Conversation 428-036

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

No, Gwen's gonna help me right in the cut.

I'm a little tired.

Would you like a coffee?

No, thank you, sir.

Coca-Cola, please.

... ... ...

They told me the truth.

When I talked to him last week, and I think he mentioned it, and he said he was working the other day, and he said, this is such a good program, and there's a few years of conversations, and John's conversations with John, and he's having an absolute certainty that there's a few years that he's going to work with that jury.

Are they going to call him back?

Yeah.

Oh, of course, because he's going to be guilty of it.

He's going to be guilty of it.

I mean, I don't know.

I'm not sure.

As you know, we have no, I have, I have not tried to get any information that I can accept from you.

But the reason that I am aware of the Dean thing, I take the Dean off the matter, of course.

which I told him to give to you.

He says it's now not going to mean much because he said Magruder, thank you for everything that he thought was out of heaven.

Except that Magruder may have, you can't tell in his view, but you can believe everything Magruder says because Magruder is,

apparently got a self-interest.

He's got a self-interest and you don't know what he's gonna grab, this dollar or that dollar or whatever the hell it is.

You know, that's a trouble when a guy starts lying.

And you know, I'm even wondering whether the murderer's telling the whole truth on John Mitchell.

John Mitchell.

Did you talk to Mitchell?

No.

I don't think that I can talk to him.

I don't think he should know.

And Mitchell insists.

I didn't talk to him.

You know, I've never asked him.

Have you ever asked him?

No, sir.

I never had either.

I asked Bill Rogers about that.

I said, Bill, should I ask him?

John Mitchell.

So I had him.

I asked him.

What did I say?

The only information we had was the Magruder information.

That's enough.

The difficulty is outlined by the special prosecutor.

But now we open up the difficulty with respect to some of the information that's outlined.

I said so five o'clock in the morning, but then it was going over and over.

I had to get some things presented in my mind.

It's possible that Dean might testify to, not what Magruder will testify to, and then there's a possible suggestion that Paul Clinton heard of him, and yet it kind of looks that way.

Whether there is legal proof of it so far, is that necessary?

Well, knowledge with respect, or knowledge of conduct before or after the event.

But that in any event, whether it is sufficient to bring about an indictment as a result of a course of testimony of God, there will be statements made, circumstantial evidence,

So we're supposed to get this information from the dean.

Well, the dean, with respect to some statements that are supposed to be made after the event, there's no suggestion of that or anything about it.

It's gone.

They haven't really gone all the way with it yet.

He's kind of fishin' around, you know, as to what he's gonna say and what he's not, and he's been a little bit suggestive up there with the possibility that Strawn might provide testimony that would pay home what the Institute called, and it wouldn't be direct, precise testimony.

I have, I suppose, a hold on that.

I know you have.

They are, you know, absolutely, you know what I mean?

If it only, if like, if it was, you know, if it was really John Mitchell, I suppose,

uh right now

I think that that's part of the problem.

The evidence with respect to those now who would have knowledge of this before he was 17 and was going to come out.

He was in the meetings, but Dave Clankton, he said no.

And Mitchell does too.

That's what you're going to do.

But then they make a deal with the serious aspect of the conduct there after he was arrested.

came in depth, according to this testimony, with respect to our subject matter.

And that includes the mention of William Barney.

And we say that he was rehearsed and rehearsed and coached and coached by William Barney, as mentioned before his initial testimony before the grand jury.

Thank you.

I don't know.

Explain that legal point.

Well, I inquired into it.

I was thinking from the barriers and all the funds that have been raised through the years and Scottsboro and so forth and whatever is the question about who raised money for the defense and to support them.

And like in this case, if I had committed a crime and you know about it, and you say, fine, you go in the court and plead guilty for commissioning that crime, and here's $10,000, you know, tied over, no crime.

Is that a crime?

No.

On the other hand, if you know that I have committed a crime, right, and you say, you go in there and plead guilty, and here's $25,000 on a condition that thereafter you'll say nothing.

You tell him.

In other words, the obstruction they're talking about is what happened

No, I'm just asking, for Dean, you mean the fact of that, that they raised, that they gave money for that purpose?

Or whatever they gave, let's say that money was given to them.

Yeah.

And then you give them money.

