Nixon, Kissinger & Ziegler on Watergate and Executive Privilege

I can't say that I really know what John Dean says.
I've been an institutional lawyer since then.
I basically have to point to your argument today, don't you see?
I don't think I understand why.
This is the fact that we're cooperating in a very consistent way.
Well, I think you're going to have to spend up their grace and truth over several hundred thousand.
I mean, the point is, is that it's going to be the truth.
It's going to be the truth of the war and all that kind of thing.
It's going to be the truth of the war and all that kind of thing.
The question of exceptional privilege is a very important one.
And that is on the legal.
I don't think we should.
Okay, finally.
My feeling is that, you know, I realize around here that staff and everybody on the press conference, you know, spoon-feed over veterans, you know, you know, you want to do things that you're not used to, you know, and so you're able to certify that.
So I am pretty surprised and expect what this particular client will do.
So they'll be asking around about, is that important, is he ready?
I didn't even, I didn't possibly know what the question was.
Good.
But on the security, have you said that this is a critical fight?
Have you said that, uh, the infected doesn't need to die?
I'll say we did.
Have you said that nobody in the White House would know?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Do you know whether or not that there are any other instances where law files and the FBI have been turned over to any of the companies?
I mean law files.
All right.
You'll call the FBI and tell them I want that for three minutes.
They're going to have their ass tied over here and I'll fire the whole goddamn barrel.
I mean that.
You'll try it over.
I said, and no one from the White House ever directly
or clinical sensitization, or SPMI, or compiling of dossiers, or following people, you know, this was very important during my career.
And I said, if they work, if they ever had to, we'd be working for your embassy.
That's going back to our code.
Now, that sort of all passed.
Now, what has come out of that?
Okay, children.
Children.
Children.
Children.
Children.
Children.
Children.
Children.
Children.
The focus came back to the Sobretti Chamberlain.
the FBI interviews, which said that Comlark was told that she would face arrest.
Right.
So then they asked me about that.
And I said, it had appeared later.
Yes, but this was four days ago.
And at that time, I said, gentlemen, I had nothing else to add to what I said previously on the subject.
And I stand on every statement that I've made before on the subject.
Right.
Then I said that we're concerned about the use of raw and unadulterated files
and support the ACOPM's position on this, where they set up certain guidelines as to how the files, the FBI files, are viewed in the machine, such as the Judiciary Committee, where they've got a public, that they, you know, go through curable checkpoints, or have a file that's given to them, as much as the Judiciary Committee released publicly the false information about them, and therefore, this, in regard to their children,
You know
You want to shave them off the wood?
I don't.
I hope you put her down.
I'm going to try to get her.
I'm going to suspect that they did.
I mean, they were dead.
But John, he was destroyed.
He had an iron.
He said, I'm going to put her with me.
He said, listen, you're going to look in the wrong place.
The only experience I had with that was
In 1970, a so-called employee wrote a letter that I had contacted someone in Florida to get some sort of a release of the periodontal medicine.
That letter came into the White House, went into the FBI's box, and it was so important to my attention to check it out.
But that letter wouldn't have been in existence then.
You said ten years from now.
That's why I wanted to know if you were involved in any of this.
Jay, do you want me to ask you all about it?
Why do you think I should reply, Mr. Reverend?
Should I simply say that matters to you?
Mr. Zegers covered that.
I have nothing to add to what he said to you.
It matters to me how we discuss the matter.
That is, in order to have a comment.
Well, I don't think that if you condemn that sort of activity, that's the kind of thing that they want to do.
Condemn the Watergate stuff.
They say, of course I have one.
But I don't want to get into that there was nothing illegal or disrespectful.
You might find something illegal.
And then I'll just say, Dean made a report on it.
Nobody on the White House staff, not on the staff, or who was on it previously, was involved in any illegal activity.
Now, I'm just trying to get away with that.
