On March 28, 1973, President Richard M. Nixon and Ronald L. Ziegler talked on the telephone at an unknown time between 9:44 am and 9:52 am. The White House Telephone taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 044-039 of the White House Tapes.
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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
Hello.
Mr. Figler?
Yes, sir.
Hi, Ron.
Are you set for today pretty well, or do you need to ask about anything?
I think so.
At least it looks now like we should hold where we are on the Watergate thing.
Yes, I would think so, too, because he's in my court testifying today.
Right.
Yeah.
Then the congressional request for Dean to appear to testify on executive privilege.
Well, we've stated our position in the March 2nd release, and Klein, Deans, and Dixon and those fellows are always prepared to discuss our position.
Oh, that's right.
That's the way to handle that.
That's right.
The Attorney General is the one who will testify on that.
We have Ambrose briefing today on the drug reorganization.
And the crime statistics, of course, are going out tonight, which are good, together with your statement.
Which, incidentally, it's been suggested to put in the form of a letter from you to be sent to police chiefs around the country.
I'm sorry, we'll do that also.
You know, one thing is that I noted one thing that I didn't quite figure out.
got in, it probably was in the message to the Congress, or maybe I may have, you know, they sort of picked up the line without pity or something like that.
I don't know where that came.
Was that in the message to Congress?
You know what I'm speaking about?
Without pity?
Yeah.
Crime, the laws will be enforced without pity or something like that.
It dealt, I'm sure, with the drug pusher.
Mm-hmm.
That was not in the message.
It's nothing I said.
You know what I mean.
It wasn't in any news conference either, was it?
No?
Let me check that.
It may have been in the message, but I'll see what context it was in.
Just so we know, the other thing is that I talked to Henry last night about Cambodia, and I just think you stand to stand right firm on that.
The whole line there is simply that we...
that the ceasefire provides for a withdrawal of all forces.
I mean, the agreement provides for a ceasefire in Cambodia, withdrawal of all forces, and we continue to enforce the agreement.
Just hardline it right down the line.
I talked to Henry this morning.
I told him that, but we have to do that, Ron, not because of Cambodia, but because of Vietnam.
So that's that.
Okay, well, we're in good shape.
Fine.
Well, if you need to ask me anything, it's fine.
In the meantime, I don't think anything should be served from Watergate today because, as I said, the McCord's going up there, and he's up for a second day at the grand jury.
I think we'd better just wait and see if we can get something more.
We don't have anything more yet that I think is useful.
I agree, but I'm working on it.
The attorneys here are working on it.
And in the meantime, oh, Ron, what is your feeling about the announcement of our talk here?
Do you want to announce it today, or could we announce it tomorrow morning?
Well, we could announce it tomorrow morning.
I'd like to get a feel this morning as to how the questions come and so forth and hold open the possibility of maybe announcing it at 3.
I don't want it to come as a...
That's right, so I'd like to get a follow-up.
Well, it is.
Well, you'll get Watergate questions, that's all that.
But we've got to knock that out by our announcement of the title.
How can we do that?
I would say on national security and the domestic economy.
How would that sound to you?
Good.
It doesn't say much, but domestic security and the domestic economy.
Or you could say national security.
would say, or Russia would say, Vietnam.
Well, national security and domestic policy following Vietnam.
And domestic policy, and domestic policy following Vietnam.
Right.
Yeah.
How does that sound to you?
Good.
I'll ask, well, is he going to get into anything else?
If they're not saying no, it's not the purpose of this.
No, that's right.
That's right.
In other words, then the price thing will come as a surprise.
That'll give them their lead.
Right.
We'll play that very, very cool.
You just say that.
On that, you've got the
stonewall out on the ground because it'll be it's like august 15th we can't indicate that we're going to freeze because everybody raised their prices right away so say no no no no no information that whatever that uh that gives you it gives us something because even though some of them if you just went out and talked vietnam they'd say i should have talked about that but if you have a price freeze they get a story i think that'll knock it out and and we just can't get too obsessed in the watergate thing you know if you
Think of, at the moment, sort of thinking of your third option until we find another one.
I agree.
Don't you agree?
Yes, I do.
I mean, after all, even I saw somebody took the dash on a bit, which isn't bad.
Bob Maynard this morning, in the post.
I don't know why, but he was right.
I mean, they're probably a little embarrassed by it.
Somebody even took on...
on McCoy, the way he didn't talk earlier.
Right, well, that's the prosecutor, and that's good, too, because he's made the point that it was offered, it was requested that he give the full story back months ago, and he tends to discredit the witness, you know.
That's another thing.
Anyway, okay.
Fine, fine.
I'll check with you on the announcement.
No, it's, there's no, well, yeah, you can check, but there's no problem.
My view is that you can play it as you like, but I think if your questions are pretty hard today, you might just, or maybe you should send Warren out today.
What do you think?
No, I think we can.
You can go out.
If they're pretty hard, what do you think?
Then just go at three today.
Go at three, right.
If they're not hard.
Then wait until in the morning.
in the morning.
You mean, what's your reasoning there?
Well, I would prefer to, if it does not build up, it's going to be a Watergate thing, well then I would prefer to do it tomorrow.
I think there's an element of some surprise in that.
But if, on the other hand, if it looks like it's Watergate, the thing to do is to
and just as if we'd planned it all along.
And then you could knock down the idea that it is Watergate.
Just say, no, he's not going to talk about that.
Because basically, if you announce the day, one problem you have there is that if you do announce the day, the only thing I'm concerned about announcing the day, then you'll have speculation.
You'll have not only speculation, but you might have an editorial or some congressman will come and others will say, please talk about Watergate.
That's the advantage I see of tomorrow, frankly.
All right.
Okay, so you think about it.
Okay.