Conversation 426-004

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

We reviewed this grant statement with Mitchell after we talked with Dean and a few

changes that would have to be made, and this would be the gist of the announcement, but I said a few changes would have to be made, and President Mitchell should admit, right, that I haven't had time to crank it, but I'll tell you what we need to cut with it.

The dean doesn't care what it says as long as it indicates that he's volunteered to do it.

The president's asked me to say that when charges were made, a member of the White House staff, John Dean, was implicated in the planning and the burglary of the Democratic people.

be permitted to testify before the grand jury now inquiring into the matter.

The President encouraged Mr. Dean to do so, to clear his name, and offered a way of any executive privilege which might be an impediment to his testifying.

Mr. Dean will inform the U.S. Attorney of his intention and desire to testify in grand jury meetings.

The President feels that since charges of a serious legal nature have been leveled, the Judicial Grand Jury Forum is the proper one in which to have the facts heard, with probity

.

Everybody agreed on that.

I know we still get involved with what he says.

And that's the problem.

That's the problem with it going away.

And it won't go away by hand.

Well, it's the...

I'm sure...

I'm concerned.

It'll never go away.

We'll find out.

Yes.

Thank you.

You have to mandate this thing.

I want to indicate why I waited five days.

So I must say that when charges were made yesterday, that's what we've got as a guarantee.

I'm in charge of where we're reported to have been made to a Senate committee yesterday in private session, in secret session.

Up to that time, that's the only thing we, up to that time, was all in this paper.

Again, that was personally implicated.

.

In the Watergate case, that's what we want to say.

I don't want to make it as narrow as I could.

Sorry, fine.

The Democratic people, Mr. Dean came to the president to suggest that he be permitted to testify.

Mr. Dean requested the president.

I would say requested the president.

Requested that the president permit him.

will appear voluntarily before the Grand Curriculum to answer these charges.

The President commit him to survive?

Yes, voluntarily before the Grand Curriculum to answer these charges and clear his name.

The President encouraged Mr. Dean to do so.

The President encouraged him to do so.

The President approved the request because he believed Mr. Dean should have an opportunity.

charges.

And I say before the legally constituted or something like that.

Go ahead.

If the president offered to waive any executive privilege, which might be an impediment to his testimony on offer, I would expect that the president has, the president waives the president's

The President has authorized Mr. Dean to waive

I'm saying he's authorized a waiver of executive privilege.

He's authorized a waiver.

A waiver.

That he waived the usual.

That he waived the...

He's authorized a waiver.

What?

I don't want him to waive it.

You're the one who waived it.

The president is authorized a waiver of executive privilege.

Right.

Well, wait a minute.

regarding, yeah, any personal involvement, testimony involved, testimony regarding, it's authorized a waiver of executive privilege.

A waiver of executive privilege with regard to it's pertaining

matters pertaining to the criminal charges that have been made against Mr. Depp, that have been allegedly made against Mr. Depp.

It feels very strongly that you should say, and so does he, that the executive privilege is regarding his personal involvement.

I don't know.

I'm sure it's personal.

Yeah, that'd be better.

Planning or execution.

That'd be all right.

I don't know if you can see, but we're trying to get it narrowing.

We're planning our execution.

The watergate crime.

It's finding our execution of what it is.

The president has authorized a waiver of executive purpose regarding his deems, regarding deems.

He's involved in finding our execution of what it is.

Let's read that to the dean.

the U.S. Attorney of His Intention and Desire to testify in Grand Jury's Convenience.

The President feels that since charges of such a serious legal nature have been leveled, the judicial-grand jury forum is the proper one in which to have the facts heard in a judicious way.

We're just saying the Grand Jury.

It's a proper form.

It's a proper form to have the charges.

with in regard for the of individuals accused of criminal activities.

I can say that.

I'm just saying.

And then he could go on and on and on and on.

And I think they're going to acknowledge that.

And view it without my saying.

And view it in the responsible way of the Senate.

And view it in the irresponsible way of the Senate.

In this investigation.

I can't get into that, but we've got to make a deal with them today.

At some point, we need to say, yeah.

I was talking to you earlier about the way the Senate started this investigation today.

They declared that they would not do it, that the lawmakers would be considered.

Sure.

