Conversation 429-022

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

This is my EOB office.

Where I do most of my speech, right?

We saw your Oval Office tonight.

Oh, you were over there?

You haven't seen it before?

No, I'm in Austin, isn't it?

My gosh.

You know, we have local boys here.

Yeah, it's a good idea to see the things of tourism.

One of our dear friends who's a dear friend of yours, that's the Marriotts.

Oh, aren't they great people?

I think we represented them for years until young Bill got the, so he wanted the large out-of-town roadworks.

But Bill and Allie have been, I've been friends with them for 40 years.

And I think the Swedish people who... Well, they are really fine Americans, you know, and gee whiz.

They don't break themselves, but they make a lot out of some of it.

There was a time when they didn't do that, if you will.

Oh, I know.

It's interesting.

They were telling me that they have a custom down in some of their houses where they have, they reserve a couple floors where people don't smoke.

I gave it up.

I never smoked.

Five or six years ago, and I feel like that.

You didn't smoke?

Really?

Yeah, I didn't smoke.

Cigarettes or anything?

I was a cigarette smoker about three times a day.

Boom!

I missed them.

I was a hopeless addict.

I never smoked in my life.

Would you like some coffee?

A little psycho would do it.

I'd like some coffee.

Coffee is psycho.

Yes.

I have a psycho guest.

Oh, it's a good guy.

I don't guess you'd get very much.

I don't say I am.

You have a lot of other problems.

We've got the one you've got now.

Yeah.

We've argued so much.

We've both got a guy from the World Republicans that I was just telling you about, Bob Fulmer, man, that I quite appraised years ago.

The guy said, as long as I have me count, who is the liberal?

Ha!

I don't know where it stands, and if you will, both of the standpoints of the people you're representing and the standpoint of the presidency would be first.

One of those things where people with the best of intentions, I mean everybody, John McDonnell, they love him, but he didn't deserve to be known for everything.

We've had three days, three different day of sessions with Bob, John, and two today.

And two were led by our visit to the district attorney's office.

Uh, we've gone over, first we went over Bob's situation.

He took the memo of things, and it boiled down the sensitive area, boiled down, as Bob did, it boiled down to, uh, the matter of the film that took about two hours.

And, uh, what knowledge he had, I question very, very much.

So, I'm with you.

I'm sure you have.

And he said that he had come to him and told him of the need of this money to help the families and legal counsel of the Worldgate people.

And that rather on one occasion, later on when the money was transferred,

over to the committee.

He doesn't want to be rid of it.

And he had no intention as to where it might go.

And that's that.

Now we said to him that we don't doubt that the prisoners and the bodies of these two effects.

But we said, circumstantially, it would be wrong to have done this.

A jury might think that he did it.

It looked like a good, good, good.

When you put it to a jury, it looks like it's very questionable.

Yes, yes.

Depending upon how the testimony comes out, it could become an issue.

Now then, we said, wait a minute.

What is this then?

What's wrong with this?

Well, by a far stretch, this might be something of an accessory after the fact to a conspiracy at the Watergate.

This is probably an accessory for the purpose of sort of aiding the consequences.

I gave an example of Dr. Bodman in the John Wilson case.

And I pointed out that he didn't commit the crime, but he did certain aging things afterwards.

I suppose incidentally, I suppose there, too, the motive was whether he gave a proceeding with the knowledge and with the intent of keeping the defense quiet.

That would be the argument.

The argument of the prosecution.

Yes, yes.

Exactly.

Now, we don't know what Dean will say on this.

Well, I guess you don't, because he's involved in something.

Yes, that's right.

But he likes to do it.

We assume the worst.

In our thinking, we assume the worst.

Exactly.

Absolutely.

Now, we're all prosecutors, Mr. President, and we think that this is not a case, according to our standards, this is not an effective case against Bob.

On the other hand, bear in mind that we have got a group of zealots, particularly in Seymour Glantz, who is a fiery prosecutor.

And these zealots always shoot at the top, sure.

And they're not always conscientious enough to

to see whether it's a convicting case or whether it's a...

In other words, they may indict even though they don't think they can... That's it, exactly.

So we couldn't exclude the possibility that a prosecutor might pick this up.

On the other hand, we don't think you're announced to a criminal case in a practice of sex.

In other words, if it goes to a court...

Do you think you might be able to tell?

On the evidence that we now have, yes.

That's our feeling.

I'm asking you this, Mr. President.

The letter to LaRue, was it LaRue?

Yeah, LaRue was the one sent to the county.

And he was raising money for it.

