On March 30, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon, H. R. ("Bob") Haldeman, Charles W. Colson, and Manolo Sanchez met in the Oval Office of the White House from 12:47 pm to 2:32 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 697-029 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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
Yes, I, uh, I know where you are.
I was trying to say that I just, uh, read the, uh, morning brief, and, uh, uh, as you said, Robert, at the point that I'm very much concerned by what I think is a breach of, uh, what was understood by the activity there, and I think you need to know that, uh, as far as I'm concerned, uh,
the reaction must be swift and it's going to be
uh very uh it has to be it's going to be protect and uh i i think that that has to be very clearly understood what i thought was
Well, we're getting to the more important thing, purpose, etc.
I thought to call him, and I checked back and said, I've got to get one of your offers in ten days, and I think you ought to take off three days.
And this week, so...
uh i don't know
Well, you go wherever you want.
My own feeling is you can get a plane to Florida if you want to do that.
If you'd like to see or so forth, you might go to Florida.
The difficulty with Florida that I see at this point is the hellish problem of reservations.
If you want to, he's got a pussy.
Yeah.
But my point is that instead of like seeing Clark at all a couple of days, he's been burning a candle at both ends.
Because our guys around here, see earlier this week Kissinger's taken off.
And I don't think you've had two days off or three days off that I can remember in the last six months.
I do hope you'll do that because you know my family and the rest, they count too.
And the main thing, the only other thing is that we all got to be in shape for these big values to come.
And, uh, in other words, we've got to allow them to value this thing in the 1980s.
We're still close to it, and so forth.
And there isn't a hell of a lot that we can really do about it right at this point.
I mean, that's one of the good things about having a week off.
I don't know what the hell Kennedy's screwing around.
But it's on the way.
What about if you want to do that?
I was thinking, for example, if we might get off.
Thank you.
Go back and assess how many problems we have with this beyond this one.
Just let him sit for a moment.
Well, I know there are many things.
Remember I talked to you about some sports where you've got too many problems.
You remember I said, this is all a matter of time.
This is all we will if we get some time.
But all this time I've looked to the staff too, but many of them have been too overworked.
It needs to really be a time to leave the public members and keeping our people in shape.
We are, fortunately, our staff is relatively young and relatively healthy and relatively sober.
On the other hand,
I've seen people, not you, but there are others around my district who are ready to pop a piece.
I'd say 50% better, because it's a wild one.
Brown told me that he was going to give this back to me soon.
Save his life.
Really?
Well, it's got a big difference.
Henry goes out every week to see that.
He works all day.
He's living with problems all the time.
He loves it.
Sure.
But what's the problem?
Well, physically, the problem is not physically.
The system will work on life.
You've got to see.
So that's solely the key.
That's my safety.
That's my warning, though.
That's the key.
That's the key.
That's the key.
But I think the trouble with all of us also, Mr. President, is that we're really more relaxed when we're accomplishing things than we are when we're sitting worrying.
I went to Florida for
Five days later in China than the first four days I was in, I just couldn't take it.
I kept thinking about it.
Why don't you go to Boston, or go back to your old home, and get around, maybe like a Christmas holiday, walk around and talk to folks.
Get the view that isn't Washington, believe me.
Like Tommy was saying to me a minute ago.
He says, God damn it, let's just get out of this damn city.
And he says, we're all going to lose this time.
Wasn't that a very good movie when you guys did it?
He says, yeah, it was a very, very good one.
Now we're, well, there is, by just spending a little time on it, which I should have done earlier, we finally got him out there, charged him with an action.
Then he made the moves, and he's placed the drugs so he didn't make the moves.
I mean, there ain't nobody else that can do it.
Butz couldn't make that move, so Conley could.
Butz may make it this weekend because he's got a very unique forum.
He and Hodgson are going on TV together, which will be expected to be a debate, but will not be.
They're both going to take a very similar line with respect to the fact that the rising meat prices are more a responsibility of labor than a responsibility of power.
As a matter of fact, isn't it the political issue?
That means, that means what?
are causing its food prices to fall.
Oh, that's all right.
That's a witness view of what's happening.
The only problem is, Juset is one of the new unions for us.
Juset is, couldn't be more wrong.
That's Gorman Union, which has, the only fellow in here in Philadelphia, I'll tell you, who is here with me on Vietnam, consistently is Gorman.
Wow.
They are wild, I keep, wild revelations.
Let me ask you this.
What was the stomachache of that baby?
At the dinner, or the singing?
We invited four labor leaders, and she said not to show it, which is unreasonable, or maybe I don't know.
I don't know.
I mean, I would think that the labor leaders would invite a few more.
I said some of the stuff that they had, the construction trade, you said, you know, this is going to be centralized.
I don't know who it was.
I don't remember.
I didn't wonder if it was a boycott.
The ones we invited are friends.
They may have been afraid to come because they're AFL-CIO.
We invited building graders to do things, yeah.
But those are AFL-CIO too.
That's what it means.
They may have been afraid to come.
They may have been afraid to come.
That wouldn't be the reason, Mr. President, because we had five of them at your church service on Sunday.
We had Joe Power.
Yes, I know.
They were very proud.
And they were all AFL-CIO.
So I think it's...
it's it's more likely that but for some reason i couldn't i don't remember no because if that were the case i know it would have come to the church service last sunday and we had a
of a picture now we had five four or five building trades presence the craft presence and in fact we didn't i don't think we got a turn down from a labor development yes he said he wanted to and i said i don't think he has to i mean i don't think he cares
I just wonder if that isn't really going to cut in.
You see, Hodgson's got a position, Schultz is a farmer, secretary of labor.
Is there some reason why, you know, if you think this is what we want to talk about, I'll talk a little more frankly with Dishy and me.
I mean, or whatever we're going to talk about.
He's got a very good relationship with us.
I just want to be sure.
Don't ever have anybody come to a meeting with a guy like that.
It's going to make him uncomfortable.
It's pretty hard to restrict this one.
He calls it just the way he sees it.
Is it great?
Yes.
Not with us.
Not with him.
It's all right with us, but it's not what it is with Schultz or me.
All right.
Well, I know that's good with you.
So I was wondering if we were... No, we'd be all right.
And he'll talk freely.
Schultz and I have had lunch with him a couple of times together, and he's talked awfully freely.
Well, that's fine.
Schultz is an extra in this field, and Schultz is probably going to have to...
Well, he's more intimate with the nuances of the West Coast travel than I am.
Well, I've got that pretty cool.
We're all right on that.
The paperwork doesn't really have jurisdiction over this, does it?
By the roll of the dice, the way in which Fitz set up his contract year, completely the roll of the dice, he gets two races in one calendar year, but it's two teamship contract years.
So the play board is even from his race, his way above the guidelines.
It's spread out over two years, he said.
But the relationship between Fitz and the West Coast is terrible, too.
So long as he continues to tell Bridges to go to hell, which he is doing, Bridges may not be able to, couldn't sustain it, sir.
So Fitz is a very key guy to us in that, and Schultz understands the beginner's nuances of that paradigm.
