On June 17, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon and Charles W. Colson talked on the telephone from 2:22 pm to 2:37 pm. The White House Telephone taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 005-109 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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
Yes, sir.
Yeah.
Well, how are things going?
Well, I think they did some good votes yesterday, didn't they?
Sure did.
And I think we'll have another good one this afternoon on the Ned C. Whelan.
I think that'll go down by a resounding vote in the House.
So that's it.
Yes, sir.
I think it's...
I was pleased with yesterday.
It came better than I expected it to, really.
The 55-40, yeah.
I thought we might lose a few more than that.
Yeah.
It's so close to last year that it's encouraging.
Yeah.
Damn encouraging.
What was it last year?
55-39.
So this was...
This year it's 55-42?
42.
So we lost three, really three votes from last year, which is not bad considering the passage of another year.
Three against, yeah.
And the pressures.
Yeah, that's right.
And the lobbying, which was pretty... Oh, the lobbying.
Oh, my goodness.
They threw everything.
They had the lobbying, the veterans, the lawyers.
The New York Times ran that thing for that purpose.
Sure.
No question about it.
I think the Times, actually, I think the Times story probably lost us two or three votes.
I think Talmadge, a fellow like that, was influenced by that.
Do you?
Yes, sir.
As a matter of fact, he indicated that to some people we had working on him trying to bring his vote back in the line.
Mm-hmm.
He just said that it discredited everything that they had done in the past.
Which, of course, is exactly why the Times did it.
Exactly.
They thought, did Tomage think we'd put it out?
Oh, hell no.
No, he just meant that it discredited the nation.
Well, the justification for going in in the first place had been discredited.
Yeah.
Which, of course, is what the Doves want to use.
Well, that's the way that, I mean, actually, if you read the Times stories, it discredits it if you read it from the viewpoint of the guy that wrote the statement.
That's right.
But he's a left-wing fellow.
Exactly.
Although I, I don't know, I'm, I think the, the, what's your, what was your opinion as to the, how are they, are we beginning to get any proper coverage on the Times thing?
Are we getting a few editorials the other way or what?
We are, yes sir.
It's been tough.
We've talked to an awful lot of people and...
They don't want to take them?
Well, an awful lot of them don't want to take on the issue of freedom of the press, which is not the issue, but our job is to articulate the distinction.
Why don't you get this line, which would be a very simple way to do it.
The Times is guilty of knowingly publishing stolen goods.
McClellan brought that up when he came in today.
He said they had a case down there that they're working on now in this committee.
He said now when an individual, any individual who, you know, receives stolen goods is guilty.
That's right.
He says here the Times received stolen goods, stolen documents.
Knowingly.
But knowingly, the Times knowingly published stolen goods.
I think it's got to be hit on that.
The other thing is not, I know Ehrlichman is now trying to get this thing pulled together, but the other thing is that
from the attack standpoint, is to constantly hammer the fact that this is the Kennedy-Johnson papers.
Are we getting that across?
Not yet, Mr. President.
I don't think we have well enough.
I met with Erlichman for two hours this noon, and we've gone over a whole plan of things that we think need to be done.
And I think that, without any question, we've got to keep saying that.
And all of our people on the Hill have got to say that.
and be damn sure that people understand that we're not covering up something of this administration.
Why hasn't it been said?
It's the obvious thing.
Ziegler did say it, I think.
He said it about ten times.
What is the trouble?
They aren't carrying it.
No, I think they're carrying it.
The trouble is that on an issue like this, it takes a while for the...
It comes out as a big blur to the public.
They're not focusing yet on what we're covering up.
In other words, we're being accused of covering up.
The public isn't yet focusing on what it is.
And we have to make that point by continually talking about the Kennedy-Johnson and trying to get people from that period to talk about it.
They should be fighting.
And of course, they're all in hiding cowardly.
Or like Clark Clifford, probably privately cheering.
George Meany has a very tough statement and has agreed to give it tomorrow, in which he really takes the times apart.