This morning we were discussing if we would refer to an urban community center where even the naturalists talked about it.
We talked about it then, but I just said, no, I'm not going to do that.
I said, no, I've noted that it's not very urban.
It's not great, but I'm just saying that this is a very reflective area.
As long as they comply with those rules, I will not come give on the other man.
You know, partisan, hearsay, innocent people, personality, I will speak out on them.
That puts a shot across the ballot.
You know what I mean?
No congressional committee would ever do it without hearsay.
The hearsay that we want to go out with, if we can force them on hearsay, they can see everything.
How about in the U.N. behind you, we've got a story shot across the border.
I agree with that.
It doesn't matter if you want to be in the position of U.N., for example, and say, well, that's what they are liable to do, and they ought not to strip off men out of their camp at some point.
Does it make any sense?
Like, where am I going to get out of here?
The question is whether or not you stay tomorrow with the U.S. Department of Investigation and the security.
Well, you do.
Well, Hardy wanted not to say, well, I have never said that, but if they could get a question, if they asked a question, which he said had to do with wrestling, he could say that it would have been a very confidential investigation on that.
I said, well, I heard about the matter.
I said, well, I'd like to check with you whether I heard a lie about it.
Now, having said that, then you will get the second question.
As to whether or not you were aware of, or whether or not you didn't, the estimations show that children did retire straight, and you hired them.
And you hired them.
You hired them.
Whether you hired them or not, that's the conflict here.
We have never confirmed.
What they mean is that they have never formally turned over wrong files to a committee.
Now, informally, they have taken the files up and shown them to an Eastland when he, for example, was conducting a judge.
Yeah.
That's right.
They could look at files informally.
And so, in other words,
It's very horrifying compared to over here.
The information of this type 2 event.
If any of you are going to use it, that should clear up.
What I'm getting at is this.
I'm going to say it was always under Rudy Bragg.
He was never a general.
He was one of the farmers who did it.
Because he knew this.
He could only do it on a basis of his close security.
I've never been in a league where there's a lot of good water.
On that question, you could say, just say, gentlemen, I don't think I've ever heard a comment like this.
Maybe I'll just stay out of the thing with the investigation.
Well, I don't know.
I mean, if I say that, maybe I'll just say I'm just not going to comment with you.
Maybe I'll just never stay out of it.
Maybe I can.
Again, it depends on how the question comes.
You're right.
I think you did.
When you say yes, let's invest in coverage for us.
Once you say yes, they're going to come out and run.
It's over, you know?
No.
President, that's what they've done.
I'm not going to comment on the matter.
I think I'll just go on.
You said, but I'm thinking, you're going to say, I'm not going to have anything to say about that.
We've already discussed it over here and in the committee.
I will tell you that I heard about this.
I haven't seen it.
I didn't think I'll say it now.
I think I got it down a little.
I said that matter is under investigation.
That's what I thought.
I don't know.
They're ready to make a so goddamn foolish, you know, they have to hear this all crap.
And it's totally different, et cetera.
A lot of these, you know, we are, et cetera, we're all sad about it.
The fact is, what they think about it is much worse than what has happened.
I mean, I should say, that's what I'm talking about.
That's what I'm talking about.
Or you could, well, that's my view.
That's been our strategy up to this point.
But have they asked you whether they came and hired you?
What did you say?
I said that I had worked on it.
Worked on it.
It worked.
No, it's my understanding that you're dealing with the fact that it's been talking to John.
He said, wait, then it comes back.
And then contact the common law to make sure it's funded.
Or you have to let him up before you leave.
I know there's a Q&A.
I think.
Well, you can.
It's all caught up.
The moment you...
I haven't yet.
The moment you respond to me, it escalates without me knowing.
No, I don't say I haven't.
I don't say I haven't.
You can't, but why is he still alive?
Well, because the Indians are grabbing him.
Oh, right.
And he wants us to grab him when he's gone.
Okay.