And we have that flavor.

Yeah, we have that.

When I say that we don't think this is really a good case, this is just our best judgment.

Sure.

I mean, we could be as wrong as the devil about this thing, and yet, coming to a certain conclusion, that's the reason I'm presenting it to you this way.

That's the Bob situation.

By the way, Bob and John are three days old, I want you to know.

I never knew these guys, but they're wonderful fellows.

They are, they're great players.

I can tell you one thing about your clients, that ain't the truth, no lie.

Yes, yes.

Now then we took up John's situation about the Deep Six site.

This is early.

And he tells us that he had reported the energy on site, that there was a pistol there.

There was some electronic equipment.

Bob didn't think it was a buzzer.

He thought it was more of a recording than a buzzer.

So this is what it was.

And a batch of papers.

Semi-sensitive or semi-sensitive in nature.

Does that have any kind of respect for Louisville?

I don't think it was Louisville.

Did he have something to do with national security?

Yeah, I think it was a mixture of both.

Yeah.

Anyway, another 10 to the same day.

Another 10 to the same day, or almost the same day.

Yes, it is.

Give us this first.

Oh, I don't know.

He told me with my hand.

I know.

He tells us it's his home.

So the FBI was all in.

They got the pistol.

They got the gun.

And they got a large quantity of paper.

Which they gave to me.

I mean, it was great.

Well, presumably, not this particular sensitive area.

As great as it is, Barclay may have seen it, but this is not the particular instance where we see Greg being held back some papers.

Oh, they gave some of the papers to the FBI?

Most of it.

And now, Frank, correct me on this.

Thank God they did that.

Yeah, oh yes, it was totally done.

This was in some of the papers in the security area that they gave to the FBI.

Yes.

And other papers that they didn't give to the FBI.

Now, are you, do you recall whether John said that Dean informed him that he was holding him in fact?

Yes.

Not contemporaneously, but later on.

Yes.

Dean had no... No, but I mean at the moment.

Not at the moment.

Let me go on.

Uh, Dean has a little envelope, which was unopened as far as John was concerned.

He was unaware of its contents.

And, uh, the radio was set for him.

I think, uh, Dean suggested that radio be set for him.

I read about that on the John Bolton report.

These facts have impacted our office.

our system in the last meeting.

Anyway, this next meeting, which was almost the next day, as I remember, it wasn't more than 24 hours after the FBI event.

And John described that, Gray sat over there, John sat here, he sat here.

And Gray, Dean handed Gray his packet.

of papers, which as I say, for John's purpose, this was sealed.

He didn't, he never said I had to.

Gray took it in for the meeting, did not even, and it lasted over four minutes.

I said, what?

Now, Gray approached John and said, I want you to, not to mention the fact that I received those papers.

And Ray went over and did.

And John said, well, I can't do that.

He said, uh, this one, if you look back, I saw it.

I said, where was it?

I never asked you about that.

And Ray said, well, I didn't back it because I was afraid.

Now, this is Ray's fault.

Oh, terrible.

Wasn't there a solicitation from Ray on the basis that he had testified to the contrary?

I think he had.

Was it him?

And then, uh...

I don't think he touched, as I recall, he didn't touch what he told, uh, the, uh, the U.S. assistant, the U.S. assistant, Peterson.

It was Peterson.

One hammer got it rolling.

Yeah, I'm trying to remember.

And then John left a rather critical response to the request, and called him back upon reflection and said, look, I want you to know that I've got to tell you something.

But, I think... John Irvin.

John Irvin.

Yeah.

Ned Gray got it fierce and said, look, I did get it.

Sure.

That's a story, yeah.

Incidentally, you mentioned Peterson.

I guess the only reason Craig could say that was political stuff, and I didn't want to compare him.

Pretty sad.

Yeah, yeah.

You mentioned Peterson, and I must give you a sign.

I don't trust him, myself.

You don't?

No.

I don't.

We both have had one experience with him.

He died wrong this day.

What I thought was a confidential conversation, and a very serious one, to

to a co-defendant, a potentially co-defendant lawyer, who was ex-Department of Justice lawyer.

And we played golf over the weekend, and told him the whole of our business and stuff like that.

And I got it back from the lawyers in Philadelphia, who heard something from the golfers, in fact, the next day.

And I'm always alert to Peterson dealing with ex-

I've got to talk to him now, for whatever reason.

I know you do, but I don't go around the lining every time.

I understand.

You need to know.

He's on my list of .

Now the second phase of John Erkman was the idea of raising

when she was approaching him.