Schultz, Conley, and I have talked about that, and we believe, Mr. President, that it is best to use only occasions when he provokes it.
The Price Commission members did a beautiful job.
I believe, watching the television, that he came off distinctly second best in his confrontation with the Price Commission.
He looked, he looked boorish and arrogant and public behaved.
He said, he, he, he answered one question at a time.
He had a problem with that matzo bowl.
He had a problem with that matzo bowl.
Four months ago, three matzo bowls and four matzo bowls.
I think that's disgusting.
Well, he was all right till the morning.
You know, that's Jews cheating Jews.
Now, who the hell cares?
The Jews are getting cheated.
Max was bald.
It's true.
Of course it is.
It's a religious business, good God.
They can't police themselves.
I couldn't care less if a waiter goes off to the wrong side.
I told him to go to hell.
My God, three mounds of balsam.
They only have four mounds of balsam here.
So what the hell?
Who makes mounds of balsam?
Well, we got one of them.
Sure, you know, that's pretty much it.
But see, that's a, that's been going on for so long, everybody knows we don't get a big candy bar anymore.
he was on the right tack when he was talking about food prices but he overdid it when he got in questioning and three of the networks carried it one of them carried it in a way that did a real disservice to him by clipping off his reply at a point that this made him look like an absolute jackass when in effect he said i don't care
I mean, I don't care what you do.
I don't give a damn.
I don't give a damn.
This isn't my problem.
This is yours.
Did that go on?
Yes, sir.
All through.
But then he had a chance on two of them to kind of bring it back into focus.
But the third time, it got him off at that point.
Well, one of the senators.
And it was devastating.
One of the first senators.
One of the commissioners said that you may not give a damn.
but the public does.
But the point I was making was that Conway Schultz and I believe that
We should take an opportunity like that.
Grayson should crack them.
But that's what I mean.
What do you tell the members of the House and the Senate and all the other cons that are out there?
They ought to know.
I suppose none of them I trust are going to be tempted about this thing.
Oh, no.
This is a great issue for us.
That's correct.
We do have a major problem, which I wanted to ask you about.
Big business is mobilizing now and is about to launch a major legislative effort this year.
The Kerr Union?
The Kerr Union.
That's stupid.
That's the truth.
It's Roger Lowe.
No, it's part of Roger Lowe and Bush, and it's now joined in by Archibald from the chamber and by the NAM votes, and they're... Well, it then includes various attempts at a snowball in hell to get any labor legislation through this Congress.
Now, in fact, this Congress isn't even under the Buster legislation, true?
What they want to do is get the issue into the debate this year.
And from our standpoint, I think it is catastrophic, because it sustains getting the right to work on a state ballot.
And this is what happened in 1958.
You just put that on a ballot, and you are going to mobilize... Oh, they have a... Now they've allocated half a million dollars for openness to start an advertising campaign.
Uh...
come in with 22 proposals for restricting... Well, how many in our test camp won't be one that's not open?
That's just, that's the opening.
But the thing is, the thing is that, uh, what should the judge, what do you think we ought to do?
Oh, I want to, I learned about it, and I heard about it Monday, and I confirmed it yesterday.
I want to launch, uh, whatever resources we have with the business community to say, way off, bring it up.
If you want to bring it up next year, great.
But to do it in the first round of election year, you're simply going to galvanize the labor vote, turn them out in droves.
Yeah, you are going to be able to defeat members of Congress.
Well, you could defeat a Jerry Ford.
That's right.
You're going to don't mow, don't stir up the labor vote.
The idea is you've got to don't stir up the labor vote this year.
You only hurt your friends as you did in 1958.
Now, God damn it, they've got to get that through their cotton-picking heads.
Well, just let us let them in, get as many people as we can in that Congress, and then we'll come in when we're ready for a labor thing.
I've been... Who is it?
Some lawyer down there?
Well, it started with Fred Borch, basically.
Fred is a nice guy.
He's made sense.
Fred Borch... Schultz talked to Borch.
He was talking about something else, and he raised this to Schultz's footer board, and...
He evaluates for just not being a nice guy.
Ronald, son of a bet you, has only one interest in the world, which is General Electric.
Well, I...
Connolly and I complete a course.
Does Connolly agree with this?
And then he's the one to tell.
I think that if between Connolly, Flanagan, Schultz, and I. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
And if Connolly tells him, you've got to keep planning out, he's wonderful, except you do know, right now, let's not have him in a position where he's in anything where that businessman, those sons of bitches who go out and say, Peter, plan it, and the whole White House called them.
You know, we've got to remember that he is somewhat in a position, in a curious way, that Adams was for the wrong reasons, of course.
The fact that, ironically, he's attacked for being a friend of the business.
You and I know that Pete Flanagan is the anatomy of most of the business, then, because he took some hard ones and handled them right.
Remember the oil man?
Everybody's squealing about Pete Flanagan.
Damn right.
Jesus Christ, Pete Flanagan has a hell of a business.
Our little problem is what we did with his clients.
Clients are a little racist, and we were racist.
Now, I think it's much better, and I think you have a hell of a lot more influence than Congress can take.
I think you can take it, too.
You can do it, because you can put it on straight blood for toleration.
Well, I think also Ford and some of the House members could get into this force and help.
Would they?
Oh, my God.
I think they would both be...
Why do these guys want to put everybody on the spot and pull over against such legislation?
They think that they've got labor where they want them now because of this mean walkout and everything.
They think this is a godsend opportunity.
So the laborers made a mistake and they've got to strike while the engine's on.
Well, they don't want to strike while it's on.
Strike later.
Well, it's bad.
It's in bad public favor that they've got a presidential campaign, which is a way to escalate the issue and be heard where they wouldn't be heard.
Yeah, I'm not...
It's a typical, naive business.
The way they go at it, you know, they screw it up every time.
They've read the ORC poll, which says the labor is very, very small.
And they also see, you know, us being now aggressively attacking me.
And so they just think we've got to...
The pendulum has swung for the first time in 20 years.
I love the moment.
They've got to rerun.
I was here as the elect on the eve of Congress.
I can tell you, Chuck, I know the guys that were elected in that Congress.
I can't name one that was elected running on an anti-Labor platform.
I can name two-thirds of that Congress that voted to override Truman's veto in the toughest anti-Labor bill that's ever been passed, particularly anti-Labor.
Now, how did it all happen?
We got in on other issues.
Had or not, meat prices, communism, and the rest.
You remember?
Yeah, sure do.
These crazy guys, you don't know.
The way that, like, labor is fighting, they don't fight in front of them.
You don't get an entertainment division and then fight it in the left.
Well, the biggest thing, the biggest argument of all is that labor is so fractured right now that they will not mobilize unless we mobilize them.
And we can mobilize them if we're not, we can keep them apathetic and pick off groups for ourselves.
Yesterday I started to turn it off and George suggested that I ask you first to be sure you agree.
I couldn't imagine you not agreeing.
Well, I just can't imagine them being so damn stupid.
That's all.
They can't.
Yeah, yeah, I can't.
I can't.
It's not exactly what you'd expect.
