can have debates no matter how many candidates there are because it's left to the discretion of the networks yeah so uh they're they are anticipating more than two candidates because if you only had two then 315 would not preclude debates so the passage of this is what they really after is free television time they know you're not cut debate
Oh, it's the free television, isn't it?
Sure.
You see, if you refuse to debate, then both sides are given free time.
Is that what the thing provides?
Yes, sir.
Well, the bastards are just trying to bail out their money.
They're looking for $5 million of free TV time.
And the thing that's wrong about it, of course, is that the Congress set a spending limitation last year on the presidential campaign.
This just opens it up.
And that's our best argument against it.
You can't lick it in the house.
How about vetoing it?
I wouldn't be a bit averse to vetoing it.
I could make a hell of a good argument that last year the Congress set spending limitations.
This would, in fact, invalidate them, and it's discriminatory.
Well, that's the thing to do.
Just play a tough game.
They want to do it.
We'll veto it and let people squeal a little while, and that's that.
Yeah, and everybody will say to you, well, you can't veto that because people will say you're trying to help yourself politically.
Hell, who remembers the tax checkoff now?
You can't find anybody.
I suppose on this they'd say that it should be free television time.
Well, they can have free television time if the networks want to give it to all candidates.
I just said they ought to give it to all candidates.
Sure.
We'll find a way.
We'll write a hell of a message.
I can handle, I mean, this area I know.
Yeah, but have somebody start getting up a good veto message, okay?
We'll do that, Mr. President.
We'd sure get that one sustained, wouldn't we?
Indeed we would.
Well, how do you think we came out on the meanie bit so far?
I think you're just coming out better than I'd hoped.
They carried all three networks, according to Haldeman, carried my audio.
Yes, sir.
That little pitch, that was the best way to do it, wasn't it?
Beautifully.
Rather than to make a speech.
Beautifully done.
That was just right.
You couldn't go on prime time, Mr. President, because the issue isn't that big.
I don't know whether it comes across very good just being out there before the cameras on a news reading something to the reporters, but what the hell.
Oh, I think it does.
I think people saw that.
The interesting thing is that nobody, at least I haven't read all the wires this morning, but nobody has yet taken me any side that I can find except Kennedy, who made some half-assed statement.
But Mansfield...
is on your side.
Scott and Ford got out good statements.
Javits.
Right up and down the line, the troops are applauding you and condemning you.
I'm pretty sure they got him out, boy, all the way.
We've got to keep that, I told Holloman.
Don't you bother, but I put this to him.
I says, now, God damn it, get to work on this and get the statements out.
No, I've got it.
I've cut the ball.
We've got Rumsfeld.
But I give you two or three other brief things.
Yes, sir.
First, get your people around the country
to write some scathing and effective letters to the editors of Time and Newsweek for putting this son of a bitch on the cover.
I think that's very important.
I think some scathing letters should go to the networks.
I mean, just with regard to their...
I mean, remember, I believe these things have more effect than others do, but I think they ought to get them, you know, to others about the unfairness of their handling of the busing and so forth and so on, you know, or, you know what I mean, that they're...
But what I meant is that the raising hell with the networks thing should start now, Chuck, and not in November.
See?
Oh, I agree.
This is too late now.
Is anybody on top of that?
Yes, sir.
Maybe.
All right.
Calls should be made, raising hell, letters should be written, you know, getting our top people to talk to them.
When I say we're on top of it, we started this morning on this busing thing, and I hadn't thought of Time and Newsweek.
Time and Newsweek, gee, about, you know, when I say 100, maybe 20.
20 or 30 letters, but letters to the editor saying, this is a disgusting damn thing.
It's a disgrace that you would deify.
I mean, a charge is made and no proof.
And just say this is typical of a publication, in the case of time, of a publication that would be taken in by the Irving hoax.
Yes, exactly.
I'd write something like that.
Have a statement made by that.
Have somebody attack Time for having him on the cover.
Let Agnew do that, saying, typical of a publication, a great publication, that would have been taken in by the Irving hoax, that they would be taken in by Anderson.
Well, especially if we're able to do anything in the meantime, discrediting it, that'll... Well, you know, I don't assume anything on that.
That'll just be a bonanza.
And I'm all for what you're doing, but just assume that it would be worse off if you weren't doing it, and whatever happens...
Anything we get from it is a game.
We've done the best we can.
And Leader Beard will do well, and let's create some doubts about the damn document.
Well, that's right.
I have a...
one personality characteristic, which is that I'm just goddamn stubborn.
You want to win the fight.
I want to win this fight.
Exactly.
On the other hand, I do know that when we get into these things, that we've got to always keep our balance, remembering the fact that if we don't, that the world isn't going to end.
Well, you want to remember one other thing, Mr. President.
I don't know if you've seen the memo that your congressional people sent to you, but they did a mail check on the Hill on this ITT case, and nobody's gotten any mail.