And this was not to come out with a free picture.

This was to get Tom back.

He didn't know about the free picture.

Well, I think he knew about the free picture.

No, he wasn't a privy to me.

Well, that's what I meant.

It wasn't his deal.

That's right.

But he did get that money.

And the dean says, can I talk to Tom back again?

Yes.

And Tom back went out and did raise money.

Now, these matters involving Robert Jones,

uh, a lot of us even less, if I can make a comparison, than Bob did.

Why I, although I, I, because I, I don't, uh, I don't quite, I don't see, I don't see, I mean, an individual, he says they come to him and they say, well, here, I want to raise some money, I can come by for your ACVS, okay.

I mean, that doesn't make him guilty or something.

Well, but let's go back to the accessory act, the fact that I did it.

Let's get even the boom further back than the release of the money from the White House fund to be used for that purpose.

Now, this comparison, this contrast is not going to be taken as any great division between

So, frankly, our judgment is that neither one can be successful in prosecuting.

On the basis of what you see here?

Yes.

Now, wait a minute.

Let me ask you this, though.

When you talk, give me a little rundown on your talk with the U.S. Department.

I certainly have.

I have.

So, that is.

Now, we, neither of us... And also, give me your judgment on this.

Let me answer that one first, because I have more briefings.

In conspiracy indictments, very frequently, they will name express defendants as compared to us.

And they will name the spirit to us by name, as well as other people to the Grand Jury on Mill.

But they're not indignant.

And that's the group that is characterized as the non-indignant.

The word is not non-indignant.

It's non-indignant.

Well, they said, yeah.

They said, yeah.

And usually, from that group, they find witnesses.

who will testify against the sentence.

Now, that's what that phrase is.

It's commonplace in the law of conspiracy.

And I've seen it, I did a tribute to it, and the prosecutor went up, and I'm sure Frank has too.

So that, it is a, it's a black bar.

It might be compared to the number of detainees that people think were like, I'm going to murder them.

I mean, they may not think they can kill them legally, but they have killed them.

Now, as to our visit with these young assassins, we contacted, we started to contact Lance, of course, who we both know very well.

And he was said to have been a little, yes, but silver, who I had met on one occasion.

Frank didn't know at all.

And so we were, we made an engagement for 430 and they said they, this was through, through, through management.

And they wanted me to go to Grand Joliet, and they said they were going to put him in front of the house, coming to 430.

I'm telling you, let me show you three of them.

We were taken into the room at the conference at five o'clock.

I began the presentation by saying that we were there representing all of our members.

And I had this great kind of feeling, and I think for a little longer, and he went there for the first time.

I think he didn't get any surprise from me.

I think it was a mixture of pleasure, yes.

He was alone with me until a comorbid camel came in.

And then eventually, Sylvie.

His surprise to me, I felt, was that in a certain sense he was surprised that all of them and everyone had engaged him.

This gave me a little courage as to whether he thought they should have engaged him.

I'll tell you why in a couple of minutes.

Secondly, he suspected that we were down there

And I said, well, that isn't so much anymore.

And he said, well, these people, these prospective people have been switching counselors.

And he said, now, I'm sure the individual is going to keep his counselor.

And I said, who wants his counselor?

He said, .

Now, somebody said this was .

But anyway.

I said, now, Seymour, I said, you know, I heard you tell me before when I said I would always practice this when my clients would give me a command at the corner house.

Ask me as many questions as you can.

Give as many answers as you can.

And don't come away with many answers.

But I get some answers next time.

And I said, I ask you a bunch of questions, and I'm not going to give you something you can't answer.

This is the way you do it.

And we thought he was a little tight today because he was in the presence of his security.

We found him all this time, and it may be on location.

And we had to get him alone.

And I said, and what do you got planned for these people?

He said, we're going to have them go to New York.

He said, we're going to have them in an office here in New York, which will not be recorded.

And we will make no notice.

You're going to be present.

and providing check numbers.

We want to know what they will say before we take them to Fort Lauderdale.

I think we will.

Peterson had told me he never told them he was going to Fort Lauderdale.

Well, this is quite possible, even from what I'm counting.

I'm just sure about this thing.

Silver arrived about this time, and I repeated everything that had transpired.

In fact, of course, it was transpired, in my thought, before he came to the room.

And he qualified plans with my saying, well, I think we're going to have to consult with the Department of Justice about the interview.

This wasn't interview versus grand jury, I don't think.

This was interview at all, if you get that impression.

So then he said to me, to us, we received the papers.