I expect, or I guess suggest, that Connelly would admit three or four thousand votes.
Yes, sir.
And say that it's not in our interest.
Look, folks, we know exactly what we're doing.
But we've got some legislation here.
For example, if they never brought Tom Schrader, we'll pass that damn Tom Bill.
You know what I'm saying?
Right, sir.
And that'll be the beginning.
That's the way to fight these bastards.
Well, that's the biggest...
put in the door that business would have ever had.
It's an urgency, you know.
You've got to keep quiet.
I will, or you're not going to get that.
We'll crank up to that one.
How about the house?
Well, the ringer said he thought he'd done a good job with the house members.
Yes.
His reports back from that were very good.
And the
The Detroit case, in a sense, is a break for us because it demonstrates the need for legislation.
Who are supposed to be turned the other way.
That's the number one.
That's what Bob Griffin says on it.
It sure as hell would indicate that from the way that... No, I don't believe so.
The Detroit News is.
Provost?
Provost.
The pre-first is not.
I'm curious as far as he...
I got it.
I got it with Griffin.
Martin Hayden has three friends, you see, at night, at night in Miami.
You know, they've got that old type of Jewish group.
I think it's that.
It is.
Yes, it is.
It's Martin Hayden who has been beating the drums on Griffin's Constitutional Order.
Would you think that's where you're going with Washington?
Well, no, we're not.
My opinion of this issue is that the prime importance is to get to the affected communities and let them realize that our bill is the answer.
And that will slowly feed back.
And while we're doing it, it's
It's tough to cover it as fast as we would like because there are only a few people that can really do this well.
Well, let me say to you, we don't have to cover it as fast as all that either.
No.
The main thing is to get it covered before November.
That's right.
The other thing is to get the Democratic candidate on the other side, which she will be.
Right.
They're stuck now.
Except for Jackson.
Except for Jackson.
Right.
The other thing is to get that damn hard moratorium in some way passed.
That's right.
And to make the Democratic congressmen and senators move up or down.
Would you agree on that as a tactic?
Providing it doesn't come so fast that the court tests don't come before November.
Shit, it won't.
I don't think the moratorium has ever been true until probably back to the Democratic Convention.
That'll please me just right, because that hopefully will keep our court from having to rule on it before November.
The worst... Tell me, do you think they might approve?
Well, it is procedurally possible to get it to the full term and get it on a priority basis.
And that's why... Well, whether you want it passed, let's get this worked out, because we should be pressing some right now.
I would like to see the moratorium...
I'd like to see the moratorium passed any time after July 15th.
So if you could...
If you...
Even on an injunctive proceeding... Well, then at the price of time, if you know of ever trying to get rid of the emergency... Let's hear it.
I've read this with my two friends, and I think he agreed with me.
He said that if it passed...
say, before Jim first, you could get to the lower courts fast enough so that the Supreme Court conceivably could be confronted.
He heard of the, you can go directly to the Supreme Court on a constitutional question.
You see, we can't, I'm afraid we can't, Bob, because we're going to look like we won't.
Well, you can hang it up in the lower courts, but that's the only place you can get your delays, kind of.
And if they don't start proceedings in a lower court until mid-summer, you are right, because the length of time that it would take to get to the appeal of the Supreme Court would probably take you past November.
The other thing is, if you claim to the July 15th delay, you run the risk of losing it.
In the Congress.
Oh, yeah.
That's very true.
The cleanest way is to get it to an housing act, if you...
If we can, but that almost assures a court test before the election.
And I just don't know how our court will rule.
I know that Rehnquist has to slow up on himself.
He has to.
Well, in all, I think he would...
But that ultimately has to be proven.
Yeah.
For Christ's sakes.
What does that prove?
Well, he wrote an opinion that you had to have a constitutional amendment.
By implication, his opinion was...
You couldn't do it any other way other than through the Constitution.
That puts him in a very difficult position to rule our way.
Well, it does work that way in our court, but as Randquist has been disqualified himself, we haven't lost everything.
We've just come out with a constitutional amendment.
That's right.
And let the Democratic candidate be against it.
That's right.
Just pull right in front of you and I and tell you we're going to fight this battle.
We're going to fight it after those clowns braided around the White House here the other day.
Jesus Christ, wasn't that a horrible thing?
What do you think of that?
Yes.
It was all right.
You're...
You're also, all right, Mr. President, if Rehnquist disqualifies himself, you're providing some of our appointees both our way.
That's another thing.
Because then they realize that we wouldn't want to give it back.
If we had an absolute fix on it.
I don't know what Powell would want.
I don't know what Berg would want.
Berg is the one I care about.
Powell, I think, would be.
How are you doing?
Paul might not have met over at Baxter's to prove that he's not racist.
You know what I mean?
I still think he likes to get on the rich.
In that particular case.
Who's the integrationist?
Oh, I know, but he's part of that.
Part of the establishment.
Yeah, sure as hell is.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's a great, I mean, you can argue that constitutionality that either way, it's,
i would imagine that a cow or a request probably not so much burger would realize the implications if they turn it down
Well, the point I would make, Mr. President, is that the President has an obligation to do that, to go to the Supreme Court before he can seek to amend the Constitution.
Remember, this comes back to Scanlon's analogy with the income tax.
He wasn't sure he was historically correct, and I haven't checked it yet.
But it's the duty to try to do it within the framework of the Constitution.
If that goes where it can, if that fails, then you seek to amend it.
That goes so that the Constitution will not allow it.
that you must try.
Having so tried and failed, then we must demand the Constitution to have the public will reflected.
I think the public will in those districts that are involved is overwhelming the land.
I noticed that, did you notice that Buffalo came to that situation the other day?
I knew something.
Christ, they're reasonably hell up there about something.
Boston, my God.
But Boston is wide.
It's 3%, but the idea of busting is just to get the whole goddamn city up in arms, particularly the Irish capital, Canada.
Really?
Yeah.
Well, they've got to take the Irish guys.
They're our leader.
We're not going to put that on you.
We're not going to.
I don't know.
I've got no idea.
We have to decide.
Somebody's got to give speech.
Oh, the NCEA?
Yeah.
Is Cole working on questions?
Yeah.
Whether we can be ready to, I don't know what to say out there, but I've got to know whether we should drop the issue.
Let me start at 1230 in Schultz's office.
I wish to admit it.
Oh, when was that at?
But it's a little late.
My view is to prevail on this one.
Well, it's awful easy right now because the whole stage is set and Conley's on board and we've got a vehicle in a bill that Mills has already filed.
And what's it cost?
I think, Mr. President, it's a billion four or a billion...
Our plant was $1.4 billion, and I think the mill still is either $1.4 billion or $1.7 billion, but they're not running.
I suppose the only argument against your department is the argument that one hundred percent.
One hundred percent.
Well, you have a whole problem.
He's the person that does it.
I'm for it because I'm for Catholic schools, period.
That's the difference.
And I'm not just for political reasons.
I don't think the public school system is worth a good god damn.
I don't think the Catholic school system is worth a good god damn, except at least they've got some religion in it.