He said after.

The first question, why doesn't he go up to the Senate then?

Correct.

Because this is a criminal charge and the proper place for criminal charges to be heard is here.

That was .

It's not the proper place .

.

I was the president, and I'm proud of you.

Thank you.

I'd like to do is not put out a test, all right?

But it's good to have one available.

Why don't you take it in there?

Well, it is.

What I'm going to say is so little.

I'm not going to say about that much.

Well, I understand that that's my concern.

The economy side.

.

Well, actually, what we can do is, and to be fair, I call on the American people to support the government.

We don't want to save their bucks.

I call on the American people not to cut the defense budget.

You see, that is as much a part of the story.

It's part of it.

And it shows right there.

And it moves it on in the deadlines.

I I I I I I I

.

I believe in the way of the right and so forth and so on.

I don't know if they'll still write these stories.

.

I don't know.

We suggested that we eliminate the word executive and say we were privileged.

And we discussed the problems involved with that paper.

You know, it should be executive privilege.

And we put that back.

The only suggestion we had is that we read the Mitchell and the Bowdoin headband and the group.

Let me raise the point that we're on.

We're on three of them.

We should do it one at a time.

It wasn't just that call.

They didn't make it.

They brought it right.

So we had a reason to send it there.

But it was a problem.

It was a problem.

But it was a white house.

They walked out and said, look, I've got a big announcement for the kids.

Call a special group.

Don't call a special group.

You don't answer questions about it anyway.

Put it out on the stick.

Put it out on the wire.

Mr. Speaker, well, let's argue the reasons for going today, which there are some substantial ones.

One, to get it out before the President speaks, so the President speaks is the very, very effective.

Two, to respond to the charges in the cycle that they're made.

In other words, the charges were made yesterday, made known to us today through the Los Angeles Times, which is our only source of legal information for today.

.

Let's wait.

.

There's no question in my mind that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference whether you do it the second minute or the third minute.

As far as our group is concerned, they're all on through the night.

But if you did it the second minute, it would blend that.

It would be great if you did it the second minute or the third minute.

And then follow up to the president's talk.

And the commentator's going to say the president made no reference to the Watergate matter as a topic of primary concern.

That's another thing.

The way I play it is, well, the President talked about food prices and he talked about the end of the war.

But in Washington tonight, those matters pale.

And that's again, compared to the current hot issue of the time.

And of course, the President might even say, well, he made that point.

Well, he said, in fact, he wished to pay it, but he doesn't know.

So he got watered down.

And he said, this is.

We are catching it here because

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

I think that's exactly the kind of forthcoming

voluntary disclosure that everybody's been waiting for.

And you're getting it out to an audience unparalleled.

If they will pick it up, they'll be playing our game.

I think that's quite true.

who may find one of them can answer.

I think as much as I say, as much as they have here, they're going to be all the busier than that.

They will definitely agree with that.

They're going to have to agree with that in the morning, in the weekend, in the afternoon, in the morning.

And what they may very well say is that they'll see them right now and say, hastily, you know, that's all the presidential address of the nation designed to cover up the attention focusing on the Watergate.

The president tonight will speak from the Oval Office and will take me out of the way.

.

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

all all

I know the .

.

The worst part of that is they still call the president.

That's right.

They don't call him.

But I don't know why.

You know, you do that.

Why not?

Because then they will say in the White House, you know, desperate move prior to your husband's speech.

And then they slip that statement.

It's gone.

So you have to take it.

It's an evaluation.

That's correct.

You're right.

Thank you.

Well, I think what I was going to say is, John, that Eddie put it this way.

I have a feeling myself that

The same

It's the same rule applied to any other either present or former member of the White House staff against the rule.

This is about another member of the White House staff who's called an attorney.

That says we expect other charges to be made.

What about the other one?

What about going the other way and saying this policy is consistent with the president's directive to all members of the White House staff to cooperate politically?

Yeah, I would bet.

This policy is better.

This policy carries out.

This carries out the policies, the President's consistent policies, that all President and former members of the Bible study will cooperate fully with the grand jury.

And that's a very good way to put it.

I don't know if the grand jury and all other law enforcement agencies, but I think it should be the grand jury.

Let's see if we can get it.

John, I feel it.

