Conversation 422-033

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Well, John, how are you?

President, I'm just great.

Hold up with me on tape somewhere.

I've got a picture of it.

Not in front of all these people.

I don't know if that's true.

Maybe that's the issue.

I thought I had to check it out.

When I was with the agents, they asked me if I could see the office.

They had heard right after the interview.

And I thought I'd have to check that out.

And now it's been interpreted that I was lying to the FBI about the fact that he had an office and didn't have an office here.

Which was the question?

The headline for tonight will be, Gray says, be mine.

Gray apparently didn't know what the testimony was.

He never really saw the final facts of the question.

The leading question.

That's right.

.

They're working on it right now.

He's a very bad man right now.

Uh, they're trying to find him over there right now.

They're trying to find a power grab for the transfer of the radio.

Because, you know, he gets jumped in some portion of the movie, because I don't know why they're trying to cut off the S.J.I.C.

movie tonight.

That's what he's here for, the S.J.I.C.

movie.

In fact, that's a good point for us to say.

It sort of reminds me of this.

I don't know what you're talking about.

You, uh, are talking about a nation, which is the S.J.I.C.

movie.

Okay.

Thank you.

I don't think so.

Dick Morris is talking about it right now.

I don't know.

Thank you.

I wanted to get guidance from

.

that nothing was raised about the taker being concerned that he didn't have a contact.

Nothing on that other thing wasn't really involved.

But he did say that the taker was a little pissed off at my case because he had not been involved.

And when he was scheduled, which they might have been able to set up, I think he canceled it.

Thank you.

I'll be subjecting to the agreement that they've made with my sister and my sister-in-law that the FBI brought a file together with a gentleman, a member, that was demanding that they be presented and that they submit it.

The Attorney General and the Director of the FBI have produced all of the materials that they have.

Dr. Kiney, last night, he raised that.

And he said that he learned about it with Weicker, and Weicker is now satisfied with doing what he wants to do.

Thank you.

... ... ... ... ...

I just want to get you better with yourself.

But I suggest that if you call finance, you have to get a conversation with them.

If you call them and say, you've got a good one, but later you're not happy, you've got to play it on and on and on.

Would you want to play that with everybody else today?

I think he's not really standing on his tiptoes.

He doesn't want us to collaborate.

He doesn't want any of us to collaborate.

This AA is saying he wants to be helpful.

He wants to work things out.

.

Okay.

.

Thank you.

Hey.

Well, .

Thank you.

He has, uh, discipline, uh, about the marketing class.

I think that's where Greg's getting his guidance.

The trouble, the trouble is that Dick gives him very, very gentle, something on this kind of stuff, and Greg overreacts, so it's just a matter of reaction.

We had to be in the way of giving them access to the FBI files.

There was the opposite of what finding was going to be found.

And we shouldn't have even needed that.

So that, of course, we should not have even known.

We should have known this second nature that we'd never turn over a lawful house to a full committee.

And Dr. Biggs had a thing.

He was deciding something with that.

And he said, man, we covered this.

And he said, man, we're going to do it in session.

Okay.

Well, where do we, what good words of wisdom do we have, Mr. Huggins and Buddy?

Mr. Huggins.

.

Okay.

Thank you.

Really?

Uh-huh.

Yeah.

So I guess the point is that we can leave.

We can see what's coming on you.

You're a man, man.

And I wanted to get everybody else out of this.

And so I told Baker, I said, all right, you want to come?

He said, fine.

I said, fine.

And so I went with that.

And so he said, he's running down here.

Yeah.

That's it.

Why don't you get him on the call and get him down?

It's sort of a line.

You didn't want that.

That's not his fault.

It's not our fault.

Why did you accept it if you didn't want to do the right thing?

The other hand, you're not going to have to do it.

It's essential that you give it to the right person.

Again, if you want everybody to come down to the public session,

.

Yeah.

Why did you work that thing out with him?

You said the prophet, he still hasn't written a letter.

When did you talk to him?

That's right.

All right.

Thank you.

Under the.

Thank you.

I don't even know.

And it's better.

That's why I told Baker to do it.

I'm excited to begin the bet proposition.

I'm excited to go up there.

Thank you.

.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, how the document's written.

And until I sit down and write that down, I've done part B, so to speak.

I've done this a great thing.

And I'm relatively satisfied that we don't have any major problems with that.

As I go to part A, the water, I haven't gone through the exercise yet.

and I really can't say if I do it where we are.

And I think it's certainly something that should be done now.