That's the, I agree, if the purpose of it is to get them not to talk.

In other words, not to carry on what the judge said.

If I can see that.

That's what the situation really is.

And that's why I wanted to communicate with you immediately.

Let me ask you this.

Do they

Yeah.

Now, what is your recommendation?

Well, first, I have this situation.

It seems to me that so long as I do anything, I should not be arrested.

Thank you.

What is that out to do about him?

He's involved in a conversation pertaining to money for religious projects.

He calls in Colson to make over there to somebody else.

I heard about that.

Where in the devil is he running these projects?

Colson did not exist in there.

He also did the...

He was trying to find himself a line to take a test.

Let me tell you what concerns me.

Well, you know, we've got to handle it right.

Actually, because of your association with John Mitchell, you would have to disqualify yourself.

Barney, you know, you know them all.

I heard it's a reflection, it's sort of a name, you know, called for our whole system of justice.

I don't want to do that.

I think what you ought to do, and I really feel strongly for you, the dean doesn't know probably anything about the criminal law, he doesn't know anything about this case, about this case, but I think that the dean, the dean is a decent, honorable man.

You step aside and say, we have a deputy attorney general of the United States who will be in charge of this matter.

Does that make sense to you?

I think, yeah.

I have no question about silver.

Most guys don't.

Let me tell you, I have never, you know, I have never felt that I've always told these people, you know, their credits, they just don't hold it in back.

It just burns my ass that they did it.

Last summer, the conduct of everybody over here at the present really created great suspicions in the minds of, you know, so many people, you know.

Right.

Instead of getting open and frankly...

trying to create an impression and trying to help out and get the thing going.

This was basically what he wanted.

He was running.

And also, I think, everybody's just scared to death.

They didn't know what kind of thing was going to happen.

They thought it was a package election.

You know, let's face it.

That's why.

Well, sure.

I understand.

Well, they did unanswer the question.

And it doesn't matter whether it's when they set a motion directly.

You didn't know that they were doing this.

I didn't know, sir.

I didn't.

I didn't, you know.

I was one of the problems.

I've always run my campaign.

I didn't run this one.

I was pretty busy.

Or maybe handling the Russian summit.

You know, after the election,

separate the bombing and the whole administration.

But I just, you know, at that point, after the election, when is this supposed to happen?

Well, I think there's two parallel.

Understand, I mean the others.

Mitchell, the Brewers, they were called throughout.

But I mean after the election.

But no one thinks there's two overriding considerations here.

One is

Of course.

and then we had an attack.

Frankly, I don't know enough about those things.

I don't know if there's a policy that they're taking over.

I don't know if there's a movement differently than I and the rest of us.

We've been fighting this enterprise for 20 years.

In particular, to you, me, or anybody else, he's had a good morning with me from town.

So he's got his future ahead of him.

I don't even think of himself.

And I just don't know enough about him.

You got anybody else?

Well, that's why, and then on the other hand, I think when you come down, I am.

Who would make you another?

This would be my question.

You got anybody in mind?

The Chief Justice, Roger Ross, several other lawyers, the Chief Justice and I are very close friends.

I want to get his opinion about the concept that I can also do a recommendation.

The one person that everybody kind of comes together on is a guy named Bartlett Sears in Chicago.

He is the attorney that was appointed to prosecute the killing of those blacks by the police in the Amherst County, Chicago, and prosecuted the Chicago police officers.

Barney Sears is a past president.

I have done it with the American Bar Association.

He's a distinguished postman.

He's a lawyer.

He's a very good independent person.

He has one aspect of it that people realize that Sears and I have been close friends.

In your labor case, when you roll it back in there, you get it.

what would he do?

He'd come in and run the whole case?

Yeah.

What he would really do is he'd silver Titus

Oh, Christ, they're all going to be indicted.

But that's my point.

I think, of course, it just goes like it is.

You'd have a special prosecutor immediately.

Here's my point.

If they're going to indict anybody, that shows that, by God, the thing does work.

That's the thing I want to know.

These guys are proud men, sober men.

They are taking in the program.

We're not giving them anything.

You're not giving them anything, are you?

No.

There's another way you can do this.

I could call in, I'm just thinking out loud.

