On June 17, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon and Charles W. Colson met in the President's office in the Old Executive Office Building from 2:22 pm to 2:37 pm. The Old Executive Office Building taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 261-014 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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
What was it last year?
55, 42.
Correct.
The lobbying, my goodness, they threw everything in.
They had the lobbying, the veterans, the lawyers, the New York Times ran that thing for that purpose, no question about it.
Did the Atomists think we could do for it out?
No.
Of the nation, of the nations of the past?
No.
I mean, actually, if you read the Times stories, it discredits it.
If you read from the viewpoint of the guy that wrote the statement, it's a left-wing thought.
Oh, I don't know.
I think the...
I'm not sure what was your opinion on this, but I don't know if you're beginning to get any proper coverage in the Times.
There have been a few editorials the other way around.
Once you get this line, which would be a very simple way to go, the Times is guilty of publishing, of knowingly publishing stolen goods.
knowingly publishing stolen goods.
McLeod brought it up when he came today.
He said they have a case down here today.
Any individual who received stolen goods is guilty.
He says here the Times received stolen goods, stolen documents, but the Times knowingly published stolen goods.
I think it's got to be here on that.
The other thing that is not, I've already been, I know Eric is not currently in the same pool, but the other thing is that from the attacks on this to constantly handle the fact that this is the Kennedy-Johnson picture, which is what we get when we're getting that across.
And it's said, and it's the obvious ones.
They were supposed to, these did say, and I think they were said about 10 times, but what is the trouble?
They are carrying it, so they're carrying it.
The point is, I'm not concerned about the issue.
I'm not concerned about, I mean, I don't want to go home at this point and I don't want everybody here to think, well, this is too bad.
My God, let's make something of it.
It's an opportunity.
Listen, the New York Times believed, the New York Times, and people's credit, of course,
indefinitely is for so and so.
In fact, I would, as long as I am where I am, in New York County, never, never, never have any stolen goods, I'll tell you that.
They chose to take us on hand now, but it goes beyond that.
It goes to all of the disloyal people in government who do, who are tempted to get out and peddle the paper here and there, either for profit or because they don't really want to work here.
It goes also to the integrity of our country.
It's far beyond that.
This is a terrible thing.
And I think it needs to come.
In parallel with lies, in parallel with our sources, in parallel with our lives and communications, in parallel with the President's right to have honest advisors while he destroys it all.
And somebody's got to say it.
They've got to get it out.
It hasn't been said simply enough and often enough yet.
I don't know what the trouble is.
I want you to get that line.
Use it.
I want it used.
Get it to 10 senators and congressmen.
Knowing the publishing.
Get somebody to get it out on television.
That's the kind of thing.
Get somebody to put it in on an editorial.
Then mail that around the country.
Put it, get it on some sort of print.
Mail it to 100,000 people.
Knowingly stuff publishing .
Why aren't they guilty of something?
My issue totally was that endangering the security of Americans.
That's the second line, endangering the security of Americans.
Third, well, people don't care about the presidency and all that, but nevertheless, endangering the security of Americans.
I have a problem with the chocolate in my head.
I have a kid who is grayish, and I'm afraid of the fact that it's important that you get sober now.
It stirs the people around me.
That's why everybody's knowingly publishing stolen goods.
That's the way they're not stolen.
There are people who don't know how to say anything in simple ways.
Not in terms of knowingly publishing stolen, I mean stolen, stolen secure documents.
That's the way Henry would put it.
No, that's correct.
The way of knowingly publishing stolen goods.
People get that.
It sounds like a thief.
It sounds like something wrong.
I mean, there's a lot of people that are against the war that wouldn't do this.
You can be against the war, but you don't break the law.
And also the other idea, breaking the law is never justified regardless of the cause.
No cause justifies breaking the law.
I put that one down for you.
No cause, which, to which, and I warn, justifies breaking the law.
Those two young guys, they look into other, the two youngest look 25 years older, so, but they are, but they are really crazy.
My God, they are just, come on, come on.
Come on.
You can't even handle it.
They're really, they have to be pretty guys.
They do, and they're, they just fail on this kind of thing.
That puts the war in the front page, of course it does.
When you have in mind that it's a story that is not making an impact on the country, I owe you money for what is happening here, despite the fact that it's not tolerated so much.
You know what I mean?
Tolerated people may love it.
It's still confusing to the average guy.
The only problem is that it's getting tolerated and tries to get it across as if we were covering up something about the war.
We are not covering up the Republican Party.
We're covering up who was responsible in that period.
It's a fight between Johnson and Kennedy and Macklemore and those people.
And we've just got to say that.