I know it.

I feel that I'd rather go in the morning.

I don't know why it's been pushed to get it done.

My father was on there.

Also, I think instead of talking about making sure that you agree to the subject, it's going to be .

I don't think, I think in the morning you can do that.

I think in the morning you can do it.

And waiting one day is no problem.

Yes, sir.

So .

Well, that's what you .

And the denials?

Not if they did mention it, but if they didn't mention it, what's your prognostication about it?

Roughly.

And then, following what you said,

Let me ask you this, Ron.

The point is, John,

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

We're not going to do it for another reason.

I want you to take the time, get it properly titled down, get yourself properly approved, and then we'll have a chance to talk to you.

I don't think that I want you to rush off.

I just don't like the idea of a hasty little call.

There's going to be no reason.

whether it's a hateful call or an unusual thing, responding to the criticism, stunted by the criticism from the public and social systems.

And that comes on just before the president goes on a nine o'clock.

What else comes on before nine o'clock?

They pitch about Watergate, and the president speaks about it in his commentary, and they say he didn't answer the charges about Watergate.

All right, the people will hear that, but in the morning they will read this and come on and answer that.

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

John.

What I meant is, in regard to the questions that I might answer, particularly in terms of how you would take the time to tie it all together.

On that day, you'd get some thought about that, John, as to how you could do it with the trash and so forth and so on.

But we're going to have to fight the time.

I mean, it's quite a time.

It's quite a time.

we want to do, which is that we can get the committee's going to meet with the committee's going to meet an executive session or something on Tuesday, Monday, or Tuesday, on Friday, and we can get them to vote him out on the grounds, and get advice from the department to go along.

on the grounds that the matter should be considered by the Senate rather than the committee.

So we get an upvote at the committee.

Then, the finance would move the table until the completion of the urban hearings on the grounds that this can't be properly considered by the Senate until the urban hearings are filed back into the committee.

And that motion would carry.

And then, I'm afraid that would come out of it.

They moved it to the floor,

And we could get that done.

I think that's a thing.

That fills Gray up so that he's confirmed in a sense.

Does Gray know about this?

No.

That's what we want done.

Well, it's a more graceful way to get Gray out than to take him and start our way down here.

Thank you.

I may ask you, John, if you could do something else.

I wonder if you, maybe, .

I don't know what Baker's attitude is.

Baker doesn't want to .

Now he's

who is the administrative assistant.

The law is saying all the time that he wants a contact with the White House.

That's one thing.

And maybe we can give the George Bushers that contact .

.

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

Yes.

Here's what I was going to say.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

You can start off by getting .

I see where that leads us.

You can do that.

Or you can show them.

.

So how do you want to have the information?

Do you want to have it formally in conversation?

written for, you want to have an interrogation.

Cross-examination.

As we notice in the paper, you put a big premium on cross-examination.

Why do you want to have it in that context?

Because you aren't looking at bodies.

Take a deposition, for example.

Take a deposition to the right member of the council to take a deposition.

Or to the board of the council to take a deposition.

And then, as a last resort, we would say, all right, all the members of the committee would participate in the proposal.

But it would take place on the new program.

On the new program, because it involves Senator .

And you would have the opportunity

I can do that.

The disability I have, which you may be

is that there might be some kind of a party of interest.

I don't foresee that, but it's conceivable.

And at the very least, I would be a witness regarding the circumstances of the police department or those secrets that are reporting the incident to me, and that's right.

Now, I don't know whether that's disabling in the sense that I'm sitting down with Baker and Irwin.

In their eyes, I can understand Irwin.

Taking the position, I don't want to talk to anybody who's liable to be a party of interest in this stuff.

For fear that that would seem to be prejudiced.

Is there a probity in the investigation?

How can we find out?

I call on the mayor and ask him.

I don't want to talk to you about that.

And Mark, he says, talk to me alone.

Me, Howard, alone.

Talk to him.

We'd like to work out how to do it now.

Let me say what I believe.

We cannot.

If you know, we crossed the bridge.

We had to cross it.

We have a pretty good position to stand firm on executive privilege.

I've told you that it's not bad, particularly the way the Congress has handled it.

Am I overstating or not?

A little bit, but not much.