I could call in Tyson Silver and I said, look, you are totally independent here and you are a pair of these kids that will not go to work.

And I'm going to proceed my point is, you call in a special customer, where's he going?

I'm going to hold that.

All right, we'll come down to the jump.

A little fundamental question, like do you have enough evidence to go out and purchase it back?

And you got one against one, you know, and...

Let me ask you this.

Let me think about it.

You would suggest, sir, I would say B, I mean, not B, but B, B.

Franklin, I've got to take the leadership.

I ought to come in and say, now look, there's the facts, and you've got to go forward with this.

I don't care who it touches.

That was respect of the presidency, and I don't give them the right to respect that.

I want to know what your idea is.

but it seems to me that it's as a result of the group being active in the police and the ministerial.

That's to be direct.

Is there enough evidence on all of them that I should say that I'm left on to do that?

I don't know.

It might be every day.

That's the question.

I think there are options.

What I'm getting at is this.

Is it also possible that they don't get enough on all of the human rights?

He wouldn't be indicted, but at least his circumstantial participation or presumed knowledge.

What about her?

That's a closer, I guess, situation that would occur after they were arrested, based upon the possible protected testimony that they possibly have.

I don't see how.

What would?

Well...

What would Dean say about her?

Keep in mind that anything that Dean and his attorneys have told him is a ridiculous statement.

And it don't work that way.

It's all withdrawn and it's not going to be used.

Keep that in mind, Mr. President.

But Dean has admitted two statements he expected first.

One, Dean had in his possession six documents that were taken out of his office.

Number one.

Has he told the U.S. Attorney General?

Yes.

Yes sir.

No, I, earlier when he was put, Dean, he, he said that, and hit him up with other people.

Maybe, you know, break, not for the indictment.

They were arrested before the indictment.

Dean specified it earlier when he told him to do that.

Yeah.

But though Dean, Dean has told them, but he hasn't testified right yet.

And the delicate point about Dean's posture with the United States Attorney, that's why I'm really talking to you about this, that these are conditional statements that Dean has marked out in a way that's satisfactory to Dean.

The U.S. Attorney's Office and Dean agree that they are not going to acknowledge that he's fake.

Well, in the event they don't work something out, then we wouldn't testify this way.

If they work something out, probably it would be for the purpose of... No, sir, there's going to be no immunity.

But then why are they going to work something out?

Well, that's...

That hasn't been resolved because he and his lawyer are being very brave.

They're sure to do that.

You get these people facing jail.

The point is that all of them, all of them, they believe that this all is gone.

It's just about ready to face them.

Some of them, not some of them take, but all of them have it.

that all of us furnished the reports, either the reports or papers that we would take the living to do something like this.

Well, papers.

Apparently, there was a sum of $350,000 that was held by the treasurer of the White House who would do, that Bob would be interested in the transfer of that money.

But it's just enough to, you know, cast a shadow.

I would think would mean that he had some of the.

from the budgetary reports or budgetary or even budgetary program papers that on the face of it would indicate that Liddy was engaged in the operation.

I don't think he did anything.

All of them were talking to me.

He said, I'm not sure about it.

He said, don't give a shit kind of guy.

And Erdman was talking to him.

It was a deep six.

Oh, what was that?

Oh, I know what that could be.

That could be, see, punts operations before.

That's what that is.

Punt work in the White House, you know, on some national security matters.

And I think that's what that's involved.

Nothing like that.

Let's get back to this concept of the presidency.

Right.

What you do is the right thing to do, and then when having it done, that it would be recognized the right way to do it.

Right.

And I know, you know, that I believe, although I've been dispensed with the idea, I appreciate that fact.

I think the option that Jeff puts in there to want a new presidency, what I've told you today, what might be forthcoming,

Before that comes out, you have to step aside and let it all flow over.

If it all flows over and you're excited, you know, you know, comfortable, you know, fine, you come back, no harm done.

If they do wind up having to get indicted, you at least have off your personal staff, you know, people who are going to be involved in the justice system.

If you don't take that step, and I don't pretend to advise on it, sir,

and then it comes out and it's picked out, and then you've got to do it after the disclosure is made publicly.

I think it should come to a critical point.

Let us suppose that, let's suppose the order statement does, that it does come out on all, and strong, and good testimony, and good paper, and so on, and so on, and so on.