I said, well, I've been conducting investigations and you haven't been to witnesses.

I said, if you'd like to have us, we'd love to have you.

And I said, well, have you?

He said, it's all the bank records.

I said, it's true.

And I said, well, I don't know.

I said, well, I don't know.

And then Selby said, you know, he said, let's humiliate against a man who dealt people a lesson.

And I said, you will?

He said, well, if you come up to the heart of it, I'll proceed.

And then, then, then, Lanzer came to his rescue and said, look, could we, could we borrow a little, a little, thank you, sir.

He said, well, gentlemen,

Now, we, then we got into, they volunteered, that's why it hits me.

They volunteered to lead weeks for the grand jury.

And I said, what do you think about the court report?

I said, I don't know.

I said, the court report.

He says, Anderson's getting it right from the court report.

Well, I said, why are you getting it?

I said, what do you think the court report's like the next day for?

I said, this is a crime in itself.

Oh, that's very good.

Yeah.

We didn't take it seriously.

Now, general inquiries.

Oh, I said, how are you perceiving, how are you perceiving packages, engines out of a four-runner of Simon Dacre, engines out of a package of other people, a second set of Dacre?

He answered.

And so I said, well, we understand that the Greek community hasn't noticed us very long, and we think there will be assurance that you're looking to compete with us.

I should have expected to see Joe.

He came with us.

Whatever you're going to do in the way of interviewing.

A grand jury.

No, we had it pretty well committed there.

The Spock Committee.

The interview would come first.

And then we met there with a commitment from him, I think.

A commitment for one fourth of the district, you know.

It's not as good as it might have been used to be.

It's like an argument.

Well, I mean, we didn't, we didn't, we didn't, we didn't track the people like we did now.

It was just a terminal thing, is the way they asked us.

Anyway, we left there and we started to think that this would happen.

Now, this wasn't much, but at least we had time to track the issue.

And then I had the question.

I said, uh, are you going to get around to this before Senator Ehrman uses this procedure?

He said, uh, rather than everything, rather than anything.

Now I had a point, I said to him, but that's the only point, ending point there was.

This was a relaxed meeting, except for Sullivan, he's not a relaxed man.

He's a serious man, he's a business-like man.

I met him one day at the record chamber, and I was there with him, of course.

He didn't even know me from that day.

He said, I don't know who you are, I'm not going to tell you anything.

It was very frustrating.

But I have to add, on other occasions, there's much freedom in this.

With his, with his boasting, with his, and with some of his weaknesses.

There's nothing hard about it.

And, uh, and, uh, it shows my experience of, uh,

He makes threats, abuses, whatever he does.

Oh, he is a wild, wild fellow.

And he exaggerates as much as he does to tell you the truth.

And other times he tells you stopping truth.

I mean, sweet.

But we couldn't go about it any other way today.

And we're so, so impressed with what's going on.

We can happen anything.

But what did you do?

I mean, you thought it was just pretty damn wrong, so you don't know.

You need to go back then, do you?

Oh, I did go back then.

I've been down before now.

But Hunter was the fourth grand jury in the Senate.

And his lawyer was in two rooms from where we were meeting.

What happened, Uncle Kirk?

Nobody knows for now.

No, and apparently nobody got the best of him yet, because they think he has the custody now of that door.

I went out to talk with him.

I said, did you get a picture of Hunter?

He said, no.

That's where that stood.

Now, Mr. President, Frank and I have these conclusions.

If I may get to the conclusion.

Do you have any questions before then?

No, I want to hear them and I'll get some questions.

You know what my questions are.

You and these two men.

Let me say that my good friend, Len Garman, and some others think that being out there is the loose cannon.

Yeah, right.

And I've been talking about this for years, what has happened.

I've been talking about this for years, what has happened.

Uh, that's one question.

Let me say this.

I don't know what the point was, but

I left that meeting with Doug.

I have a feeling that if he ever gets it, it's only my gut.

I have a feeling that if he is too mad, I'll call him.

I'm really glad he's the first one I've called.

Then what, uh, Peterson sort of did was he came and said, you're not a sucker.

He said, Paul, I heard you.

He was honest.

My point is, we have very great pressure .

I don't want to jeopardize their case.

I don't want them to be involved with it, but I know they're interested.

I have to go to the president, sir.

Thank you for that.

Uh, you concluded that the best thing to do is to call it, to step forward and say, you know, I'm going to run it off back up there.

And they released a rank jury notice that I've been attacking the press, and I've done all this, and I've made it clear that we have to move back inside of this office.