And I think that'll help because that might stiffen the backs of a few of them.
Well, who the hell is going to get it out, though?
I mean, he may say it, but they may not print it.
Well, I think, no, I think they'll have to print it.
It's a tough statement.
I wrote it with Jay Lovestone this morning, so I think if he gives it as it is, it'll get out.
Now, we have some tough speeches up on the Hill that we've written, and Clark is getting those out.
this is an issue that will stay around for a while.
Well, the point is, I'm not concerned about the issue.
I'm not concerned about it.
I mean, I don't want, I told Holloman this morning, I don't want everybody around here to think, well, isn't it too bad?
Let's make something out of it.
It's an opportunity.
Listen, the New York Times, believe me, the New York Times can be discredited for
indefinitely as a result of this.
In fact, I'm going to, as long as I am where I am.
The New York Times will never, never, never have another opportunity to have any stolen goods, I'll tell you that.
In my opinion, Mr. President, they chose to take this on, and now we're doing it.
Now, it isn't just the Times, but it goes beyond that.
It goes to all of the disloyal people in government who are tempted to get out and peddle a paper here and there, either for profit or because they don't believe in a program.
It goes also to the integrity of government.
It's far beyond the war.
This is a terrible thing.
Well, imperiling people's lives.
imperiling lives, imperiling our sources, imperiling our lines of communication, imperiling the president's right to have honest advice from his advisors, why it destroys it all.
Well, I think, Mr. President... And somebody's got to say it.
They've got to get it out.
It hasn't been said simply enough and often enough yet.
I don't know what the trouble is.
Repetition is the key.
You just put your finger on it when you said often enough.
We're saying it.
It is being said.
And you can read it, but you have to look for it.
But the more often it can be said, the harder it can be hit.
And...
If people keep reading it, you know, you're judged not only by who favors you, but by your enemies.
And the New York Times, I think, is one of the best natural enemies we can have, I think, to be fighting the New York Times.
You're on the side, especially on this kind of an issue.
This isn't an issue of editorial judgment.
This is an issue of violating a law and publishing stolen goods.
Publishing stolen goods.
Let's put it that way.
Knowingly publishing stolen goods.
Now, I want you to get that line used.
I want it used.
Get it to 10 senators and congressmen this afternoon, will you?
Yes, sir.
Knowingly publish it.
Get somebody to get it out on television.
Now, that's the kind of thing.
Get somebody to put it in an editorial.
Then mail that around the country.
Get it on some sort of print, mail it to 100,000 people, knowingly publishing stolen goods.
Why aren't they guilty of something?
That reduces it to something that is simple enough for the people to understand.
Knowingly publishing stolen goods and endangering the security of Americans.
That's the second line, endangering the security of Americans.
Third, well, people don't care about the presidency and all that sort of thing, but nevertheless, the...
endangering the security of America.
Ehrlichman is working on some very good lines for you tomorrow.
And of course, I think that will, if you choose to use them at Rochester, is a marvelous opportunity.
Well, it is, except the problem, Chuck, I am inhibited to a
to a great extent, I'm afraid, by the fact that the thing is in court.
Don't you think so or not?
I don't, Mr. President, but that subject has to be thought through for this reason, that what is in court is not an issue of someone's guilt or innocence.
It is not an issue of someone's rights being tried on the merits.
It is an injunction as to which the executive branch of government must enforce the law.
and must use every resource to enforce the law.
And therefore, comments by the chief executive of the United States who is charged with enforcing the laws about an injunctive action where you are seeking to enforce the law is quite different than commenting on the merits of a case that's being tried before a jury as to whether someone's guilty or innocent.
That's a totally different thing.
And I think the public would respect the fact that the President of the United States
is going to use every possible resource to prevent a newspaper from violating national security.