Well, he's got us to do it.
I know.
The other one, he... Look, I...
The place didn't... For you to comment, this place... Now, the other thing, regardless of...
the whole issue of shield laws and the rest.
But if you were to say, I don't think it's necessary to shield Washington.
I could only discuss attorney general Mitchell with a state of the policy on that, and I think that policy would work as well.
You stated in your position that you're not going to issue a right.
So you have stated in your letter that you're not going to issue a right.
And I haven't changed that position in a year.
But it's that position that I'm not going to make.
I'll take it or make it available to you later
What are you?
Well, we're against the National League.
We're against the National League.
We feel the federal guidelines are working.
We don't particularly oppose the cut by nothing guidelines, but there's no need to do it because they're working.
Now we have serious questions about legislative support for the version of Edmund, particularly if it binds to the state courts because we have a federal system that's based on the version of Edmund.
It's very complex matter.
I think I will .
No, they just want to sit down and talk to me.
I told them.
I said, well, I think, listen, you know, it's not an area.
I've heard Price say, if you have a sheet of law, they're going to get a lot of jackasses passed and others.
Who is the reporter?
Do you call a reporter that's a news girl?
You know, I just remember hearing the press and CBS talking about it.
I mean, I saw it on the side.
It scares the hell out of me, because what they're doing now, and I told them, you know, immediately, I said, what the press is doing is on a wave of emotion, on a wave of misunderstanding, on a wave of expanded rhetoric, and I don't mean from the standpoint of the administration, but from the standpoint of how people in the media react to it.
You're going to legislate support for the First Amendment.
And I said, I have no chance to be an absolute shield.
You're going to legislate, qualify, shield the law.
And it is a deal which it will take the next four, six years.
And once you cross the barrier of legislative support for the First Amendment, you're going to end up possibly in a nice room.
You're going to end up with steps being taken by the Congress
in a different period where the press, the right of the people to repress would be a different one.
What would help?
I said, I can't get an answer or a response to any group I've talked to about this.
What your views are about that particular problem?
And they stopped.
They haven't come through with that statement.
I also tell them, I'm not saying that there are a lot of problems with the state courts, because that's where it is.
Since the Brantford decision, many state courts have gone a little far down the road.
They know that, but they're looking for a federal remedy.
What they should do is...
could add to it, could add, perhaps could be less effective than before.
A lot of work has been done, and they need to come up with a few other sources.
But it's a solution that's out there, and it's a very good one.
It might be a good time to really roll the line or the card on the entire matter of the relationship between the relationship and Congress and the Congress.
The question is actually pretty much one of those things that we talked about earlier.
And also the question concerning the Congress and the question of the Congress being held to responsibility is not clear.
Because, in a way, it all ties together.
On one side, people are saying, the President is trying to build more power.
He was trying to do this.
And I'd rather never try to get into it.
Right after the briefing, I said to my chairman, the chairman of the
and executive order.
But the Department of Justice and every other department of the government will provide us with cooperation with any way we can furnish any information.
They furnish no sign.
They furnish no information.
So forth and so on.
We have absolute...
In other words, we would have been in alignment with what we were doing.
I said, that's all we got to worry about.
I said, I want you to talk about that.
That's what we were setting up this year.
I suppose it goes on and on
It might be more than that, slightly more, but I'm not going to think about it.
I remember when I was a kid, television was pushed out.
I still visit it every year.
And everybody, of course, I'm trying to get away from this.
All I'm saying is that the water game has not become a national issue.
In our planning, we have to keep in mind that they terrorize us here.
Then, we have the problem of people, the drama, the confrontation.
It's right there on TV.
That's why we're not going to put you right out on TV.
That makes a lot of sense.
I mean, that's what our position as farmers, or as a family is all about.
And then when I read the text, which is what I think got me in front of a portion of the Congress, I said, yeah, that's true.