Do you have conclusions on both of those?

Yeah.

One, with regard to the MET, as to their, whether it affects their energy levels.

Two, with regard to the president.

You thought of both of those.

We have.

All right.

What is the president's conclusion?

Uh, well.

Well, these are related items.

And in the area of presidential judgment, we are happy.

But, no, you have such enormous reasons not to think that way.

I think that either a suspension, which I have studied, which was proposed by Peterson on the basis that there is

They've been attacked.

Yes.

They've been named.

But there would be the suspension or even the resignation is no assurance that they would not be indicted.

I asked you if you were not indicted.

I said to you, you said it was not.

It was no assurance.

That's right.

Now, frankly, I said, now look, you're talking.

They resigned.

That's what I mean.

That's what I'm saying.

Now, then I get it.

If I thought that the resignation would avoid an indictment, I have resigned.

Yes, yes.

All right.

Now, I just passed on your area of judgment when I say that I think that if they resign or are suspended, that this is a reflection of the sentence.

What if they don't resign and are suspended and are resigning?

That's all.

Well, yes, but if you already announced you would suspend them then,

Is there, except for their own dilemmas, is there any difference between these let's say, and by the way, you know, I don't have to tell you, they're willing to do.

Oh, I believe, I absolutely believe.

And yet, on the other hand, they are willing to stand up to this thing.

Oh yes, yes.

It doesn't hurt you.

And that's the reason I look at these two things as kind of a mesh of your two questions.

I think that if they resign or are suspended then, that it reflects on you.

I think if they are indicted and you suspend them, or they resign upon indictment, I imagine that they wouldn't even expect you to

It's all the same way.

There's a lot of art there, even food.

Yes, the spirit is there.

I just don't think that's going to be the worst.

These are the efforts.

I really don't agree with this.

This is my feeling.

I feel that the resignation now by these two gentlemen will be a tremendous question for the president.

And he seems to be comfortable with it.

Because the public statement says at the moment

There's no evidence to tie that into a criminal situation.

Now, if they step out at this point in time, there is going to be a public feeling that this is an admission appeal.

And this is going to flow over from them to the press conferences.

And I have a very strong feeling that this is not going

I don't want to say you shouldn't run from it, but it's not running from it, but it's facing up to it.

On the other hand, it would just pick.

It would say that you're going in the direction of taking the risk, which there would be, but it may be the so-called co-conspirators, and they aren't.

That'd be good to have for the record.

That's it.

As a matter of fact, as I see it, and I hope this time schedule

works as, it's possible that if these gentlemen submit to this informal interview, and we have decided that way, yes, but I think that we need to start doing it.

And I think, I think they're needing to start having it, because they didn't want to be pressed at the interview.

And I told them, I said, we don't fix out these interviews.

We're not disrespecting them.

We cover for our clients.

And if the question is unfair,

I guess we get to the end.

Absolutely.

Oh, yeah.

This is not a thing where we withdraw the shape of the wall.

And so they had, I think they had, we didn't think they did, but I think they did.

But I think that's why I think that's why we did that.

Why don't you just get that interview soon anyway, or if you can get that timing somewhere.

I think that... Or maybe you don't want to...

This was a little cat and pat time that I had with them.

Now, in terms of me, it's just a great thing, except the man who's being talked about seeks the interview, or seeks to go for the grand jury, go down for the small jury, go for the grand jury.

This, in that way, he's in there alone with no counsel, and the prosecutor's been in there for months, and he controls the grand jury, and this is the score of the rules.

And I said, on the other point, whether we would ask for the interview or that he would call us for it.

I said, but Sylvia, that's taken in the order in which it can be proposed to us.

You suggest the first, if you're not going to do it.

Why don't you, why don't you take the first?

Why don't you call the boss first?

I, I would prefer to play it that way.

Wait till they're ready.

Yes.

Yes, I would.

I told people should they come any time they wanted.

Yeah, well this is, we could not resist it, and they're present, but I didn't come to the interview, so.

Uh, and what's that, uh, what's the reason you said you didn't come, something like that.

But I, I am very frank, if you don't agree with this, maybe tell me first.

No, I, I, whenever I don't disagree with John, I agree.

But I'm not hesitant to disagree.

Oh yes, he was good.

He's been an ultimate good champion.

Good.

And he's always been a good coach, and I've had a great time with him.

I'm glad to see that.

Let me ask, in other words, your advice in the present time is stand with these men, because basically if you flush them now, it's going to probably hurt, let me put it this way, it'll hurt that he's really just looking for something.