It's class-minded.
It's class-minded.
Well, the point is that there needs to be some religion someplace in this country.
Well, this is just religion.
It's discipline, too.
Catholic schools tend to be better-run schools.
Well, they make the little bastards, you know, shave off a bit.
Where do you go for it?
Yeah.
And I just feel here I was strongly about this.
You see, I am basically extremely concerned about this whole issue.
I always have been, and I'm going to be able to hold down that domestic counsel stand where I have several times.
Well, you have, you have right now, Mr. President, a position that Flanagan, myself, Connolly, agreed in, Schultz has made up his mind, and your domestic counsel opposed it.
The best argument of all for it, in cold, raw, hard political terms, is that there are five million Capra families who have children in parochial schools.
would get a direct benefit of three to four hundred well it's partially that especially the percentage of the catholic community
that have children in parochial schools is relatively small in terms of the whole Catholic community.
I see.
And on the other hand, .
So that's not, that shows the rest of the Catholic community.
But the Catholic isn't a small percentage of the Catholic community.
It's like 20%.
Yeah.
20.
See, the Catholics are about 30%.
There aren't 25% of the Catholic community.
Well, I think there would be.
If you think about it, 30% of this country is Catholic.
That 30% up to 200 million, that's 60 million people.
60 million people, and that's 20 million families.
Catholic families.
Well, you have a credibility issue also, because they said you were going to do it.
Before, you could fend it off, but now you have a report from the non-public panel, which is a beautiful report, contributed to by constitutional lawyers, eminent constitutional lawyers, and you have a bill in the Congress that we're going to have to say yea or nay to, so it isn't as if you had to initiate something.
The Mills bill puts us in the position of having to commit, and having said what you did in August,
And now we need to commit, yes or no, it's a very tough job.
One of the other things, and I guess the one, the only one that really is capable of writing this feature is as much as you can.
But it's, I think, an ideal place to...
to kick that Population Commission in the ass.
I noticed this morning that a big bunch of them started to take off on urging the President to adopt his recommendations.
Well, I'm not going to do it.
I'm not going to do it.
I may be wrong in deciding.
Probably, I suppose, the Michigan majority.
Strangely enough, let me put it this way.
The majority of people in Colorado voted for abortion.
I think the majority of people in Michigan voted for abortion.
I think in both cases, while certainly in Michigan they will vote for it because they think that what's going to be aborted generally are the little black bastards.
Now, the point that I make, however, on all of this is more fundamental.
Those that vote for abortion, except for a few fanatical lips, are not going to vote
for Nixon because he comes out for abortion.
Those who are against abortion, however, feel so strongly about it from a moral standpoint that they sure as hell will vote against Nixon because of that issue.
Is that a proper analysis?
We're going to have to vote for Nixon.
But what I'm getting at is that I'm speaking and following up the line that, again, our domestic counsel will recommend signed abortion.
I'm against it.
I'm against it as a, well, frankly, I just don't believe in screwing around.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Politically and on the merits, the people that are pushing for zero population growth, like the Sierra Club and others,
are never going to be perfect.
The people who are offended by abortion can be one of them.
They're all asking me why they're supposed to read it.
Because they ought to get their damn philosophy straight.
Get me a copy in here, too.
I've got to send one to, uh...
I want you to send one to John Collins.
I already did.
He was on the notes.
He was on the notes.
Well, you have a nice group of people.
But maybe we can't do that thing on Monday.
That's not true.
We might have to do it.
Maybe we will.
So we're waiting to hear.
Shut it off for Tuesday, maybe.
We can do it on Tuesday.
We don't have to do it on Monday.
We can do it any day of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or anything.
But now we can't do it Thursday.
Thursday, where I know it's on the sales account.
How many first air ones?
Absolutely.
One hundred.
Well, you could do it Tuesday or Wednesday, if you don't do it Monday.
Monday would be better, in a way, you could go right to Camp David over there.
Yeah.
Which would be good.
Yeah.
Could be, if we could get it ready.
But it isn't essential.
We should go to Camp David over there, I mean, it's a matter of time.
No, but it's a little closer, that's the way to say it, Camp David and Saturday or Monday morning.
No, it would be easier to go over there.
Actually, that audience, that group I know well, we had them in there one day when we started this whole thing on Catholic education.
They will tend to be much more responsive to the aid to parochial school issues than the abortion issue.
These are professional Catholic educators which
I think you know there's an old Roosevelt analogy here.
You've got 15,000
people who would be screaming Nixon zealots if you ever gave them your aid to parochial school decision there.
Boy, that wouldn't stop, and I go back to all parts of the country.
Now, it's pretty blatant, and that's the argument against it, but so was San Diego, and it was one of the best things that he could have done when he went to that shipyard.
the people who will oppose your position will scream at you just as loudly
Whether you make it quietly here or whether you make it with a hell of a...
The reaction up there would be to send that whole place...
I mean, they'll make the Knights of Columbus look... look weak.
I can't tell.
But I...
If we can get it ready, that's where I want to go.
I mean, that's my view.
This is all the rule of God and the rest of the Council, so that might bother them.
Some of the things I don't believe in, God damn it, I've got to do something I believe in once in a while.
That damned H.R. 1.
But you have Mitchell and Conway also with you on this issue.
Mitchell?
I talked to him.
The last time I talked to him, you were strong with him.
Conway?
Yes, sir.
It was a big switch for Mitchell because he was against it before, but the last time I discussed it with him, which was three months ago, he was pushing hard for it.
I'm in the United States.
I'm in the United States.
I'm in the United States.
Well, we'll do that next week, Chuck, in terms of the, uh, news thing.
I think if we get the Catholic thing ready, I'll just go over it on Monday, okay?
Because if we can't do it, we'll do it Tuesday.
And I'm, I'm, I'm gonna be late, so I'll have to do it.
If I was political, I was bussing.
And everybody said I was political, right?
All right, that's too goddamn bad.
uh they say you're politically in the arts and that doesn't cost you any support i mean people who like your position it may cost you support but great prices you know
the image of the president as a fine leader in the noose of man never gets in any fights not if you're saying what you believe well god never i believe this hey never go down there see the other side i said only one thing about that trip that laid on through the first year we may be in the middle of a very strong offensive at that time
Because I think it's begun now.
And we, we, we, we, of course, have been unwanted all over the country because we want to, we've got to go out in September.
But there may be a very good offensive in the high quarter and so forth.
But I don't think it's, that America's going to be lost.
No, our casualties will not go out.
But we'll be bombing how long?
Does that bother you?
No, you're still, you're still bringing the boys home.
It's just like that place.
It's a good...
Good juxtaposition to be in.
And then my thought, Chuck, was to do the press conference the following week.
You see, this week, I don't want to do anything in terms of a press conference, which, well, the leading ITT, which we already discussed, too, I don't want to do any press conference that takes away from the aftermath of the Wisconsin thing.
Don't you think that that's a good story for us to have run through a little while?
You see my point?
I mean, Wisconsin is not like that.
And let the Democrat commentators talk about Wisconsin for a couple of minutes.