And that's never helpful if you're down to try to do it.

We can't be as complete as we don't know.

All we know is what happens.

Rather than going into every

Thank you.

.

Thank you.

That would be my scenario, that he presents it to you at your request, that you then post it.

I know that, but I don't care.

You might say, well, you're not even with the defense.

You're only dealing with the White House phone.

You can write it away.

As a matter of fact, you could say, I will not summarize all the FBI reports in this document because it's my understanding that you may wish to publish it or you can allude to it in that way without saying it flatly.

Thank you.

and give it to Urban and Baker under the same terms that they're getting FBI reports.

You know, there's a cataclysm window, and there's people being suppressed to leave for this, and there's some things that shouldn't be assumed.

But I want you to know everything we know, and publicly say you could have turned over a team report to the urban committee, and then begin to say, I think that we've received it.

Various people have it.

various degrees where they may be able to sit and testify, but it's not worth their coming up here to be able to repeat really what is here in some form where they're going to be treated like they're in a service.

But I'm also willing, based on the fact that this has ground rules for how we have these people here, people in the communication part, the issue of whether or not I am going to call to report it.

All right.

That's all I know about the damn thing is that the Secret Service is a policeman's boat.

I'd like to go on forever with you on that.

Exactly.

I think it's a hell of a purpose that I'm not going to say.

Thank you.

You're in a position to say, look, that document I published is a document I rely on.

That's the report I rely on.

And it's codified and included in all the secret documents.

And now this is a surprise to me.

I'm going to fire A, B, C, and D now.

... ... ... ... ... ...

Another thing I'm aware of, and I may say it, but I'll take it as it would be good on all discussions.

I would say it was a great idea.

I think it would be incredible if we could get this done in time.

I think it would be a great idea.

Well, you've said you're going to cooperate with a proper investigation.

And I'm not going to comment on it.

Well, it is proper.

So why not put ourselves in a framework where you're way out above it, you're cooperating with this committee, turned over.

And no further comment.

I don't want to.

I was trying to focus in on all of that, but I don't think we can do that.

We're cooperating with the committee.

We're both cooperating, but we're not going to comment well on the matter that's being considered by the committee.

Unless the committee does this enough.

You know what I'm saying?

For that reason, don't give, don't focus.

Meet the board.

Only hand it over.

Other ways to do this.

Thank you.

And before you did that, you want to have that law agreed in advance.

And you've got to put a protocol in there because you can come to the maker and you can come to the committee and say, look, I'll turn over the deed report to you.

If we can agree on how witnesses will be treated up there, I can even screw the executive privilege.

uh... uh...

Thank you.

He's a big fish out there on the television campus.

I think that would be tough.

I think strong going out wouldn't get him nearly as excited as John or me going out with John or Jason.

Well, Jason wouldn't have to do it.

I don't know.

But if he can do it, it's going to be a recession.

We're not going to be able to do it.

Then why hold us back?

.

I really think these guys are concerned.

I'll see you later.

They didn't test him.

We asked them to.

They didn't find out.

They didn't write down where he tested.

He tried to hold a firm with Jeff Chapin.

That's when they do it in court.

It might do pretty well because there's a former employee that had no policy role and no major contact with the president.

I think you're going to have to discuss this.

... ... ...

In the case of a president, in the case of a president, you can get him up, then you can have him on the front of the camera and say, I will not because the president is privileged.

Well, they can get up, but they can't.

But if they're your privilege, if you're a dealer, of course.

And, of course, we have the anomaly of Clark Mullen running up and trying to give testimony in a civil service area over here now.

I said, ask me a question, ask me a question.

This is like having a report.

What I mean is that the government is asserting the executive privilege.

All right.

It's a way of saying, you know, all right, let's put this thing to it.

But the point is, whose privilege is it to assert?

And what are you doing with the case?

And I think, and I haven't thought this is the reason I called you, but you figure out what the scenario is.

And I said, well, what would happen is that immediately this would be an issue.

But on behalf of the president, the letter would go to the committee saying the executive asserts privilege.

And

As I told him, I am so convinced we're right on the statement that I've never gone beyond that.

He argues that we're being hurt badly by the way that we've handled it.

I don't see that at all.

Yeah.

That's what you look like you're covering up right now.

It's the only active step you've taken to cover up the watergates all along.

What is that?

Even though we've offered to cooperate.

We have legal grounds and precedent and tradition and constitutional grounds and all that stuff.

You're just fine.