Unless we look at their case first and then everybody.

If it hurts their case, don't you think?

It will.

It will if the public dies.

And my point is, so take the risk of going down and letting them be indicted.

Well, certainly take the risk, hopefully, of being indicted.

Well, let's find out what questions they ask and what they appear to have and what they're asking.

And then re-appraise the situation.

This man was president in Washington.

This is a great expense.

Don't go too fast.

You don't know how much they have and what they can prove.

And you've got to remember, Dean, as I said, is a loose cannon.

Well, he is.

Goddamn, this charge, if you've ever heard something like that, unbelievable.

Yes.

This fellow that was sitting in here, the president, a very brave young guy, and these guys talked to him and so forth, but he now wants to drag them down with him.

They must have told him what I, they, I think, have told me that he'll, that he can get all of them early if he gets to him.

All right.

On that point, do you want me or do you want me or not?

Well, let me, as I understood, they look hard on that right now.

They are?

Yeah, that's why I put out the statement that no major thing should be given to them.

Let me tell you.

Basically because I didn't look bad on the part of that one.

What do you think about that?

Let me tell you about what you're trying to do.

May I add to this?

And the prosecutor has the power, of course, to say, I'm going to take that man.

He usually uses him as a witness.

He may have other reasons, not the man.

So he'd get a case of him by the gift of the prosecutor.

Now, he used him as a witness.

And he probably would have got the examination of what he could have done.

He would have been detained.

You're involved in your, your total fairness, and you're going to stop creating what you've been promising.

He approved that this will contaminate him before the jury.

So that's case infinity.

Now, the, the immunity statute that has been on the federal, uh, statute for years, up to 1968, was an infeasible statute.

It was supposed to, it was supposed to be, so turn this room again now.

And that is to say, that no testimony was to be used against you.

But the Supreme Court and the courts have variously confused the scope of that statute.

So, nobody really believed that it was deterministic with the Fifth Amendment.

So in 68, perhaps it was, it had accomplished past a statute which we call use of the testimony.

And use means use of the testimony.

This does not exonerate him of indictment.

This merely says that what you tell us cannot be used against you.

It's a perjury.

And we can turn around and indict you the next day, and we can indict you on independent evidence, having no source of what you tell us.

So, we call it case immunity.

In his instance, when he was prosecuted, 10 developments, and that's it.

and yes indeed now i don't know whether dean is is for oh by the way this use of unity is a very elaborate procedure the attorney general must answer this judge for it and the district judge gets into it as far as i know i guess this is a little more procedure i know we considered one but we've never seen the word i mean we've got one time at this very question

So we got to resolve in the meantime.

But this is a, this is a fairly new statute, but, uh, if this means, in the case, in the usability case, uh, that the man pays privilege.

He gets up with remuneration.

Now, this is, this is devastating.

This is a weak link in the prosecutor, and he has to use

a witness who got immunity by a claim on the privilege.

And that means, I don't know if, I don't know whether he's trading with you, whether he's trading with turning him loose on this whole mess.

Or whether he's trading him loose on himself.

I don't think the lawyers, shepherds, you know,

But anyway, I don't think the employer is going to get him off.

Yeah, this one's getting him off the whole damn thing.

What we have found in other cases with land use is that they don't want to go through the elaborate statutory procedure.

They just want to have a moral understanding.

You cooperate with us, we'll give you our word.

That's what they told me.

This is Peterson's style.

He practically gave us this in another case for the double-crosses, generally, and he just won the paper.

You see, I'll tell you why we're a little cocky, and maybe this is a bad basis for judgment, but a very positive national justice system.

charged with threats and purges against him.

He wanted to get in and testify against me, to sue this lawyer.

And he said that Mitchell wanted to get in and sue this lawyer.

And, uh, plans to threaten us with, uh, government, uh, perjury things before they're injured.

And that's, uh, what you can't get the guidance on, but I didn't see anything.

I was in a cell room.

We've studied law, we've studied law for two years.

On that case, until right away, we got the law, and we brought out fine, and we said, Mr. Sonson, you've got to take the chance.

We don't know whether time is running out on you, or time is running out on the District Attorney.

But if you just want to stand where you've stood for two years, and we've kept you there for two years, it's your destiny.

He didn't have the evidence against me and Buster.

But they would just sit down in that office and swear to their head they could return the indictment any more.

Now, this is what they're doing.

I'm sure they're doing the same.

Each one of these witnesses that were scattered around, potential witnesses against Mr. Ellison and Mr. Hogan, they're putting the screws on them.