The question really is basically whether an individual can be totally, totally,

The point is, if a guy isn't guilty, you shouldn't let him go.

It's like me.

What in the hell do I do?

I stand up for people even though they're under attack.

And in Haldeman's case, though, I want to ask if you think, and I just want to ask your opinion, and the same one earlier, based on this, do you think that there is no knowledge you want to give?

Neither of you want to know about it.

You're just judging each other out here.

increase the chances of

When I say let them go, give them a lead.

If you don't give them a lead, you'll find them guilty before they have a chance to prove their innocence.

Another way you could do it is this.

You could say, if there's any question, great.

You could move that question.

See, the point is that you're suggesting I should do this based on information we have now, which is not very good.

That's the point that I'm making, Mr. Kent, on the basis of this kind of information.

I don't suggest anything.

No, no, I'm just trying to understand.

I want to know what is the right thing to do.

I understand we're going to come out of this thing by God's justice department, and the president of the city is going to come out and play, because I don't tolerate this kind of crap.

But the point is that I also can't let an innocent man down.

I know that.

What effect does it have on the discharge of, let's say, bombs?

I think that's an attack on the press.

What effect does it have upon the discharge of the bomb?

Well, one thing, of course, Bob can put it up first.

350,000.

You don't tell them the strong work and so forth and so on.

He puts out the story.

That's another way of looking at it.

And he puts out the secrets from it, too.

I really think that's what he has to do with it, or at least that's what he has to do with it.

That's what he has to do with it.

You see, I realize .

You can't let a guy go if he's guilty, if you know he hasn't.

Let me tell you what I had to do with this.

Harry Stewart, the United States Attorney in San Diego, was involved in my confirmation hearing.

An allegation was made that we expected to get into a proper contract.

We started an administrative investigation by the FBI.

The investigation was going on.

Harry Stewart just stepped aside and said publicly that that whole judgment, this process of life or death, was sharply damaged into it.

In the hindsight of this, that is, that is happening.

What's the name of your man, Chicago, uh, kid, uh, Barnabas and Sears?

I can sure get that down, but I'm going to put that U.S. Attorney on here.

And I, I thought, for the most of it, you know, I'm not going to take it over there, but I'll try my best to say it.

That's, uh, I don't know.

That's my problem, probably.

Poor bastards.

They've got a right to a fair trial.

I've tried about two or three times in the last 20 years, and I did last night.

There are two aspects of this that have an overriding importance beyond them.

A, the institution of residency law and the criminal justice system.

Right.

But the problem with the people is they've got to have confidence in what they do.

And frankly, you can come out stronger than them and just prove that you'll take on even their friends.

That's what we'll do better than them.

The only thing that troubles me about all of them, early on, I think, is that I don't, I just wonder about moving on them before any evidence, any order.

You see what I mean?

That indicates that maybe I know something, which I don't.

I don't, do I?

or do all that the government knows is what I've given you.

I think, based on what Little has now known, or could be imputed in either, I don't think that other than what you had as an assignment for you, anything further to do with this stuff.

Because of the leap six thing, you know, if it turned out, either through circumstantial testimony,

or other testimony that could lead to a possible indictment in part of this circumference.

You've got to have somebody over here to do that.

I know that.

I know you do.

Garmin.

That's just part of my role.

And I know it's a burden that it creates so far here for two years, but you and I, we just have to take it.

And I'll take it.

That's just the way it is.

Oh, I understand.

I don't know about that.

I just don't know.

I don't know what they're doing.

This is your chief investigator for the Senate committee.

That's not a big charge of the following.

Bargain fleet for a misdemeanor.

Got a suspended sentence.

Same thing.

That's what should have happened here.

Bad bag.

Look at it again.

without trying to determine the impact of it in respect to the election.

And so it's not about maybe or not the obstruction of justice.

The obstruction of justice is what's bad and the perjury is the one who puts us in the perjury and the perjury of yourself.

We want to have everyone involved in that.

We want to hold them involved in that.

If you get Mitchell in a room with Martin and let's say Dean having one

I've coached this project, but we were over there, and we were getting it on, and I said, what's the fault of these four-year markets, and, you know, let's pay higher, because they, if this is true, they're all involved.