I think we have a big PR problem in order to explain that.

I don't think we can do it.

Well, let me put it this way.

It's a big PR problem, but it's going to be a bigger PR problem to have our boys down there, dragged around there,

If you want to do that, we'll do that too.

Well, see, nobody argues that, including Senator Ernie.

Ernie, what'd you say?

He currently says you've got to work out some way to get someone up here.

I don't understand.

We can't come up with a whole White House board of committee.

Why not just release people?

Why not work something out?

Well, Ernie Baker said we'll have the same plan.

I don't want everything.

This is the time.

They're deaf.

Are they really?

Are we aware of that?

No, I think they are, and they really have hit themselves in a bad way.

Well, that's making our eyes.

No, but look at the lead story.

Watergate is purging for a clean-sealer so far.

But McCord has no evidence to prove it.

One source said McCord swore under oath before Senate elections that he had, quote, heard, quote, quote, that's what we first authorized.

Same source said, however, that McCord could offer no prerogative evidence to back up his testimony.

May I?

I'm very strong with it.

Several members of the Senate selected me as President of the United States of America.

I can't imagine anyone.

We know Irvin was mad last week.

One Sunday, Irvin and Baker met with Dash.

What I had in mind was this.

The other day, John, I said,

I noticed the suggestion that's been made around here by some of my associates that my other special counsel wasn't a student.

And I heard the truth, that I do not have anybody on the side of a public member who's a very special counsel.

So there are some of my associates that I don't like, but I know who got that.

And then two of my other people on my area, because I've met them, and they're working hard to avoid them.

They have a few little problems, though, and that's another point.

Well, I assume we've got somebody here to do that.

We tried that CIA case.

Well, we got the injunction.

The guy was going to still be in the CIA.

I could get a guy like that.

All right.

What I'd like to do is to get a guy like that.

I don't know him.

I don't know what he's doing.

My father would agree with my strategy on John.

See, I think you've got it.

At this point, I've had it.

We've had it.

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

.

I see if we need somebody to chime in.

Why is it spotlessly?

Now, let me ask you a question.

I would like to ask you a question.

I don't go .

One day .

One day isn't going to make a difference.

I think we're going to let this letter be a commentary on what George Bush was willing to talk about.

You and I don't need any kind of a message from Mr. Trump.

I don't know what it is.

It's great that they shouldn't be saying what it sounds like.

It sounds like Bob Gold.

I don't mean George.

It doesn't say it as the Vice President's message.

.

I would not have.

What do you think?

So, that's the natural thing.

That's where the thing hangs out.

That's good.

And it says

It's not a problem.

Unstated to the managerial agenda.

Other dependents.

In this case, I have no personal knowledge, whatever, that any so-called IRS government had not a job or participated in the activities of the townhouse and convicted.

In the news, media, and I believe, and I would be a vendor over to that.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

All right.

Thank you.

Ask him what he suggests, because he just may say it, but he'll give up because he's privy to it.

I'm inclined to think that this loving other thing is more than a job thing.

It's not a good thing.

We never have.

That's right.

That's why I want to put that business consistently.

You were very good at making that decision here.

Because we should maintain that.

I know we have paid attention to it, but let's keep it on the record.

And it should be the same.

So when you say to Ronald, what caused this change in the plan?

Ronald, you're looking right back at the world and you say, what changed the plan?

Right.

When you get into the way it is already in the grand jury, everybody asks, right?

Anybody else they want is standing here ready to go.

I would say that some of us ought to say maybe our wisdom has been proven.

Okay, let's get down to the bottom line.

Who is going to be the scapegoat?

Chuck decided to throw it back, so he got very undignified.

He said, look, I deeply resent that question.

This is a situation where you've got your people who have given up private lives to come in and serve the government to do what they do is right, and they're torn apart in a kangaroo court.

He is complaining because it looks like nobody's in charge around here and that was the gist of what he

I said, well, the president called me in the second and asked me to respond to the vice president's concerns and express to the president.

I'm not in a position to prepare the way for it.

Nor can I predict what he's likely to say.

He got scalded very badly by the committee when Baker and Irvin negotiated with the finance department a lot of times.

The committee took his hide off.

That's one of the circumstances where he would sit in front of the full committee.

That's what they understand.

