← 514-003514-005 →

Conversation 514-004

TapeTape 514StartTuesday, June 8, 1971 at 7:55 AMEndTuesday, June 8, 1971 at 8:02 AMTape start time00:02:04Tape end time00:09:00ParticipantsNixon, Richard M. (President);  Ehrlichman, John D.;  Kissinger, Henry A.Recording deviceOval Office
AudioNARA Description

On June 8, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and Henry A. Kissinger met in the Oval Office of the White House from 7:55 am to 8:02 am. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 514-004 of the White House Tapes.

Nixon Library Finding Aid
Conversation No. 514-4

Date: June 8, 1971
Time: 7:55 am - 8:02 am
Location: Oval Office

The President met with John D. Ehrlichman

     Housing statement
          -Length
          -Morality statement
          -Titles
          -Substance
                -Precision of terms
                      -Liberal line
                      -Voters in referendum
         -Length
                -Effect
         -Further work
                -Details

     National Railroad Passenger Corporation/American Track [AMTRAK]
          -Criticism
                -John A. Volpe
                -Egil (“Bud”) Krogh, Jr.
                -Unknown person from Dwight D. Eisenhower Administration

Ehrlichman left at 7: 59 am

[Henry A. Kissinger talked with the President between 7:59 am and 8:02 am]

[Conversation No. 514-4A]

[See Conversation No. 4-66]

[End of telephone conversation]
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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

I want to tell you that I'd like to look at that housing bank for editing purposes.
I think it could be improved by cutting.
All right.
Did you read it all?
Oh, yes.
Yes, I did.
And it's in one line right over the gutter.
It's cut now.
I guess maybe that's my problem.
We cut it about in half from when it started out.
The difficulty I have with the job is that it
I just don't like all that crap about morality.
And I don't like the title.
There's one title in there, complexities.
I don't like that.
I mean, you can't ever admit that there's such a thing.
Well, let me get it back to you.
Well, you understand, the substance will abide.
The only one thing that I have some concern about is why we couldn't be a little bit more precise in interpreting those two things.
To me, it seemed to me that the, and it may be that you're trying to, we're trying to bend over too far and make you these, or the liberal slime there.
And the clear implication of those cases is that that was the,
in the case of people at large voting in a referendum.
That doesn't come true at all.
And the way that paragraph is written, it's got us along and all that.
It got us along.
We can sharpen that up.
Well, I think it should be sharpened up.
And read the case.
Because that doesn't actually give you the basis for doing the other one.
I think that the goddamn people want it.
They want to live in a neighborhood of higher-priced homes that they have a right to.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
This does not make that clear.
It has in the economic narration and all the rest.
I think it's there, the detention, but can we get through approximately 80, I think it's 22, 20, 20 to 5,000 words.
It's pretty much lost.
Well, we'll try and cut, say, cut 25 to 30 percent of it as a target and see what we can do.
That's quite small.
Yeah.
When we started, we cut pretty hard and
You know, when you live with a draft, then you figure, gee, this is bare bones at this point.
But we can do better.
Well, right.
It's ready to draft.
Yes.
All right, Joe.
I know.
All right.
So we were working on a draft.
Oh.
Yeah, I'd cut some more.
All right.
Just a second.
Would you want to do some cutting or want me to take another look at it?
Well, I'll get it back to you.
And then I can spend some time on it today.
No, no.
Well, let me arrange to get it back to you.
Well, I understand that I was supposed to be in the night.
Yeah, what I was talking about, on this assignment to the presentation of Laos, did we have anybody there that was trying to take up our side, or was there any preparation?
I understand what I mean.
They talked, they asked about the disclosure on laws and so forth and so on.
As a matter of fact, we disclosed the whole goddamn thing.
Because I was in a case, it was in San Juan, it calls upon the administration to disclose what we're doing.
We disclosed it.
It seems to me that when we've got somebody that can take the offensive open thing for us, what's been done on that?
I mean, who'd you talk to, Colson or who, McGregor?
I don't know what to say.
That's just a terrible thing.
They always dominate those, don't they?
The other thing, did you get that final casualty figure in him?
It is 19.
And that's your time.
Now, I want you to pass that, if you would, immediately to Scalia and tell him to develop a plan as to how we can get a maximum impact on that.
But they should say the president again proved right, you know, the president catched us in the holes.
What did you say they were?
This was pretty good.
It gets down to five and a half years.
Because we might as well crow online, don't you?
This is the first time it's been below 20, isn't it?
Good.
Thank you a lot.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, we've heard about you.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
Why don't we just say that I'd like for him to go a later time.
He won't fit in on something we're doing with the Russians or something.
← 514-003514-005 →