It's a chance country to beat this.

Oh, sure.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

You know, it depends on how this evidence comes out, but Mr. President, won't you...

I suppose, I suppose, Liddy, I suppose, I suppose, Liddy, Liddy, what's he going to do?

He's going to have something else.

Liddy comes in and corroborates.

The breeder has nothing.

They're bitter enemies.

I mean, they are bitter enemies.

The breeder is afraid for his life.

Yeah.

Liddy, though, hasn't he?

They say Liddy has told all, hasn't he?

No, he hasn't.

He hasn't had a word to anyone.

Is that right?

Didn't these guys tell you that?

Yes, sir.

He's taken the evidence.

They said that he's come in and talked to them.

That's what they're telling everybody.

That's not true, sir.

I mean, it's the Bruder charge.

To my knowledge, check that.

Find out.

Find out, but to my own knowledge, as we know what everybody said last night, Liddy has not said a word.

What about Hunt?

He doesn't know anything.

We know about the destruction of Justice.

Somebody gave him the money.

Mr. President, I'm listening because of all of us who are involved in our relationship.

I determined that I was going to have the broadest kind of an overview on it, just for the very reason that we're up to right now.

Let me say,

You say I, I only mention that because Baylor, Mitchell's very close to me.

I say probably you.

I'm just guessing.

He and Baylor.

He's going to fight it to the end.

He's not mine.

With you?

Yeah.

And that would be a trial to observe.

I think John Dean would come in and talk about it early.

I'm sort of surprised.

Early, when he called me last night, all he said was that she was the group.

But until 1 o'clock this morning, I hadn't noticed that John Dean had initiated this a week ago.

And he was in charge of negotiating.

Dean does not testify in my speech.

I don't know how he did that.

Nobody else has said that.

Well, I think there are other reasons .

They're a decent matter.

I guess they are good.

They may question whether or not I should even mention that to you because .

I didn't argue with them about that .

I'll tell you what I did.

I can call in.

Let me run this by the way.

I can call in.

I can say, I don't see those.

I don't want you to have a lot of it up here.

I mean, we have.

We haven't denied anybody.

We haven't affected the investigation.

The FBI has affected the investigation.

And I said, I just want you to know that.

And you're on your own.

On your own.

And I'm a close client.

I'm a close associate of John Mitchell's.

I want you to report and convene and speak.

Now, that's the way that I think I should approach it, rather than bringing this back to you.

Well, without you being there, I don't think they should work through you anymore, due to the fact that, although we know you didn't have a goddamn thing to do with it, nobody would ever believe, I don't think, that I could make a fair decision on mention.

Just like I wouldn't think I could probably make a fair one at home.

but you see don't you think that's true and the way i would do it i see the attorney general and i thought he recommends it and i we talked about it and i think it's a very strong question you see my point the only there's only two aspects of it that i'm not sure about i'm not sure about

Well, what's the hell with him?

There's really nothing for him to do except just be honest.

They're going to do the job.

I know they're going to do the job.

Secondly, Mr. President, there's the other argument that I'm making.

The more I believe in this thing, the more acceptable it is.

credibility aspect of this thing

I have said this and that and the other thing and that's done.

One aspect of this, then, which you can always take, and that is, as the President of the United States, your job is to enforce the law, to put in justice, to make investigations and trials.

I mean, now that the time has come, as a result of what I've done, I'm not aware of it.

You've been a special prosecutor in a meeting with Kessler.

Now, frankly, the whole justice system, I don't like that.

Do I?

You understand that, right?

Not me.

I don't like that.

I think the other line would be the same.

You couldn't do this.

The Attorney General was asked, huh?

You might wait to have me recuse this thing when the indictments come out.

When the indictments come out, you can't be criticized.

In other words, you stay in the job until the trial comes.

I don't know.

I think this is something that I've explored very carefully.

You see, there's where your special prosecutor comes in.

Do you want the special prosecutor?

No, the special prosecutor would not try the case, Mr. President.

What he would do is substitute himself for the Attorney General.

.

It might not matter to the Deputy Attorney General.

And I fully realize my brain in this guy has a bad reflection upon me.

I understand that.

I recognize that.

the ground rules are properly agreed

You know, they gave us a market by which we were going to work that out.