With what it's done to the Democrats.
Well, that's what I mean.
Who's going to be the Democratic nominee?
Just like after Florida.
Let them talk about that.
yeah that'll play that'll play for a couple of days but i think that on this case that i think i want to stick it off yeah
That's a good time.
Maybe the IT team will be behind us.
I don't know.
On that, the main thing is that you talked to Chuck Toad, and Chuck talked about your conversations with, uh, and it has, uh, like he's talking to Easton today, and I don't hear back, so I don't know.
You don't know what, what is, what he's gonna say.
If you want to double-check him, just be damn sure that he's not misleading us all the time.
Yeah.
One thing I want to do is to get it.
I'm telling Bob this morning.
I think I should step back a little bit.
I've been deeply, you know, I mean, as I should have been involved, but without telling you what is involved, I don't think you should know.
I have a talent set up that I can do what needs to be done.
Do you understand what I mean?
Yes, sir.
Now, one thing you have to understand, as always, is that
For the play to work that I have in mind, I have my delusions about what I think will happen.
But I could be wrong.
We could all be wrong.
I don't think so.
But I have my delusions right now.
But for the play to work, we must all prepare for the next two free weeks to be made as much of an effort as possible
We must appear to be doing that.
If we do not appear to be doing that, we're going to have a hell of a problem.
not only in terms of not solving the ITD case, because Clandy's getting out of it, don't worry.
Teddy will find other ways to keep the gunman alive.
It'll help something.
But the other problem is, the other problem is that we have the worst of both worlds.
In other words, the Clandy's problem, Chuck, cannot be solved.
I've done a lot of thinking about it since all of us have talked.
And you remember, I was the one that raised the point
in this office, and I said, why not fight the bullet now?
Why not make a name for it?
We all have to act.
And I, the rest of you were right when you said, no, you've got to have a provocation.
The reason you've got to have a provocation is not, incidentally, so much in my view, that the public will say that's an invasion of guilt that withdraws me.
They're going to say that anyway.
But the reason is much more fundamental.
The Clintons have got friends.
You've got the Mitchell problem, you've got the Easton problem, and you have the Clintons problem.
You've got people around the country that say, what the hell?
Now, whenever anything happens here, Judge, it's got to be done in such a way that they are on board.
You know what I mean?
Quincy's got to be on board.
I said that Mitchell's got to be on board.
And Easton's got to be on board for another reason.
Because you're never going to get anybody else confirmed unless he's on board.
That's correct.
You may not be able to get confirmed anyway.
That I get.
And of course, I hear Barry taking their problems too.
It's just too goddamn bad.
I suppose if Clint East had been able to withdraw us, is there any way we could handle this damn thing without sending another man?
No.
I guess we've got to make an effort to get another man, don't you think?
I'm sure.
You'd have no choice, Simon.
I think if Clint East goes down...
Well, I'd love them to turn down the second name if the guy was completely clean.
Well, not as good as I became.
But who's completely clean?
No, but what I meant is, it has nothing to do with this case.
That's right.
That's the main thing.
Had nothing to do with it.
Had nothing to do with it.
Had nothing to do with it.
Had nothing to do with it.
It would be Justice Department, period.
Yeah.
So then if it turned out that way, I don't know.
Then he'd get a hell of a... Then the issue could be in the way.
They won't be that...
They wouldn't be that stupid.
Now...
the game we have to play between now and the next, and I won't be talking any more about it.
You take your day, so I forget it.
You forget it.
What I want you to do, what I want to do, is that I want you
to concentrate your efforts and your staff's efforts and so forth on the three big issues.
In other words, one issue is the cost of living, the second, food prices and cost of living.
The second issue is the issue of
We've already discussed the bussing.
The bussing, well, meaning is related to what the president said, meaning I put as a separate issue, meaning bussing.
And then the other thing, of course, is our greatest strength, which we are not playing back with, and that is next in the man piece.
That's the enormous punch.
Those four issues are what we all employ, and so it runs out of the copy-picking ears.
As long as I have noted my thought,
and you were building your car.
McGregor's a big chemical fish.
McGregor's sold jobs to get this goddamn thing through.
And he's got a purity truck.
But I think up to this point, the role we have all played has been wrong.
It would have been very much in our interest
to discredit the whole thing.
And incidentally, I don't want, I don't think you should be discouraged about what you accomplished.
You know, when you were saying that we should have cut it off two weeks ago, I'm sure.
As a matter of fact, the developments of the last two weeks
Sure, you've got the $600,000 and the White House and the rest, but also you've got Dita Beard's, you know, testimony.
You've got the denials.
You've got the typewriter thing.
In other words, I think a cloud of confusion
has to a certain extent been raised about this case.
I don't think we've been heard the last two weeks.
We haven't been heard this week, really.
I don't know about last week.
This week we have not been heard.
Interestingly, as a matter of fact, I think the media in the last three days has been less anti-administration.
Is that right?
Well, I've watched it.
It's beginning to change.
Walters is a star who's been just
yesterday's piece was quite balanced.
This morning's piece in the Times was a very balanced piece and went into the authenticity of the memo in depth of how Macron and Teitel had found this.
Yes, sir.
Well, they delivered the report of the Macron and Teitel committee.
The report got progressively stronger as the week went on.
And as of yesterday, both Macron and Teitel's report said it was tight in January.
They did?
Yes.
And the Times is one, and Graham has been hostile.
His piece was relatively balanced and didn't mention any conflict with the FBI, but anybody reading it would have some doubts about that.
The TV has changed.
Ruskell last night got more time than Tunney, and he was more effective, and they used the best portion of what Ruskell said.
That's the first time that's happened.
The night before, Tuesday night,
We got Scott on one of the three networks, and no anti-IDP stuff, anti-administrative stuff, on any of the networks.
Monday night, we began to get a break on one of the networks that Scott announced his press conference, and that was ABC.
Yeah, ABC.
So there has been an evolution, Mr. President, that last week they were just dumping on us, just everything that's happening.
We're beginning to get a little bit...
When I spoke the last two times, I had many times to pretend to get the data here.
Yeah, about 12 were the last two.
But maybe this, maybe it's a week.
But nevertheless, it was worth it.
It's been worth it.
I now think we're in a position where there isn't a hell of a lot more that we can really do.
When I say that, there isn't a hell of a lot harder to do as I look at the game.
First of all, our efforts should be all out in trying to get an up or down vote on a total close-off of the hearings next Thursday with no compromise.
My understanding is the division here, apparently, the fire doesn't think you can get that.
The majority of the interviewer doesn't think so.
You don't know.
Skeptical about it.
Skeptical about Eastland's position.
Skeptical about how firm our Republicans want to be.
Right.
Well, it will be Clark's position to get those Republicans as firm as he can.
And it will be, it will be Blaine's responsibility, and how Mitchell gets back, I'm going to blame him on it.
Because Mitchell's ass is involved in this now, too, you see, as he's well aware, and on Eastland.
Mm-hmm.
they've got to get Eastman braced to the extent nowadays Eastman owes them a lot.
He owes them one hell of a lot.