I'm questioning all of this, but I do think it's a good time to have a Constitution.
That's a hell of a lot better than our development.
Well, we're never going to crowd up those guys if they're right.
See, that's what, if you don't do that, you're going to have a check.
You're going to have a situation.
I don't think we're going to have a situation like that.
Well, with that short span, that's what we're going to do.
We have control, don't we?
The other factor is what kind of degree?
I don't mean for that bull to make a lot of noise.
I think we didn't have .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And of course, it was established.
I made a human example of that in a briefing.
That's going to take right into court.
It took a while for me to make it into this.
The ending may not be it, but they knew that.
Though I ask the question, they knew it very well.
But I don't think the world would have faced it, maybe never.
Maybe never.
Maybe never.
If you get a question, we can discuss that tomorrow.
Well, I've told them, I think it's all right.
I've said to them, I've said, look, that's the matter.
But then, you know, where is it?
It's covered.
They've already covered it.
And I have already covered it, and so forth.
The only question I have is to ask if you'll be conducting an investigation.
What did I just say?
Can I stop you now?
What did I just say, gentlemen?
I just said that if you ask me a school question, as long as mine is different right now, I can just tell you that there are more questions on this.
All that I can say is that I'm not going to, all that I can say is that I'm not going to do it.
But do you think I should express my opinion?
If you make a mistake, you just need to go to the rest of the union.
Then you have to say, what if I said it should be legal?
No, it's not going to be legal.
Well, then how do you define it?
If you did it, it's not going to be legal.
I just say, deal, deal.
Responsibility, check the water, change the matter, which you've done.
Sure, you're going to have legal action and so forth.
I have confidence.
I know that.
All the information that you have I will send to you as a present.
That's it.
I don't know if New York is going to be hired for us to get our stories out, but I would hope that people would avoid them.
I would try to set a pattern when you write a reading on it.
Your first piece is very written, though, is what I hear it's going to be.
You just have to get it to work.
I hear it's going to be held up there.
That's why I think my line .
Then it goes off the track and .
.
.
.
.
.
.
I was asked today, regarding the grave, what you can do about the grave, since we've been paying, in other words, they've been holding on to it, and I said, well, that's another question we can work on, or whatever.
But that's not even a question.
And the Soviet Jewry, the Jews in this press conference, they were actually the assassins for the president.
So we have to shoot this guy.
And that's what we're talking about.
We're talking about it.
I don't like the question, but in our agreement
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's the only way to keep them off balance.
We have four weeks.
We have one.
Four weeks.
Now you have another one.
You may use that as a...
It might be better than a press conference.
Not at all like a press conference.
At some point in time, you know,
In the war, the law of Congress was decided right before the announcement of the agreement in the office.
But this could maintain that same setting if we would have had to do it.
I agree with the point that if you were to go to Congress, the good response is very much to our benefit.
I'll start to respond to that.
But the point that you're talking about today is obviously
and there are enough points to make in that setting.
I would make the, you know, I'd make the comments.
That answers the question.
Because by doing that, it's a stagnant pattern.
Cold, cold shots better.
And, uh, it still doesn't event.
They don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't,
I remember the county name for events.
Everybody would come in.
It's still, man, it's pretty creepy.
Staying right here, it's really creepy.
Well, it's true.
We're doing it out here in the press room.
Let's face it.
The live audience is going to be there.
It's not going to happen.
It's not going to happen.
So, you go out here.
And you're going to get a massive radio play.
It's always going to be the same.
It's always going to be the same.
Anywhere, you can report that to them.
Right?
Thank you very much.
I'm sorry, the Eastern format, we should not report it.
We should put it in the news.
Yeah, no, the Eastern format.
The Eastern format, we should report it.
Thank you.
And I don't want such a hard craft.
You know what I mean?
I don't need a lot of it, but I think of these as some types of good around tomorrow.
The amount of time that we're spending on this, when it comes to it, I spend the day on it.