It's the fact that it's an injunctive proceeding that makes me feel that you're not treading on...
it's got to be done carefully and i think anyway stir up some people in that and we get them get them going well i'll get this uh i still have love stone in the building i'll get this line about stolen goods into the mini statement and i'll get it up on the hill this afternoon get it used repeated by everybody knowingly knowingly publishing stolen goods that's the way to go not stolen our people don't know how to say anything in simple ways not in terms of knowingly publishing
Stole I mean stolen stolen secured documents that way Henry would put it.
No, that's correct But the way that knowingly publishing stolen goods people will get that people will sounds like a thief.
I
Sounds like something wrong.
Well, that's what it is, and I think that, as I say, I think we'll come out... And goods that belong to the people, I mean, basically.
I think we'll come out on the right side of that issue, because I think the New York Times will lose on this.
I'm always reminded of Reagan's comment when he was first running for governor, when he was told that the New York Times had endorsed his opponent, and he said, well, they've only endorsed two people out of state.
One is my opponent, and one is Castro, Fidel Castro.
And it just...
had a hell of a good effect.
I just think the Times is a great enemy to hit on this, and I think they deserve it.
Don't worry.
We're going to hit them, as far as this administration is concerned, as long as we live, we are going to hit them.
I mean, they're never going to have another opportunity.
I'd share that.
It's got to be done.
It's got to be done, and they asked for it, and now this is the way it's going to be.
We've been covering the country with editors.
We've gotten a good reaction, I must say.
There are some, huh?
I didn't mean to sound negative on that.
About 50-50, a lot of them say, well...
It's a delicate issue when you're talking about the press and freedom of the press.
Some must be outraged.
Good God, some of them wouldn't publish such a darn thing.
No, that's right.
A lot of them wouldn't.
I mean, it isn't the war.
Good God, there are a lot of people that are against the war that wouldn't do this.
That's right.
I mean, you could be against the war, but you don't break the law.
And also the other idea, breaking the law is never justified regardless of the cause.
No cause justifies breaking the law.
Now, put that one down, will you?
Yes, sir.
No cause, to wit, anti-war justifies breaking the law.
No cause justifies breaking the law, right.
Let's try to get at them.
Well, you certainly have a couple of stars in those two young guys.
They look, incidentally, they're the two youngest-looking 25-year-olds I ever saw.
They look that way to me.
They are, but they are really attractive.
My God, they...
They ought to just come on like gangbusters.
This fellow O'Neill, he was so in awe of you, Mr. President, that he just couldn't come on as strongly as he does.
I waited with him.
He came on strong enough.
Well, he is just so eloquent, but he was...
He walked away, after that meeting, by the way, he walked away saying, that's the finest man.
I love that man.
I'll do anything for him.
I'm going to start campaigning for him.
And if you could see that boy on television, you'd be awful proud of him.
Gosh, he's good on his feet.
Let's get him on.
We'll keep him on.
We had him on Face the Nation.
We'll have him on the Frost Show.
We're getting a lot of forums for him.
He's very much in demand.
That's right.
That's right.
But you did a marvelous job of picking his spirits up.
He was about ready to quit.
Yeah, I know.
He's idealistic.
But there's no reason for him to quit.
That's when you start fighting harder.
You got him with that one when you were quoting about it's more important to be right than to be on the winning side.
That's right.
And that's the way to be on the winning side, too.
But nevertheless, they are two great guys, and he's just something.
And I think, too, that...
We'll just keep hammering this.
You see, Chuck, I look upon this Times thing as an opportunity.
Sure, it puts the war in the front pages.
Of course it does.
On the other hand, have in mind this.
It's a story that is not having the impact on the country.
I lay you money that it is having here.
Despite the fact it was on television so much.
You know what I mean?
The television people make a lot of it.
It's too confusing to the average guy.
The only problem is that the television tries to get it across as if we were covering up something about the war.
Right.
We're not covering up anything about the war.
We're covering up who was responsible in that period.
It's a fight between Johnson and Kennedy and McNamara and those people.
Exactly.
Exactly.
They've just got to say that.
Well, that's the line that eventually will come out, Mr. President.
I'm convinced of that.
Okay.
Hit it hard.
We'll be doing it, sir.