But the guy sitting at home...

who watches John Chancellor say that the President is covering this up by this historic review blanket, the widest exercise of objective privilege in American history and all that.

He said, what the hell is he covering up?

He's got no problem.

Why doesn't the President know what you're talking about?

The President and all that, they don't know what you're talking about.

Maybe you shouldn't make the statement.

You shouldn't, because it puts you in a much better position.

Maybe over here,

This is what Irvin wanted.

He wanted all of us up there, unlimited, total, wide open.

We, the same, in a sense, because it's over here, now you can go back to about here.

And probably you can get away with that.

You can get away with it in the Watergate context.

See, you said executive privilege delivered, and then you applied it in the first instance.

You're right.

So this all can't go.

And I wouldn't change that.

I would always change it.

At the same time, you are saying, oh, well, now there's this other case.

And what I'm trying to do there is just complete my statement.

Because, very clearly, the questions that the committee properly wants to ask don't have any bearing on these people's relationship to the President.

They say they don't.

The president has to do it.

I don't know.

Again, it's going to be hard to get through.

It's going to be hard to do.

You're right.

It's going to be hard to get through.

To the average guy.

The argument will be the president's back off his rock-solid position on executive privileges and how they can have achievement and policy and all that everybody testifies to.

I don't know if I should have said that.

It is.

I think you're saying that there's a PR problem that people don't think of.

Right, right.

Oh, yeah.

They don't think of it.

I realize that.

They think you've cleaned up an iron curtain here.

You won't let anybody out of here ever.

Have you ever worked with a scholarly...

With my understanding, I thought that we would make some announcements.

The committee's operating rules do not permit witnesses to have counsel.

I'm a friend of yours.

I've never heard that about you.

That's the committee.

I'm committed now.

I can't believe it.

The committee wants to concur.

.

And the witness should not have to be in a position of saying, that's the one I can't answer because it does have to be you or a feeling or something.

It should be written in court.

Yeah.

.

That's correct.

We have said that now we want to debate, do you have any agenda?

Is there an executive session of the Senate committee?

other senators than they are.

Any senator has the privilege to do it.

So they can't even come in and sit there.

Sure.

They can't ask questions.

They can't.

This is a concept.

Other members cannot be sure.

That should be worked on, too.

But normally, in practice, they know what they're going to ask questions from some members.

But you've got to sit there in the audience and go out to the TV channel and sit up.

Wouldn't you want to?

You probably wouldn't want to have that.

I was just thinking that in the membership of the committee, we're in reasonably good shape, and the people that you have on the committee are not as bad as most, as some.

In terms of use of DVF, it's not as good.

Right?

There's another way.

And I'm part of that group.

Thank you.

When do they start hearing?

.

And anyway, the main thing is to do the right thing and rush through that.

It'll take some time.

But John's got to have time to write this report.

I guess we don't.

We don't reach.

We don't approach.

Or do we approach this so that we have a report or not?

Let me ask you this.

Approaching the fact that we have findings being approached.

Who else?

I can't.

I'm sorry.

Well, Kleine's conversation with Irvin and Baker, Irvin and Lee, if you would like to talk to Kleine about the executive privilege, maybe it's now time to get that channel reopened again.

I don't know if you can make this a suggestion.

Well, it has, but it's a question.

You said that you put the chapter at first.

That's the first question.

For the first step, you're going to have a meeting .

You're going to have everybody .

And don't discuss it with .

Who's got problems?

Thank you.

Preserve my counsel's role with Urban and Baker that I ought to be present with climbing.

I agree.

And the four of us sit down and talk about executive privilege.

We won't get into any of the subtleties.

The thing about your being at the top is you can keep climbing.

Plus, they would appreciate the fact that you would be with me as counsel.

That's another reason I'm not, you know, when the final wire is drawn.

That's perfect for us as counsel.

That's right.

All right.

Let's get down to the point.

I would think that possibly clients ought to call today and let Irvin and Baker know if you would like to meet with them early next week to talk about executive privilege.

And again, I would be impressed to see if we can find a format for that.

... ... ... ...

.

He makes a report of your learning being known.

That's what a dean's report is.

I think, John, I don't know what you're going to say to her when the question comes up.

I know Christ is mine.

I see that.

I'm not testifying as such.

At the same time, he is all that's in me.

I don't think that's bad.

I don't know.

I was supposed to be ordered on it.

After the first, he was directed to the president to get me on the back.

Second, his White House counsel did it.

on it for the purpose of representing any people in the integrity branch who were being questioned.

