Nixon & Ziegler on Watergate and Ervin Committee

Transcript (AI-generated)

This transcript is incomplete. The transcription skipped stretches of speech — roughly 7 minutes of this recording (about 29% of it) is represented by only a few words. Listen to the audio rather than relying on the text below; a corrected transcript is queued.

This transcript was generated automatically by AI (WhisperX) and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Names and numbers are often wrong; speakers are not identified. Do not cite it as authoritative — verify against the audio and the finding aid.

Download transcript (.txt) · JSON data

what have you said with regard to this thing

I was going to say, my guess is that you said that he had two ambassadors.

He was providing for the president, and he also had a separate ambassador.

He was just providing for the president, and he was providing for the president.

What we have seen is that the president has done a very hard job.

All along, he's been...

He's been...

.

I asked him yesterday, and it's a different question.

Why is it we said that Dr. Chisholm has got a heart from the Congress, but in other places, we had a formal discussion about what policy he's got.

I don't think he can do that.

The question here

all of the Constitution as written in relation to the separation of power and whether or not the President's staff should question the process of unifying the human constituted body of the Congress.

And it is arguing that there are two factors involved.

One is substance.

We are prepared to provide information, all the information, consistent with the executive regulation.

Matter of fact, there are two factors for separation of power and executive regulation.

And we will, before we make a formal or informal session,

That is the effort of the executive, being questioned across its animal.

And it's a close call, because what about ?

What about ?

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah.

I have confidence in the members of the White House staff.

I've addressed many questions in the chamber over the past months on this question, and I don't have anything more to say on this subject.

I want to raise this just so that I'm talking all the way through.

Thank you.

Mr. President, why should the party vote again and wait until the meeting of Congress was here this morning?

It's not a customary legal act.

We're preparing people to have a right to know what your observation is and what activities to place on your staff.

And it's something that should have been looked into back in October.

I have said in terms of the specifics of these charges on a piecemeal basis.

And then go back to the .

I think, yes sir, you know, because once the president, you know, as I talk this through, begins to take it on a nickel-and-a-dime basis, you know, I was just thinking, what can you do?

You've got to speak back on that.

It doesn't matter to me, I don't know, but that kills us.

That's what I meant.

The White House said today, that's right, we don't want any of that.

And I was thinking, you see, what would I do if I saw a large...

It's something that the President should not address until there is a final statement to be made, which is final.

If you determine at some point you're in the process of an investigation .

But I don't have any questions that could come on security.

And I still think that sooner it's covered in expression of confidence and

I'd say it's a different figure that's covered that.

It's expressed on my behalf.

Mr. President, can't you just confirm whether or not you're going to mention the part of our security?

I thought we could address any of these questions that you have heard.

I promise, if at all possible, I'd steer clear of Sarah.

Yeah, well, they've had a lot of laughter.

They, uh, but they, they're not ready for that.

They're not ready for that.

Thank you.

Mr. President, in order to clear up the way John did, I have a question.

How do you handle the other kind of materials in the past?

Don't you feel that this is one of them that we're going to have to deal with?

We're going to have to deal with all of the gray materials.

And the committee is interested in finding out the information, again, that we have already stated on the FBI this matter.

Mr. Dean, under my instruction, stands ready to cooperate on this information, which is true.

They want to know whether Dean passed that FBI information into another zone area, if that's going to be on this file.

I don't know whether or not he informed the re-elect committee about the private interview, but if you have a health bureau, they can answer.

And the White House, nobody said anything about it.

So, throughout all of the data, we want to make it clear.

No, sir, I don't want this to do with what we have said.

To underpin the fact that they asked something about that.

I don't know if that's the information, but that's the question, correct?

Out of yesterday's committee, your issue with the press this morning, Joe, isn't it relevant to testifies to how we handle the information?

Yes.

Have they checked to see whether or not that had benefited the public?

I understand.

So what is your second point on this point on how they .

We're not concerned .

We're called to testify .

Testify .

.

I heard what I said last night.

I heard what I said.

.

We don't know the process of emanation.

When do we get our kids?

We don't know.

get into the definition, because he had a plan in his case, where he went on to testify to my case.

And then, barely, should we really not testify to his capacity to tell a story in general?

But a lot of the things like this is why it matters to me.

This is why it matters to me.

Because none of these things have to go on because they were.

My point being is that I think it's better for you not to get into it.

Not to just get a thousand dollars.

But I think it's not going to be fun.

All right.

And early on.

.

But as part of the process of government support, the branch of communication .

That's what they do.

They're talking about problems, solutions, and problems.

Formation of legislation, formation of foreign policy, any of the other branches of government, and starting with them.

That is a legitimate process of communications.

What we're talking about is whether one branch has a right to question the action of the other, and the Constitution clearly states that it does not.

The white community has a right to ask for it, and the committee will hold it, but they will decide not to do it.

But we're going to have to do that by the end of the week.

We're going to have to do that by the end of the week.

There's no comment on that.

There's one other question.

Finally, we're going to have to have time for that question.

.

I've already said it over and over again.

Yeah.

I've already said it over and over again.

It's all a trailer story this morning.

It's a story that suggests that the content of the trailer is one part.

It's all part of the fact that we have to cut it down.

But the other elements of the story, you know, the, you know, the very central part of the story, the story, the story, the story, the story, the story, the story, the story,

That was the real action.

When you were calling, he did not appear with that video.

No, sir.

There's a video.

Of course, I don't know who it is.

I don't know.

Yes, sir.

White did issue his name, which he said in his story.

He said, I've known this jury for, since God.

The story's found to be accurate and unconnected by a specimen, by a jury proceeding, or a direction of some kind of investment.

Because you have to keep in mind, given us a simple matter of something to say, if White requires the right,

So all he denied was part of it.

I did not address the question of whether

without even saying

.

So they don't have

The president refuses to send changes to the Hill.

I don't know.

We will decide.

We will decide on it.

And then the circumstances aren't consistent.

It wasn't done.

We should.

We should question the law.

I want you to get through it.

He doesn't.

I talked to another law.

I don't know if you're aware of it, but you ate it.

I said, I talked to Pat last night.

Old Pat kind of agreed that the last thing he wanted to do was play for the Indians.

And he said, he would if he would die.

And just as he played for the Indians.

I said, I can't go on.

He heard me.

That's where many of us were.

I couldn't

I can't think of any legislation that would, you know, have the capacity to help deal with such a situation.

But for you to get into that running water, you know, that makes me, you know, you know, I thought that it was a good job, but it's not.

It's not even because it's a, it's a very political thing.

.

I don't think you should do anything about it.

I'm just going to make a pretty statement.

And after the press conference, would you stand up and say a few words?

Sure.

Thank you.

I want to be able to kind of, kind of, coax your friends to help you with something.

Oh, you're welcome.

Nixon & Ziegler on Watergate and Ervin Committee

AI Summary

Audio

Transcript (AI-generated)

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Also recorded on March 15, 1973

Cite this conversation