Now, if he doesn't get Eastman, you're going to lose him, aren't you?
Yes, sir.
unless they could get an agreement to limit it to four or five people would get over within a week
Okay, don't do that.
Well, except they did a Duranquist case, and that's one of the other options that was going to be just before you came in here.
What does that mean?
Well, if that would head off any other subcommittee investigation, it would continue the ITT case regardless.
Do you want to leave it on?
No, no, no.
I've never wanted to leave it on.
If you could limit it to three or four or five people.
Well, only if you had an absolute commitment that they would not continue it in a subcommittee investigation.
And I'd let them go another week.
Well, if the other option was to turn it off cold here and start it up in one of the subcommittees here.
Because he could count these subcommittees so it doesn't have, doesn't the subcommittee operate in any group of the full committee?
Yes, sir.
And that's where Eastland is critically important.
That's right.
Well, he's, it's got to be cold turkey.
And so that is one of the reasons why everybody's got to do it.
But that's the only thing that I think is important here is that we've got to call in the chips on Eastland.
Now, I have a little game.
Do you get to play with him, too?
I'm going to tell you either Clark or Bobby.
But it's got to be done.
Well, the best of all worlds would be to close off this hearing and not spurn any others on next Thursday.
That's... Not what?
Not creating... Oh, God.
I've got to close these off and have another one.
My wrist is going to have to go on a full thing.
Really?
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
If you could then get it clear... You're right.
You've got to get it clear to the chairman of Jesus Christ.
The chairman would suddenly kill you.
That's right.
I know.
Now, you will determine that plant Thursday.
You'll know Thursday morning.
Well, we don't need to speculate about it.
We don't need to worry about it.
I don't think that sitting around worrying and speculating about it is a bad thing.
We've all been beating our brains about this, and for good reason.
I know, I mean, I think that you said we came very close on several occasions.
If we had completely destroyed the authenticity of that metal, and if the goddamn Bureau had not gotten that crazy, nobody there is in there.
Then we would have shifted Kennedy to his ID and discouraged that in future stuff.
But at the present time, Chuck, you've just got to figure that they're going to investigate this in all fields.
All right, good.
Trying to find out.
I don't want you to discuss it among yourselves so much.
I really think that at this point,
At this point, we've got a lot of other games to try.
And my point is, I just think in terms of, you know, here we are all.
We all know this is important.
We know it's important for the future.
We want to win this battle.
But when we're fighting this battle, we can't fight other battles.
And that's what I'm concerned about.
And I'd like to have you, with all your bright guys, the rest, I'd like to have us sort of, at this point, just sort of say, well,
rave is inevitable, and so you just have to remind us, what are you, are you disagreeing?
What the hell, what the hell more could you do by, you know, by, by, by concentrating on this standing this time, other than, other than an all-out attempt on Easter, an all-out attempt on the part of a very good history to hold the Senators in line.
And if you have a leak, they knock that off.
Then it goes to the Senate floor, as I suppose it does, and you have the inevitable delay.
And there will come a time then when we will have to make a decision as to how long it can delay.
Now that I won't tell you about, but we know what we're going to do.
But my point is,
You've got to make, you've got to be sure that the case is made in a public mind and in the minds of the men that are deeply involved in this.
that we have made an effort that we didn't go around.
Nobody up until this point could argue that we haven't made a superhuman effort.
I agree.
What I think is involved is not up to this point.
What I'm saying is, at this point,
their judgment, and I speak now of Mitchell's and Planky's judgment as to what will happen with regard to confirmation, and my view is probably wrong.
On the other hand,
We cannot say, look, you're wrong, and get the hell out of it.
That we cannot say.
What we can do is to demonstrate they're wrong.
It won't take too long, but it'll come.
And once that's demonstrated, then everybody should get it.
You see my point?
I do.
I have no doubts.
I do not know a little bit about election time in this case.
I have none at all.
I know what the Democrats are up to.
And I think the people who have the findings to be determined are probably wrong.
I'm not sure.
I mean, I can't be sure.
But I think they're probably wrong.
I think the probabilities are very, very high.
But I do know that, see, that isn't my problem.
What we've got to do, we've got to convince them that they're wrong by showing them, like Leifertown.
Well, I think he said some tells us that Old Eastman's going to be with him.
He even thinks, uh, literally he thought it was going to be with Mervick.
Mervick?
Mervick?
He says, I've got Mervick.
Mervick?
I don't think he'll ever have Mervick.
Huh?
Mervick.
He thinks that... Mervick?
He'll get Mervick.
He thinks they're all of them.
He thinks that Hart... Yeah.
He thinks Hart is down for Kennedy and, and, uh, Coney or Kennedy.
I don't know.
Five would be against if he were there, but he's gone.
Now, coming to that, on the other hand, you see the fact we faced Chuck is not whether he tried or wrong, but that he thinks that.
Now, what we have to do is to give him that one chance.
In other words, when a guy, I drove him, he was nominated for attorney general.
He's got to have a chance to have him run.
I agree.
And if he can't make it,
The whole attitude is what I said at the press conference.
The client needs to have confidence in the client.
That he can be and should be confirmed.
That should be the decision.
Now, we may change our mind at a certain time.
And it's magic.
We know what the probabilities are.
All of us, each in his own way, has a different view of that.
That's what we're planning now and so forth.
That's the weather campaign.
You know what I mean.
I have perhaps, I'm more realistic about any of the rest of you because I perhaps will get it much sooner.
But the point is, have you come this far?
Now we're in a position where we cannot rule and then have Mitchell, Black, Eastland, and a considerable body of their friends say what we really could have made.
Oh, I agree.
I understand that completely and believe really, Mr. President, that there isn't anything
that we can do between now and next season.
You've got to .
Well, that would be the only thing you could do if we could eat for Christ's sake.
MR.
The biggest difficulty is that I have not been able to tell findings
or Mitchell, what the political goals are and what I know, because either one of them could be called back as a witness.
I could merely say to you that I've looked at every shred of paper, and... You've seen it all.
I've seen it all.
And it scares a living daylights out of me.
That's right.
Well, that's the point, sir.
Well, that's what did... Am I wrong about it?
Isn't that what Mr. Mitchell did?
Yeah, but... Yeah, but...
He was on a little beat, which is what we here were going to say.
Mitchell does not know of memos that were sent to him, because I refuse to count.
I have to look at it.
I don't think he... Memos that were sent to him from...
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
At the most damaging time.
I mean, the memo is a...
They have nothing to do with the sheriff's hotel, sir.
Well, why don't you have a chance to do it?
Well, it was our general.
I think that's possible.
That's right.
Well, or it was the chairman of that, or the, uh, well, Brian was, I think.
The most dangerous, the most dangerous one, we don't know how many copies were made of, which is, which is our problem.
We have all of our copies, I say, but we don't know what happened to them in the justice suppression.
They can't find all the copies in justice.
And that's a May 5, 1971 memo from Relickman to the Attorney General in which he talks about discussions between you and the Attorney General on this case and on the quote, agreed upon ends in the resolution of the ITT litigation.