So you were there for the purpose of getting information out of Dr. Gershon, correct?

But the main point is that we certainly are seeking that out so that we know operationally what the thing about your position is.

I think that's why we're concerned.

Your position is not right.

Thank you.

.

They can subpoena any of us.

There's no doubt about that.

They don't service here because they can't get in.

They can service your home or something like that.

All of them are fine.

You can't do anything else.

So the question is, once you're served and you decline, then you've got a contempt situation.

Now, I would say that it gets very difficult to believe that they'll go contempt on people who... That would be a good test case for them to go on.

The other thing is, though, they have subpoenaed Colson from up there, and Colson could then say, well, I decline to testify on the basis of privilege of communication or privilege of activity.

And again, if you get a little fuzzier as to whether or not he's a prisoner, that would get much fuzzier as to whether or not...

Thank you.

I think you say, based on what I know about this case, I can see no reason why...

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Thank you.

I'm going to call in the best one.

I'm going to tell them.

I'm going to call Baker first and tell them that we'd like to meet with them on Monday to discuss and explore the formula for providing the information they need in a way that does not cause a conflict with the President's general policies.

I'm going to tell them that we need their information.

Yes.

I don't think we have agreed to anything in this first session, but I think we have let them know that we're thinking about reaching some sort of, say, now what is the, what would you think here?

Say, I would say, I would say, now what would you think?

We want to see what could be worked on with regard to the

This response to your position, and that's what you've got now, that is, written stuff isn't any good.

I don't want the body to be that you can't ask paper, you can't ask a piece of paper question.

... ... ... ... ...

uh... uh...

But then Urban responded.

He specifically rejected that only on the grounds that you can't ask a question because it is a basic process.

You need to be able to ask questions.

So we're getting that out of the way.

He hasn't said that the process of being a senator is part of the question being asked.

What is the argument with God?

I don't know.

I think what I do is we'll talk a little bit about the Constitution and I'll remind you of the position that you took.

So vocally, in the Gravel case, where he came up with a legislated aid cannot be called a question for advice to give their senator or congressman.

He just went on a great length and cited executive privilege.

Then he'll say this was not advising the president.

Well, and I'll say that these are men who do advise the president.

That's the principle of all.

And we have to draw the line.

And we have that principle discussed.

and an open session and so forth.

It's kind of a thing where you've got to, you want to go up to the bench with the jury that will hear it.

Well, I don't think John Orr said he'd get their hand on it.

One day he has to offer to appear in the executive session and get them on to the executive session.

But it seems to me, now I've raised the issue, it would be a willingness to listen to

I like what I've got to say, but I like what I've got to say.

That's fine.

Well, and also concerned about, frankly, the heavy, heavy matters of UDR.

Debated publicly.

That's a matter that ought to be debated by other matters.

And the fact that it's raised does not indicate guilt.

That's part of his argument.

The fact that it's raised does not indicate guilt.

That's what we're reading about here.

But having it in public sessions

All right.

You know what I mean?

There are future cases of this sort involved.

We're making a lot of history here.

And along the history, and we're setting up the story of the president.

The president, after all, that point out was the president, you know, he pitched him off to his station.

Irving away from his staff is not very much.

I mean, this might give up the story itself right there.

Lock himself in.

You know, I've dealt with it for a number of years.

I've seen that happen.

I've reached a court with him on legislation.

He doesn't go for anything.

He may get an answer from India.

That's what he said.

And he just takes the adamant.

Suppose he just takes the adamant law.

Knock him.

That's the other thing.

The other point is, would it not be helpful to get Baker enlisted somewhere in advance?

Is that what you're talking about?

Well, even on the opening step, the problem that I have here is Baker sits there and just parrots, urban, adamant things saying, hello, there can't be anything, except a public session.

Our president, you know, they send it back.

Baker will lay the whole thing out.

Yeah.

Baker, on the other hand, might be sure to at least talk to him and say, look, how I wanted you to try to work something out here.

You could say, we're going to try.

We want to work something out.

Give us a hand.

Work something out with us.

We're going to work with you, but you can't be talking to us.

Right now, how hard are you going to go for a lawsuit?

Give us a hand.

I'm trying to open this up.

Let's start this.

And say, and then have a lawsuit.

We say, if he's really out, we say, well, okay, then why wouldn't that list us?

How do we frame the legal issue?

And perhaps we can at least agree on how to frame the legal issue.

So instead of taking three years, it'll only take a year and a half.

They know it.

Thank you.