Well, incidentally, I did stuff over the last several months.

But he did the full committee.

It isn't going to be any worse than the full committee that you got married to.

If I have to negotiate with the whole committee, shall I agree to go up there and do that?

No.

This is a negotiation.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

I want to negotiate with, I'm telling you that I want to negotiate with Irwin.

Yeah, but see, Baker's hitting it to me.

And Irwin will hurt Savannah.

I think I want to negotiate.

What happened?

Baker.

The rest of the committee were pissed off because Irwin and Baker got delivered the wrong files.

No, they didn't.

No.

They were pissed off because Irwin and Baker met with the plaintiffs and made a deal.

The deal had included them.

I see.

Well, maybe I'm wrong.

But anyway, maybe I was thinking.

You would say, all right, Senator, present this to the committee.

Here's what we'll do.

That's what we'll do.

But that is our position.

That's stage one.

That's our position, and we will not give in.

We'll make that conviction.

You can have an executive second.

You can have a flare house.

You can have a report, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

I'm sure you want to give them all.

Well, as Dennis argues, you're totally blowing your mini semblance of executive second.

And off the record and without a record

Thank you.

I'd like to develop a strategy at some point this weekend.

And then if necessary, I'd come back early and sit down with them and have that going on.

Well, does Baker, does it satisfy Baker?

No, I think you're in shock.

I guess I'm the fall guy.

What'd he say?

He said that the lights...

He said, I'm honored by it.

I said, I think we've been along fine.

He said, any time you have anything on your mind, you can call me.

And I said, well, that works the other way, too.

And he said, well, I'm in a kind of a ticklish spot.

But what is the situation?

We need to get the leak removed.

Yeah, but that's a big shot to take, the first conversation the whole time.

I think I had no part in the whole enchilada the first time.

But we'll develop a negotiation strategy.

I agree.

Give away as little as you can.

All right.

Would it not be good...

Would you mind doing Bush now?

See?

Battle of the budget.

Well, I discussed the food pricing.

And then I discussed the matter of the budget.

And then I discussed the defense budget and say, hold the line for the defense budget.

Now, to get four points like that in a 29-minute speech is a .

I can't.

Yeah.

.

Yes.

I totally believe Bob.

All those months before he was in YouTube.

But he had to touch down that thing.

Couldn't have helped him.

Because basically, he would say, look, we've got a source.

There was no hint of anything.

I knew that we were trying to do all sorts of things so we could get information.

But I'd never heard of such a thing.

You know, because I would have seen how foolish that would have been.

You know, that's the question.

I would have said, look, we've got a problem.

I might have said, well, let me check it.

Let me see.

You know what I mean?

Basically, because he thought he was bugging us.

Not there.

But necessarily the same as Drew Colson.

Colson, on the other hand, I say, was asking that question.

I believe him.

He possibly said he never indicated, never had a source of knowledge.

In fact, I don't believe him.

We were sure of him.

Remember when we were going to move the convention from San Diego?

And there was all this business about was there going to be a mob there and all that kind of stuff.

What was the opposition planning and so forth?

And we never knew.

We were in the dark.

There were a lot of rovers.

We had some Secret Service intelligence.

But we were totally in the dark.

And the purpose of that is not to talk to people.

The purpose is to say this.

.

I would never want to be in the position of having to testify that we have discussed it, that it had never been discussed in my presence by anyone.

I just don't have any compunction on that.

You said we refused to discuss it.

It would be created like any other case ever came on.

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

Thank you.

My view is that what happened to him was that he just didn't have the tight control of the shot.

The murder must have done it.

Will you agree?

I assume so.

I don't know.

I don't think so.

The thing here, it seems to me, is that although I know that Colson, I believe, and you, I know that as far as other activities, you know, they splatter around about the practice.

I couldn't get it done then.

Thank you.

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

Here we sit.

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

here here

Well, it's all right.

I don't have it at all.

Get your criminal order, but remember, I don't get it because you don't like me.

Don't worry.

I'm not the worst son of a bitch.

I understand.

Well, this guy is good.

I don't know where his loyalties are, and that's something I'm going to smoke out in terms of reliability.

And if he doesn't prove out, I'll get somebody else.

But we'll get him.

We'll get him.