They're scaring them.

And they're using psychoanalysis.

Now, if this overflows, it overflows on John and me, and it does on John, too.

You have to recognize it.

Move from that to the merits of the case.

This is what I'm trying to do.

And when I look at it, the merits of the case, I don't think they have a criminal case against these gentlemen.

It's a given conspiracy.

You see, the thing is, I understand.

Conspiracies are very, you know, very broad.

One overt act, and they can bring you over there.

But you have to have an overt act.

Not on the part of every defendant.

But the Elbert Act could make themselves innocent if they're part of this pattern.

In fact, I think that's really what they're going to try to make a call for.

Not on the water.

They've never proved that before.

But, on the other hand, they'll say that on the 350, that Alderman had an aneurysm, which would involve being a little attempted to .

What's the answer to that?

How do you answer that?

Dean's, if I understand John and Bob correctly, Dean's presentation goes no further, as far as we know, than saying take care of their families, right?

Now, I was going to say circumstantially that's helping the defendants, and it is.

I've got to admit it.

But it is the point of the rule.

as, uh, as, uh, intended to pay their money to the defendants for the purpose of shattering their backwoods.

Yep.

The only, you see, there's perhaps one of them mentioned this very late, very late, perhaps, where they said that if we were going to attack them, we'd, uh, I'm confident they're going to be arranged to help their backwoods.

I can't see that that's wrong.

That's the issue.

I cannot either.

No, there's no crime in this.

And we asked them, because the innuendos, the inferences, both pay off to keep the defendants quiet.

It surfaced quite a while ago.

Well, the court has said, yeah.

And the defendants may so not testify.

That's right, yeah.

But none of these actions that we've been able to pin down occurred

after these allegations were written.

This, to us, is significant.

If they were chargeable with newspaper stories of allegations of payoffs, and then they sent the money over,

for the family.

I think there were just paper stories that the guys were getting money and so on.

But the allegations that they were paid off to keep quiet, I think that was the first time in the court.

But you better check that out.

But I don't think I did that.

After that, I couldn't do it.

Mr. President, it may have been that you and I had peaked at 20% by

In passing, given you this judgment, and given these two kinds of judgments, on the basis of what the treaty was called, in the back of that, I counted on you.

Oh, actually.

I really, now, I... Well, there's no good choice in the case of our district.

We just made a police battle.

And I cared why you said that, which you had some action needed, but probably it's just as bad as looking at it this way.

just as bad as the same now.

And this is the same that they're invited to.

If they're invited, they're not giving them every chance.

If they're invited, they let them go.

On the other hand, they're not invited.

We have to remember, though, that they may, even if they're not invited, this is the argument that the prosecutors will get to do.

If they're not invited, they will be invited to the public mind.

That's right.

I'm not sure he had all the knowledge.

If that name does, it's not at all.

Not named at all.

Because of the newspaper stories and the leaks and the columns and the attacks by the white groups, etc, etc.

These men are going to be really precious in the Legion's testimony.

They're going to be invited to public.

Do you think they're disfellows to be destroyed with that?

Well, won't there come a time when they'll testify before Senator Urban's committee and have a chance to make their public presentation?

Yep.

Well, no, I think they'll be touched by him in court before that.

Court, yeah.

I think, I don't see how, I personally don't see how the Herbert Committee could possibly be allowed to go forward at a time when these court issues are going on.

Yeah, I mean, I probably haven't said it myself, that's for sure.

Coming back to Peterson's recommendation, future.

Yeah.

And here again, you must take my observations with the fact that I have faced this again.

Yeah, don't get me wrong.

He's getting lost, I think.

Possibly.

From having or being too much to be?

No, from being, from his dying, you're talking this.

Well, I don't want to die.

Yeah.

And I, uh, I know what it's like.

Well, he doesn't seem to be concerned about his dying, but he, I don't know, he is concerned.

He's a bad guy.

Right.

He will be a bad guy.

That's what I'm saying, yeah.

I'll do what I can.

Yeah.

I've never been in quite this point, as they are, with the situation, but I know that... You mean that they are going to be reluctant to adopt a few jobs?

That's what I would say, except, you know, you...

I wouldn't put this to Peterson.

Peterson's going to hang a little bit more.

I guess...

Hang a little bit more.

Hang a little bit more on the Democratic administration.

Right.

Yes.

But I had a voice, had a way to do that.

I heard you.

You know, I was following Peterson.

I don't know if you had any questions.

I said, you know, I said, well, his background, his background was a Democrat.