What it's doing, Mr. President, is getting you up above and away from it.

And that's the most important.

I know I suggested that the other day.

.

Thank you.

Suppose dictation.

No.

Oh, great.

I mean, I see you.

I was going to say,

... ... ... ... ...

Particularly.

That's what I was prepared to say.

This is everything we know.

Nothing more.

This is the whole purpose of that.

We need to get further information.

Our counsel will furnish it.

It is not anything.

This is all we know.

In addition to that, we have people that you'd like to have.

You'd think it's the best way to have an executive session, but that's a veteran.

You say executive session, but it goes out of veterans as well as veterans.

.

I think that's based on what maybe I don't think I said we would only write

I didn't say that at all.

I think that's what it was.

Not that your letter was wrong, but the whole written interrogatory, we had discussed that across the list.

With respect to your ex-employees, you have the same problem of getting in the area of privileged communication.

Certainly can make a good case for keeping them

that you can be raised without having, on a legal basis, without having been killed by the Fifth Amendment.

I'd like to read the Fifth Amendment application.

Right now, I

All right, fine, Chuck.

How long were you in Florida?

I was down there overnight.

I was four hours on the witness stand, testifying to the government in these racket cases in Baltimore.

I mean, I've got an angry judge down there.

But it was all over the lot, asking me questions I wanted to.

Unless you did question me.

This had all to do with the discretionary act of signing a piece of paper that I'm authorized by the statute.

There were 27 good lawyers.

Thank you.

He has, Mr. President, no question about it.

He's a very, very tough guy.

He's a very solid guy.

He does things.

And also, on the side of the order, he's a very, very nice guy.

He's a very nice guy.

Yes, he's a great guy.

Well, you know, I feel for all the people

John, it's all right.

Come in.

Did you find out anything?

I was not going to go to see you.

There's an office over there.

Call over.

I'll be down here in a little while to see you.

I'm not going to go to see you.

There's an office over there.

One thing I don't want to do

If it's going to come out that way, I do.

I think whoever probably turned just as well.

As if I, and then it looks like I try to keep it from coming out.

That's why it's important that that station is locked.

Hello?

Sure.

Right.

Sure.

It looks like he's praying.

He's praying here.

Thank you.

I just made it for you.

We really wanted to take what John said.

Thank you.

... ... ... ...

about this, we often said, we've got problems.

We're going to put a pass into their comments.

And those messages are really, really soft.

Where is that leadership?

They don't have any leadership, and they're picking on all the leadership.

And we have to do that.

So, gosh, you know, look at that.

That was a hell of a big issue.

I want to try to get this thing in a little heat now.

Try to have a fairly...

Thank you.

They have taken a body load from these people.

That is something that nobody would ever agree to happen.

You know, they killed him.

Do you hear anybody now questioning their mom?

I mean, what those guys say.

They all say, thank God we wouldn't be on.

Do you hear anybody question that?

Isn't that true?

Everybody's talking about that.

Do you hear anybody question, for example, they're all saying the president did the right thing and he did all that.

Now, and they all said, James Bond and the rest, that they, they, along the war, that they couldn't understand the standards of war against them, they kept us in captivity.

Those back jerks really didn't know what was going on.

Now they want to cut the budget.

I mean, the military budget, which we had called.

Well, we had the Russian budget.

We had the Soviet budget.

We had the Russian budget.

I guess we are about to get back together, don't you think?

Well, I am approaching directly to my direction.

Thank you.

That's right.

That's what I meant.

Yes.

I'm not sure John's ready for that.

Get away from the making of money and enjoy your life.

What I think he wants is a ship.

He doesn't have a future.

And there really isn't.

They can never accept a man.

They can't.

John, as Rucker Muller wrote in 1968, we have the Republican Party.

The same is true of the Democratic Party.

I mean, Rucker Muller was not corrupt.

He didn't come out of it as a Republican.

He never did.

He didn't leave.

He didn't leave Republicans for Johnson.

That's the victory.

And yet, my ears are not supporting the goal line.

He destroyed his chances of ever being nominated for president.

And so it is with Conley on McGovern.

McGovern is finished.

Goldwater was just Goldwater's finish.

No way McGovern could ever be nominated again.

No way Goldwater could again.

But they and the kind of people that are for them can stop somebody else.

Don't you think that's a really good analogy?

There's the basic fact that this has been a Republican party.

We get it here.

We mention it.

The majority of the Democratic Party, a majority of them, continue to be, and they aren't the liberals who never came.