← 042-077042-079 →

Conversation 042-078

TapeTape 42StartThursday, April 29, 1971 at 10:48 AMEndThursday, April 29, 1971 at 11:08 AMTape start time01:58:08Tape end time02:06:05ParticipantsNixon, Richard M. (President);  Ehrlichman, John D.Recording deviceWhite House Telephone
AudioNARA Description

On April 29, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman talked on the telephone at an unknown time between 10:48 am and 11:08 am. The White House Telephone taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 042-078 of the White House Tapes.

Nixon Library Finding Aid
Conversation No. 42-78

Date: April 29, 1971
Time: 10:48 am - unknown before 11:08 am
Location: White House Telephone

John D. Ehrlichman talked with the President.

[See Conversation No. 251-28]

     Ehrlichman's location

     Gerald R. Ford co-ordinating committee
          -Clark MacGregor
          -President's possible response
          -Input from Congressmen, governors, and mayors
          -Republican co-ordinating committee
                -Robert H. Abplanalp
          -Ford's participation
          -Ronald W. Reagan
          -Nelson A. Rockefeller
          -President's participation

     Blackjack case
          -Housing and Urban Development [HUD] employee to be fired
                -Samuel J. Simmons
          -George W. Romney
          -Lackawanna and California referendum cases
                -Low-cost housing
                -Discrimination
          -President's possible response
                -Department of Justice
                -HUD
          -Administration's position

     Domestic Intelligence Review Board
         -John N. Mitchell
         -President's response
         -Congressional investigation of Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]

                -[Thomas] Hale Boggs
                -Edmund S. Muskie
                -Number of wiretaps
                     -Briefing material
     Ribicoff and Stennis amendments
          -President’s position

Ehrlichman was cut off at an unknown time before 11:08 am.
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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Good.
Now the other things are, basically, do you, on the Blackjack case,
How specifically do you want that responded to now?
I'd like you to finesse that, if you would.
Yeah.
I noticed that some damn bureaucrat at HUD again requested the Justice Department to file action yesterday.
Well, now, can we get at him?
And we'll get at him.
I've got that in progress.
Good, good.
And I think I know who it is, and if it's Simmons, we're going to fire his ass.
Yeah.
By Black?
Well, get him out of there.
Yeah, we will.
If I can localize this.
Unfortunately, Romney was out of town before I left.
He's got to get out because after all there have been... Let me try out what I have in mind here.
I'm just going to say that, well, there have been two court decisions.
What are the names of those two?
When did that come down?
That came down about three weeks ago.
The Lackawanna case and what's the other one?
There's the Lackawanna case and a California case.
And the California referendum case.
Both of who spoke to this issue.
The sense of those two decisions is that action by a government body with regard to low-cost housing in a neighborhood
is unconstitutional if there is a finding of intent to discriminate.
But that action by vote of the people is not unconstitutional.
Very low-cost housing, period.
You can't look at the intent of a people, obviously, and go to all the voters and say, now, under these circumstances that I've asked the Justice Department and HUD to now...
re-evaluate and now to consider the request to intervene in the Blackjack case based on these two court decisions to see what our position should be.
How does that sound to you?
Now, or do we want to say... You might say, instead of saying the Justice Department, to pinpoint it like that, you might just say the people who are advising me on this in several departments.
Yeah, those in the administration who are advising in several departments to reconsider in the light of these two decisions.
Is that what you want to say?
Landmark decisions, right.
These are two landmark decisions.
Right.
Because that is a fair statement of the law, is it not?
Absolutely.
Action by a government body with regard to low-cost housing is unconstitutional, provided there is a finding of intent to discriminate.
Action by vote of the people on referendum is not unconstitutional with regard to low-cost housing.
Now, under these circumstances, the Blackjack case, the key, hello, in other words, the key issue is a finding of intent to discriminate on the part of whatever body is.
And on the Blackjack case, I've asked them to reevaluate, I've asked them to evaluate the Blackjack case in the light of this to determine what position
we should take?
Yes, and that's a good signal.
That's a very helpful signal as a foundation for what we will do.
The intent to discriminate.
So therefore, then you can say, well, we're going to leave it to the court to make the finding.
Exactly.
All right.
Now, a couple of other points.
Let's see.
Pages here.
The Domestic Intelligence Review Board.
Has Mitchell advocated such a board?
Is that what it is?
But then he changed his mind, and he does not advocate it at this time.
Well, then what should our position be?
You know that it has been proposed by some congressmen and other citizens.
It is not something to which you have directed any particular attention.
You don't feel that it is something
← 042-077042-079 →