Well, that memo, if that came out in that committee, would be pretty tough right now because I would lay it right in the ear.
And we think we've got control.
The point that I made this morning, and I discussed some of these when it was very valid, that with or without these hearings, if these goddamn things leak out now, they're going to be just as big as it's supposed to be.
If someone's got a copy of that memo, it's going to be used.
Whether the hearings are done.
Whether the hearings are done, whether Klein needs to stay here or goes off to the moon.
I see.
But I would argue that getting the hearings...
I would argue that if somebody had copies of those, we'd know it by then.
I'm not sure.
They can think of a way to respond, if they want to.
Depends.
Well, somebody has copies, you mean, somebody in an ID, an ID, but somebody in justice.
Yeah.
It makes no sense.
Well, somewhere in the world, hell no, there's none of those.
Aquarium is on all of those numbers.
If this doesn't happen, it just goes out the window.
You're peeping.
There's none of those according to that.
So that's been my biggest concern, and the whole guy...
The earlier one.
Yeah, the earlier one.
the earthman that talks with me, and, uh, Andrew Mitchell, that when I talk is quite a decent man, involved.
As I recall, earlier than Plantinga, apparently they talked about this matter.
Plantinga didn't understand the situation.
I think that's the whole problem with Plantinga.
Plantinga was, well, you really have to get in here with Connelly and Plantinga and all the rest.
Plantinga was supposed to follow.
Plantinga got deep, really.
And he said, you've got to do something about justice.
I'm having problems with justice on this thing.
And I said, fine, let's get the goddamn thing settled.
We didn't discuss the case.
I mean, we didn't discuss what, or anything of that sort.
And that's all there was to it.
yeah we all know the details of this i mean i say we all but several people understood but
no but who where in the white house was this matter discussed i'd like to know myself because all i know is that eric became in the office one day and he said i've got a problem with the justice
I said, what is the problem?
He said, the problem today, man, I trust them.
They're not following, McLaren does not follow the things that you lay down in the hangar.
That's right.
That's exactly right.
You know what, that was the time, wasn't that when this all came about?
Did Erdman ask me to call mine?
I did.
There were two times that it came up.
One was in the fall of 71.
One was in the spring of 71.
Yeah.
But...
The reason that it kept coming up in the latest— What did it come up with?
What error did it bring into being?
Oh, hell, the reason it kept coming up is because every time that IT&D went anywhere, they would—they saw the vice president, Connolly, Peterson, and those fellows would feed back to Erling.
What I can't answer is—what I can't answer is that what happened is that Erling was simply reflecting what people throughout the administration were telling him, so he didn't know anything.
But you had a philosophical difference.
You had an antitrust chief who was obsessed with destroying things and lawless for their own reasons.
The policy was that bigness per se was not the reason for disproving.
And that was our conversation that I had with Eric at the time you had the language.
That's all.
I said, you started that.
We didn't get anything.
We didn't get anything.
We just said, no, we made a philosophical determination.
That's not this thing.
And what the hell is happening?
Is Justice carrying out?
Which reading did you learn about?
I heard he was supposed to be disciplined in justice.
I don't know.
Wasn't he?
That's right.
That's exactly right.
I don't ever remember finding him in justice.
I don't think he did.
John ran it.
So does John's problem with McLaren?
But your enrollment,
On the merits, there's no problem.
But on the merits, it's a hell of a problem because of what they testified to.
They testified that it was not a problem.
That's right.
And you weren't in the case, but that's a fine line that's going to be very difficult to... Well, the documentation doesn't distinguish the policy from the case.
That's the problem.
The substance of the discussions here were policy.
They're proper and they're appropriate that they take place here.
But in the transmittal...
Nobody on the surface would distinguish the fallacy from the case.
And there was no need to in the transcript.
And literally now you wish you had, but then there was no point in it.
No, it was a perfectly appropriate thing.
In fact, some of the memos weren't even classified because we weren't embarrassed to be concerned with this problem.
We ought to be.
Well, is it your point that you view this memorandum as something we don't get on ourselves?
Oh, no, no.
I think no.
We don't know that's out.
If we knew it was out, I would agree we should get it out ourselves.
If it doesn't happen, go out and sell one letter for it not to.
Yeah, much better.
I mean, that's a game board that has to be run, I think.
You could argue a basic strategy.
You said earlier we'll send a copy of this to IT&T.
That's what worries me.
Oh, no.
Jesus Christ.
Go back to the beginning.
Are you sure?
Yes, sir.
I will be.
Send a copy to Lannigan.
Yeah.
What's up?
Lannigan wants to send to IT&T.
Mm-hmm.
He got an answer, I don't think he would.
We've done that.
And they've done a hell of a job.
See, that's what, remember, I told you way back at the beginning, you said, why is something happening?
I kept saying, they're trying to get the papers from us.
I was, I wanted to be very careful to see every piece of paper.
We had one guy assigned.
And it took us a week to get it all together.
It was a little unnerving.
I came in here one night at
two in the morning had them open Central Files and went down and physically took the files out because all of these things were in our Central File.
That memo that I'm talking about was in the basement of E.L.B.
and Central File Center.
We had them open it up in the middle of one night and just brought it into the file collection.
And what did she say about it?
I don't have the whole text.
The excerpt, the pertinent excerpt is that
Ehrlichman to Mitchell.
Now there are four.
The difficulty of this one is Griswold testified that he didn't bring the case because
It wasn't a good enough case.
The memos and all the files indicate to the contrary that Griswold didn't bring the case because he was being pressured not to.
And for good reasons.
We objected to the policy.
Policy reasons.
Because of IT&T.
And why did Griswold play such a good game?
Well, he's got his own professional reputation as well as does McLaren.
But McLaren and Griswold were quite aware of it.
the only files we do not have under control are the igt files which are in the s which have been subpoenaed and delivered to the sec those at some point i think we have to anticipate are going to come out
They're damaging.
They're not as damaging as our own internal cells.
I've read them all.
Yes, sir.
What do they say?
Do you know anything from earlier when you're finding them?
No.
All you have are files that are letters that were written and memoranda prepared.
Either letters written to people in the administration or memoranda prepared after meetings with people in the administration.
And they contradict testimony that we've given so far.
And they're very self-serving.
I mean, they're very, they puff it up.
Thank Tony for delaying the filing of the petition in the Supreme Court.
You know, that's the reason.
Thank Ed Newport.
Isn't that typical of him?
Sure.
He knows that the SEC has those files.
He does.
Exactly.
Well, Bill Casey says he's got it under control.
Yesterday in the committee... No, he's good.
Yesterday in the committee, they talked about subpoenaing the same records directly to MIT, which they probably could get.
So that, to me, is one of the areas that I still expect to shoot a draft, but that isn't.
I mean, that's not a big deal.
Well, the point is, though, that getting this all out of the line of fire isn't something that's... Well, in my opinion, the whole... That's the only thing that I'm thinking about.
You know, that's why I said, well, if you did surgery, if you cut it off, Jesus, we'd just take the heat of saying, well, we were wrong.
But I don't think you can.