Oh, it must have been Peterson.

Yeah, but that, I thought it was a prosecutor that he'd be reluctant to, unless he was just crazy and ruthless, to want to indict these people.

How will it work?

Without the strongest case.

It might run a diagnosis.

Yeah, it does.

And this is not one.

I don't think they would throw in here two top assistants as defendants without a clear evidence.

How about this cold spirit?

Do you think they would do that?

Not without a clear evidence.

I equate either one.

Because they know that their name is that, then I would have to... Sure.

They have to, they might that, the helmet machine, through this, that COVID spirit.

Yes, but it's been going on for a long time.

I don't know if it's COVID spirit.

Yeah.

And usually in that phrase, you know, then I have a dozen, one dozen guys who say, and others are the great Jerry Unknown.

So they have a...

I just think... Well at this point I think the thing to do is to stand firm.

That's what I wanted to say.

Stand firm.

Let's play this almost like... That's a very good play.

Let's play this slowly and make it develop.

He's a good man.

I just hope that God will save him from the miserable things that have to go through.

But you do know, I'm sure, that we've said to you that while we have their interest in our safety, not primarily, but largely in our heart because they are on a planet.

Sure.

We are equally interested in this life still going on.

I agree.

We think it's good.

We think it's built over us.

If it ain't done now, let's just wait it out a while.

One thing I wonder, and I hesitate to bring it up because it's not in my problem.

In the statement, the interview is a step if you are not the citizen.

You have gone into the fact with them that you put your confidence in them to do what they say.

If I said that, would you want me to say that?

No, I'm wondering, I'm curious.

Uh, and it's, and it's, it's pretty controlled that you have had this in-depth contact with them on this basis that you believe them, you have, you place your faith and credit in them, and from what they have told you, they have not done anything wrong.

Uh, uh, you might, if you come to this occasion to do this, Mr. President,

And, well, I like Frank's presentation of that.

I'm not going to, I'm concerned about the timing of it.

But I think you could add, I'm not trying to give any location of it, and their counsel has done it.

I don't know what you want to say, but that's what's important to me.

their council advised me that no and not advised them that they have not that they have not now i mean i i don't like the timing on that let's let's let's have a reserve that's a good point

That's what Easter don't buy, frankly, is a whole new weekend surprise.

Now, the brooder isn't going back to one piece.

He's going to form the rest.

No.

He's going to have to say, I don't know why, tonight.

I'm sorry to say.

Somebody's coming in tomorrow.

It's flashed by very rapidly.

It's changed.

I don't know who it was.

The thing is, the thing can work.

And we're going to be meeting again tomorrow, again, any time over the weekend, if they want to talk.

That's what we're going to do.

We're going to go back and talk to Lance here again sometime.

Okay.

We'll be back.

Oh, yes.

And I have always said that we have a formal conference, maybe another one.

It doesn't even drop in the office when you're down on another matter.

And Seymour is very confident.

We have a man there who didn't know us, and besides he was jumping in at the very time.

The problem is that we should be trying to get information from Seymour Clancy.

You're a non-resilient assistant attorney general.

But yet, his thing is worthwhile and productive.

I'm not sure that Larry told you that.

Well, at Cajun, I never went to Cajun school.

I went to Cajun school.

You know, I remember that.

I didn't.

I wasn't an assistant attorney general then.

I don't know what you mean.

Well, he was on the division.

Well, this wasn't around.

Then we all didn't mind.

That's the weird truth about it.

Well, as I say, you've got honest men out here.

No, that's true.

I'm extremely impressed.

They're touched by this because anybody who's had a campaign this type of way ever since they got, you know, the thing.

And frankly, Mitchell's an honest man.

He just wasn't having a shot.

He had a problem with his wife, and jackass kids, and other fools, and all those different things.

John should step up to a bid.

And that's what happened to my baby.

Back in the day.

Sure.

Well, we're available to them.

And if you would like to see us again, let them know.

Thank you.

The people I really asked to talk to you about these circumstances.

Well, last time I saw you, it was very crowded out at the Warden Park, but I'm sure I could have lifted my feet off of the floor and watched you.

What was that?

It was your election night.

Election night, you were there?

That's great.

Well, that was what it was all about.

Yes, it sure was.

We'll survive this.

You know, people say this destroys the administration and the rest, but what was this?

What was Watergate?

A little bugging?

I mean, a terrible thing should have been done.

It should have covered up the people who had been in it and the rest, but we've got to beat it, right?

Well, we're so glad to have you, and I'm glad you've done it.