On April 29, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman met in the President's office in the Old Executive Office Building at an unknown time between 10:48 am and 11:08 am. The Old Executive Office Building taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 251-028 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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
Hi, John.
I wanted to ask you a couple of questions.
You and me are fine.
You are even talking.
Fine.
With regard to this Board of Coordinating Committee thing, it's obviously a silly idea.
I just don't want to slap you too hard.
But what got into him to raise it, or how did he raise it?
What kind?
Yeah.
The whole point is you can just say, look, well, we welcome any kind of, any way of having a community agreement with Congress and so forth, and I'll have my chance to discuss it with the board.
I'm not going to comment on it.
I'll have my chance to discuss it with Congress and from governors.
There's a mayor, there's a congressman that made their, well, it wasn't his mayor, it was another Republican.
See, he's the governor of the Republicans.
The Republican coordinating committee actually was a disaster even throughout all.
I went to their meeting, you know.
I never wasted time.
Oh!
We've got too many now.
And, well, I couldn't agree more.
And I just want to get Jerry.
And the way to do it is to build Jerry up.
He doesn't want to lose his power and sit around there and rumble around with Reagan and Rockefeller and all those people.
And you know the other thing that's wrong here.
I have to sit there.
Oh, hell yes.
I would have to sit there in those meetings and then go on all day long.
all day long.
And I think that you just say, no, look, Jerry, this is a .
Now, the other things are, basically, you've run on the Blackjack case.
How specifically do you want that responded to now?
Get him out of there.
Good.
He's got to get out.
Let me try out what I have in mind here.
I just want to say that there have been two court decisions.
What are the names of those two?
When did that come down?
The Lackawanna case and a California case.
And a California referendum case.
Both of those spoke to this issue.
the sense of those two decisions is that action by a government body with regard to low-cost housing in the neighborhood is unconstitutional if there is a finding of intent to discriminate, but that action by both of the people is not unconstitutional
period.
You can't look at the intent of the people on the street and say, now, under these circumstances that I've asked the Justice Department and the HUP to reevaluate and now to reconsider 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?
Or do we want to say that
tells the administration, who are invited in several departments to reconsider, that we reconsider in the light of these two decisions.
Is that what I want to say?
Two landmark decisions.
Because that is a fair statement of law, is it not?
Action by a government body, the Holocaust House, unconstitutional, provided there is a finding of intent to discriminate by both of the people, referendum is not unconstitutional.
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 and determine what position to take.
So therefore, then you can say, well, we're going to leave it to the court to make that plan.
All right, now a couple other points.
intelligent review board.
Has Mitchell advocated such boards?
Is that what it is?
Well, as a matter of fact, did he strike out when he asked to present his evidence?
What about also, you know, Muskie and the others that say they're afraid to talk on telephones or that they can ban jackasses themselves?
I'm not going to ever refer to any of them as Democrats, and I said that Congressmen and Senators, this is for yours, and I put all of this with them.
The only way I know is that it's not so many years.
I said it was in my briefing.
Well, it was in my briefing material, that one.
Let's see if the briefing material was wrong.
The point is, it was that number in a day.
But nevertheless, the total number, even in a year, was less than 100.
On the Rivkoff Amendment and the new Stennis Amendment, it should have been the same thing.
It might have been the Rivkoff Amendment.