I thought we ought to get something out on that first.

That's a good way to be on it.

And I understand, Mr. President, you have some thoughts of mine.

As we said to John Dean, I would respect it if you want to accept it.

John Dean and his package of people are going to be going to do it.

Oh, yes.

I'll go see a United States attorney on Saturday.

i don't think no no i'm putting him up the only thing i would say is

Right now.

You know,

A smart lawyer for Mitchell and the other amendments to move the quash.

Well, they could get the case dismissed as a result of this question on the air, but they're not on any of the investments.

What they're doing is going after their constitutional rights, and I think so they don't care that they can have the indictment.

That's why they, any litigation concerning John Mitchell would take 10 years, 10 years, 10 years before five years, three years, motion.

Well, it's a hard thing.

Even the damn Cubans.

Well, even perhaps they most of all.

Oh, but they were helping the campaign?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And they just show incredibly bad judgment, right?

In fact, Mr. President, in two or three months, when you're getting the campaign organization going and getting the decision department, the job is in a very awkward situation to be in the Attorney General and have to talk to these guys.

And having great problems with Mark, right?

And having no real leadership over there and not being willing to do anything.

And so they decided, gee, this is great, and this is real fun.

And this dumb bastard, you see him here.

And incidentally, you see, if all of them had been running, it wouldn't have happened either, because look at the hell he was doing.

And frankly, we were on our way to China,

And we were right.

We weren't in the campaign, David.

We couldn't.

And that's why we had no control over it.

Well, I'm not taking an excuse in that sense to say that's just what it is.

The thing to do now is to ruthlessly go forward.

It has to be.

How about another man that we could bring down?

How about a former circuit court judge like Lamar?

Well, the Chief Justice doesn't like that unless he has completely retired from his position.

Because he can still be done with the point.

Yes.

Is anyone here today?

No.

What you're doing is having a federal judiciary.

What's the Chief Justice think?

The Chief Justice thinks this fellow Sears is the only recommended Sears.

Thinks we should have a special prosecutor?

Yes.

Yes, sir.

But what does he say?

I want to get it for other judges because I'm open.

I lean against it because I think it's too much of a reflection on our system of justice and everything else.

What is Peterson's reason?

Peterson's reason would be that I should refuse myself.

Now that looks like it.

You should do it right now.

Now wait, do you do this?

If you do it now, it's based on testimony.

Let me ask you, though.

You would do it before the story broke?

Before the indictment or after the indictment?

I don't know.

Should be done before the indictments are drawn up so that the indictments are drawn up properly.

Is that the point?

Yeah, just so that any aspect of the investigation presentation of the indictments could not possibly be detained.

So what would Peterson say?

He would withdraw it.

Yeah, but that would not be a public, you know, TV statement, right?

Yeah.

In the term of administrative amendment.

Well, I would, what would he have to do?

I would do one of two things under that circumstance, would be to delegate the responsibility for the entire energy piece to the Attorney General.

Peterson is above reproaching.

Yes, he is.

Would everybody in the country respect him on this?

I didn't.

He was a career.

I didn't.

He's a first career assistant.

Okay.

Let's consider that.

That would be initially handled by an administrative document from me to Peterson.

to do right now, which you should do, Dr. Mellon, in any event, which you should do right now.

But let me say, I still think my, I ought to consider it my suggestion that I call these people in.

Amy Whitman was a matter of fact, so I would like to introduce you to Dr. Mellon.

But let me, let's think about that.

Let's think about that.

I think we've got to do something pretty quickly before this stuff gets out of hand.

If the other disclosure made me last night and yesterday I was in my area, then I think I've got to do something right now.

And now I've noticed that Mr. Woodard, you know, he got test-fired.

That's why I told her to tell you.

I don't know.

I didn't do anything.

Not that he had anything to do with it.

In fact, he suggested it.

He said, look, I've got this stuff, and this is even before Magruder got it.

He said, I should turn this over to Plunkett.

I said, do it.

And then the events caught up with us, and Magruder came in and said, I don't know.

I thought it was irrelevant.

And so that's why I think, we've been scrupulous, and your record must show that, that scrupulous.

He called you before Magruder and after that.

We didn't wait on Magruder.

What I need to do is to get together with you exactly.