I mean, literally, there has been no mail.
The...
One office had two or three letters.
The major effect from what my own checking done, which we have other sources, of course, is in California.
It's rubbed us off there some.
You know what I mean?
It's San Diego, and our strength there is.
I mean, it's just one of those little auras they've created, the sun's fetches.
I don't think it'll last.
I think if somebody had...
had their hand in the till, it would last.
It would hurt us.
But in the absence of that, Mr. President, this will not last.
And in fact, some of the mail that's being received on the Hill is from people saying,
What an outrage for the Democrats to be running this kind of a...
If we could just continue to hit smear, smear, smear, smear.
Rusker last week had the best line, which got picked up in Time and Newsweek, and it was that Jack Anderson is the Luella Parsons of the journalism world, and that this is a smear day, Congress.
We finally got that in, and both Time and Newsweek picked it up.
And he keeps saying it.
Would you tell, get the word to 100 congressmen and senators in the Republican side to start talking about smear a day?
Yes, sir.
Maybe five will do it.
See what I mean?
Well, we wrote it in everything we sent to them.
I know, but just get the whips to pass the word out.
Oh, that's a good idea.
Get the whips to say, look, you say smear, smear, smear.
And start saying it.
Start saying it.
Start raising hell.
Have a little fun with these people.
Well, that's what we have to do.
Well, I must say that I think that on the Meany thing, though, we've got that son of a gun, and I mean, we're going to keep him right there where it is.
Of course, the networks had to run.
It was unfortunate that the Meany did this, and he picked this day, the day that they had the bad CPI.
The CPI wasn't all that bad, actually, but, you know, the goddamn networks made it appear as if it was the second, you know, the worst thing that ever happened.
We've had five-tenths of a percent many times, as you know.
That's right, exactly.
But Fitzsimmons called me and he said, I want to tell you something in the greatest of confidence, Chuck.
And he said, you've got a terrible leak in your administration.
And I said, I'm sure we've got many, Fitz.
He said, George Meany knew that CPI was coming out, and that's why he picked the day he picked.
Yeah.
And it's been my suspicion that that was the only reason he picked it.
Who's over there at CPI?
Who is it?
BLS?
Yeah, BLS.
The place is still full of goddamn Jew bureaucrat Democrats.
All right.
We put a couple of other guys in it.
I want you to tell Schultz this.
Well, nothing we can do about it, I guess.
Sure, they're leaking it.
They leak it to everybody but us.
Mm-hmm.
That's right.
We've still got more over there.
Yep.
That son of a bitch is gone.
I'll tell you, we've got a lot of things.
You guys are going to go the day after.
I'm going to enjoy it.
I'd like to be personally present when we get that bastard out of here.
We're going to be out of there.
I'm sorry we can't throw Arthur Burns out with him.
Pleasure to see them both go.
Everybody tells me Connolly did very well.
I only saw his statues.
They just knocked their brains out.
But he was just incredibly good.
He was incredibly good.
And he'll do well tonight.
He'll get some more press out of it tonight.
The main thing is we're on the offensive on the issue again.
Well, you know, you've done something else, Mr. President, that you cannot overestimate the importance of this.
It is incalculable, the split of the building trades in the AFL-CIO.
It's never happened.
And we've been talking to them just full time.
I've had two people doing nothing but talking to them.
And they are split with Meany.
And...
This can be the most significant political ramification in terms of just hard votes, that he's lost his grip on the building trades.
And we'll keep this offensive going.
We've got more statements going up today to senators and congressmen.
We'll have Rumsfeld on on Sunday, and he's well-primed.
And he watched Conley, so he got a little bit of that evangelism.
And I think our fellows, Herb Stein, we've set up some interviews for him.
He'll do well with it.
We'll just keep our fellows.
Start drumming it a little.
Plugging it hard.
That's right.
And putting the Democrats on the side of George Meany.
That's right.
They're trying to torpedo this thing.
They aren't cooperating with the country.
That's exactly right.
The interesting thing, Harris has a poll coming a week from Monday which shows that the rank and file completely disavow Meany.
Now, this was a poll he took before, but he's going to write it in such a way that it will appear to
be related to Meany's latest caper and showing 70% would forego wage increases if they could stabilize prices.
So Meany just is on the wrong side of this thing.
Totally on the wrong side.
What is the right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?
Well, it's equal protection of the laws.
The protection to me is the key word, Mr. President, because the way in which I think the courts have interpreted it
It's been a long time since I studied constitutional law, but the way in which the courts... Well, the point is, racial balance is not a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, and busing is not a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Busing clearly isn't.
How the hell is racial balance?
Well, that's right.
In a school.
That's right.
It's equal protection of the laws.
Okay.
Yes, sir.
Bye.
Thank you, Mr. President.