That's as much as it's worth.
And also, one of the reasons why I'm playing is because I'm going to have a husband.
I think it's because I'm going to have a husband.
You're a nurse and you know about both, one of the things that's interesting.
We have a pretty good setup.
What do I call it?
What do I call it?
What do I call it?
What do I call it?
What do I call it?
What do I call it?
What do I call it?
What do I call it?
Well, how did you do it?
I mean, funny enough, I got a list of my machine heads and got $230 in it.
Well, we've both heard a ton of things.
I'd like to do several files on it.
Great.
And, you know, it's a path.
It's one of the richest people in the United States.
So what?
They both responded to it.
You don't want to contribute.
Well, I think we should always keep the pressure on them.
It's just that the pressure is on them now.
I think so.
I think they are.
You may think the original is really good.
But there's a wide line.
You don't want to be in my view, but there's a wide line.
It can be far more effective.
That's all.
Why not do a very impressive thing?
But it's not that it appears to be impressive, but nobody thinks it's impressive.
It's how we feel.
Many of us, of course, have a contract with the Justice Bureau about the entire thing, and we're working into it, and I think we have checkmated ourselves in many ways, and since we've been following that, I think that the work of the Bureau of God is that if we don't give them a bit of something that is valid, if we inflate it in their hands, I think, I was talking about this earlier, I think inflate it in their hands, or involve them,
for the last 15 years.
And I feel really soft on them.
Really skillful.
Skillful, that's what you need.
Hard on them.
That's why they have to sit here today.
But now and then you've got to push out across the library.
Absolutely.
That's why I'm here today.
That's why they've been working on it this year.
So I think that's it.
I don't think I could go on.
You'll see a lot of people who want to take credit for it.
I'm not sure, but I think it's a much more impactful perspective on the plan that you're working in right now, and this period of what you're talking about, and your response to it.
It's a great point out there, and I agree with that.
Absolutely.
What that could be, of course, would be a great people of power, but within the Presidency,
Yeah, it bothered me a bit before.
Right.
Right.
Right.
Right.
Right.
Right.
Right.
Right.
all important.
I'd love to see it.
Networks are worried about root grounds.
Licensing networks are worried about non-convocation.
But the way forward to worry about that is not to deal with the ammunition.
We're here for something because we're...
I'm not aware of what college stands for.
I was just literally supposed to do what I was saying.
But he may have been aware.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Bye.
Thank you.
No, that's not it.
Mr. President, one couple of years ago, I was in Michigan, and one of the viewers said, I wish you would make Tulsa.
I do not think that I would finish it today.
He had asked about it, but he wouldn't leave.
There are positions that make clear that they are taking decisions.
I would want to see a new response upon the fact that we are working on those in the case of the world war that we are operating in.
Not unless you've heard of it yet.
The story of the encroachments was the other day.
The court requested that I keep driving to the FBI after she had entered into the auditor's side, or whatever.
And I guess that's just about it.
But I think it's fine.
Well, all of these questions, I don't even have a lot of time for all of these questions.
I've got to get my computer to do that.
Well, all of these questions, I think, would be a mistake for you to attempt to start answering them.
There are questions that the President of the United States
posture of the way too quickly in terms of if something ever has to be said about this election.
And that goes back to that eclipsed on that when the President of the United States should not be standing up for a time when we have a variety of singularities.
The re-election against the FBI and the U.S. Secretary
That's something that's been handled and commented on already by the committee.
I think so.
Those are questions that should be handled by the re-elected committee, not by the President of the United States.
I think that should apply to all of them.
... ... ... ... ...
Well, I think it's the best thing.
Well, you're right.
Well, you're right.
I realize it's too great a danger, but we just don't want it too much.
I know.
I know.
I know.
It's already a discussion and comment if you want to ask a question.
Or I don't know if you want to comment, but if you want to apply it, it would be nice to do that.
I don't know if you want to do it, but I'm basically just assorting information here so that others can listen to what I'm saying.
We're going to get back to this in a minute.
I've got you all ready.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The only thing we can talk about is
All right, okay, fine.
With regard to the, with regard to the package that was announced today, that he wasn't out, but to be totally official today, I think that might be the case.
We'll review that in class seven, that's all.
I have a second point.
With regard to a, with regard to, I think I can't believe it.
In the event that they have not withdrawn their point, I can't believe it, we would not request to approve.
They don't have all that much, I can't believe it.
I know very well I'm sober, but I'm just wondering, to what extent do we want to let Cambodia pay
I will tell you about it tomorrow.
I did all that I could with it.
Why don't you just say it's an article of money with respect to California dollars?
But that's an article of money.
It says article of money.
It should be an accuracy fire.
No, that's not what it says.
It's a good deal.
Was that right?
Yes.
I will just say that they were both behind the agreement.
Both.
I had a small point of view.
We, according to this, was an implication that we did send word to the government of Sudan and thereby the property of the terrorists before I made my statement that we were not going to do it.
And let's see, oh, Shultz and Hickey discussed the brewery.
Well, there's some stories that I don't know where they could be coming from.
If that was his mission.
I don't know whether the treasurer got everything that's left out of it.
Goddamn, we told Shelton that we were really proud of him.
I was hated.
He had to tell me, you cannot do this.
What the hell is he trying to do?
I was something.
He was a responsible guy like that.
He said, you can't settle jackasses on.
Jackasses?
We didn't know jackasses.
I'm going to take a very hard line.
I'm going to take a very hard line.
And that's essentially what I'm going to focus on.
Did Schultz do that?
Oh, yes.
What shall I say?
Shall I say, have we discussed this matter?
I would really indicate that any rider that has an attachment to MSM would also have the effect of being totally at the opposite of what you want.
In fact, it's only true that riders say no to fueling.
I don't think they would say no.
It's just that they're aware of our needs, and they would get it done.
For example, a rider would have the other effect.
They would slam down the door.
I don't say that.
I don't say that.
I wouldn't say that.
and also a target of a relationship, as they have loved one another, totally contrary to our public policy, and we've shepherded that, that relationship.
I've heard more and more about it.
I've explained it brutally to all of you, and I say, I'm Jewish, please don't accuse me of it.
Well, I've got to hit it, because I like it.
I hit it brutally, because I think that it impresses me that they do this for you.
Uh, the other white guy is a creeper.
I think they have a group Jackson that I think is invited to do it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Do your best.
But I'll let you know later.
I'm going to see my wife.
She's playing for them all.
I mean, I don't think it's trying, but it's like we've had a crisis.
And frankly that's where they have it, because these, uh, do, like, indicate that, like, if the adversity wouldn't be the good sector, then that would be the structure.
Now the other point is, uh, all this inspired, like, uh, on the, on the issue itself.
Their whole game is just to get us to yell out and start a fire.
But you don't think so.
Based on your conversation.
Well, it depends on their communication.
Sorry about that.
You said that they called me.
Well, that's fine with the other guy.
You know that it was because of Dick that I made the tape.
And that whole time, I don't think that's right.
That's because we've got a reason for the mess we were talking about.
I don't think it was the answer at the beginning, but they're still sending back to us
Very conciliatory though, you know.
They've now acted out something in the last week, which they want.
I don't think they have the bullshit.
What they're saying is that this is, uh, civilian food.
Okay.
Okay.
Unacceptable, but they think, uh...
I think that's the message you had yesterday.
If you had money and money, I think that's a good thing.
We have, uh, we have, uh, we have, uh, we have, uh,
Thank you.

Nixon, Kissinger & Ziegler on Watergate and Executive Privilege

AI Summary

Audio

Transcript (AI-generated)

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Also recorded on March 14, 1973

Cite this conversation