You don't think so?
I don't.
Yeah.
The answer that I...
It's not safe for me to do it.
No.
You just call up and say, Dick, I'm sorry, there's just too much in here.
No, the only reason I... You see it won't stop?
The only reason I even mention it, Mr. President, is because...
Except it remains to sell, right?
No, it might have, the other way.
Go ahead.
The only reason I mention it is that neither Mitchell nor Quintings know what is in the files, and I have deliberately kept it from them.
Sure.
Because if they have to testify, it's best that they don't know.
I told Mitchell certain things not to say when he testified.
Based on my knowledge of these things.
But I didn't tell him why I told him.
And the local indies know that there are things in the files that they don't know what they are.
That's correct.
They know that.
And I told him, I warned John.
I said, I'm telling you not to say certain things because I know why you shouldn't say anything specifically.
I've got you.
He did say one thing he shouldn't have said.
What was that?
That he hadn't talked to Ryan Keith?
No.
He said that in his meeting with Janine initially, he didn't talk to anyone else afterwards, which he didn't.
Who did he talk to?
A client.
which he should have just passed it off.
Nothing at the top was wrong.
Nothing at the top was wrong.
Nothing at the top was wrong.
Nothing at the top was wrong.
And then I remember, I'm an expert on this, but I remember very graphically the whole thing that says I didn't get into these things.
But Erwin got one day to get in here.
So I got in front of him and said, you know, he never brings things up unless he has to.
And I said, I've met with the staff.
But he didn't mention you except for anything.
I thought, I think that's what he said he met with.
That's why I've been worried about finding him for this.
I don't mean that he shouldn't have done it.
What the hell was, what the hell was finding in the main contact of I.T.
and T. when that one comes out?
No.
Then why would everybody come inside of that?
Because Flanagan was assigned to ride dirt on some of this, and he was given it from others.
It wasn't just IT&T.
I don't know about earlier, but it came down on this occasion.
Talk about IT&T.
And I had a trust in General.
That's right.
And he said, you've got to get McLaren in line, which was a pet subject of mine.
Because I said, fire this son of a bitch.
That's right.
And I called and I said, either get some line or you fire me.
That's what I mean about the general policy.
I didn't even know what the case was until today.
And I don't know whether Gerland reflects that in his spiral on the IPD.
He may have overstepped what he says.
We discussed the candidate results from a season.
The phrase, the precise phrase is the agreed upon ends in the IPD case.
What?
The agreed upon ends in the IPD case.
What else is he talking about?
Well, he's talking about the policy issue, but...
He's talking about what we agreed upon together.
Yeah, that's right.
It's perfectly, it's fine, except that we want to keep the thing out of discussion.
Except that we did not have any agreement on that.
He did not discuss the IET&T case with me.
He didn't say what it was at all.
No, no.
Not a word.
I was with him one day, Mr. President, when we talked to you about this, and it was...
strictly the policy question that's all well he didn't say what it was about anything but we're going to want to appeal this off or do that or else the question was whether business in itself should be a cause for an antitrust action and my answer was no that was all we ever discussed so what's he mean with agreed upon ends i wonder it doesn't seem like john's just required
Maybe he had some agreed upon ideas to send him to the White House.
Did he ever try to tell justice how to serve his case?
Well, you would gather that from IP&T's correspondence, but not from them.
Actually, I think they did, too.
Yeah, I think so.
And you decided what the hell they should appeal on?
No, no, no.
In effect, we... We told them to settle rather than to carry it through, and to settle on the basis of dropping... See, another factor came into this, which was the question of general economic interest.
Oh, hell, a big, big deal.
And the harm that would be done to the economy if you brought in the part of steel.
Oh, that's right.
They were afraid of, of the effect of the stock market and all that crap, wasn't that it?
Yeah, you've got to remember this was last summer when people were real worried about doing anything that would rock the boat on the economy.
And that's why Peterson was so involved.
but it'd be the no the only thing the white earth is what they should have been doing where you've got a little bit of that but you've discussed it's just that even there
I don't think that's going to be too bad, and if it comes out, it comes out.
I think you just have to say that Ervin's going to say what we heard, that he was only reflecting what occurred in a cabinet meeting.
with regard to the with regard to the policy you know the committee on economic policy well i think that's what it was the cabinet committee economic policy in addition to which the very appropriate area to be concerned with you know the previous administration johnson had made the decision that that he needed legislation to stop the conglomerate movement mcgrath came down there and sold early in april of 1969
on the idea that you could do it in court.
And Erlichman said, fine.
Then you've got two years down the road, and the thing began to become a huge issue.
And that case represented our policy.
And it was absolutely appropriate that we say that we wanted to settle it.
Well, the firm has held that for going to court to establish a legal base on which he was going to then move on all the other stuff.
That's right.
they're not perhaps as sensitive to what
what could happen by continuing this.
Well, they want, I don't know, I think, in fairness to you, Clive, there's no way to say this, if you're Clive Easton, but you don't want to knock this damn thing off Thursday.
There's no question, I don't know about Mitchell, but there's no question of Clive Easton, but that it's stuck directly to him that this has to be knocked off clean with no compromise on Thursday.
That's right.
That's the only reason I even mentioned it.
if there isn't anything else we can do other than that because that's what i told you and i reiterated it today and it was absolutely clear that's fine it was confirmed as be thirsty is it and i can't knock it off period and i don't even think you ought to have four lovers i'm afraid that all right i'd like not to i'd like to knock it off totally
or whatever they want to do.
Do you think that if they knock it off, the county might come in and say, look, this is what they tried to cover up?
No.
I think if I were given my choice, Mr. Pritzker, of a two-month candidate subcommittee investigation or four or five more days before the bulk of that, that's all I'm saying is if you brought out of there with a definite termination on the hearings and a limit to what else they were going to do,
that that would be better than a pre-running subcommittee for any length of time that might go thereafter.
Sure.
So that's a variation on the altogether cutoff.
That's a variation you go to if you don't need it.
No, no, you only go to that if you're stuck with the Hobbs and Schultz, and that choice is... And so that's the final one.
Very, very strong, as you may recall, or Ant Spanning's.
very very strong to uh against this whole uh antitrust policy oh yeah everybody yeah the whole administration except for except for except for justice except for mcclaren remember we had that house was it not found right now remember john mitchell came in and said the confederates are terrible and jennifer mitchell's on the other side uh but then finally
Well, I just don't think there's anything else between now and next issue we can do other than Clark McGregor and Dick with Eastland making a massive effort to turn this thing off.
And if that fails, then I think you have to reassess the options at that time.
But if that, if that, if that, if that succeeds, then that would, that's, could be a better state.
I'd love to say that I would rather either have it cut off
I'd rather lose the boat to cut off, up or down.
And then have it, well, we cut it off, but we're going to continue for an indefinite period of time.
And then have another vote to cut off in three or four weeks.
That's the worst of all the rules.
Because, you see, if you lose a vote to cut off, then you can act on that.
Then you can act on claims.
And must.
If you lose a vote to cut off.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You win the votes, Carly.
That's a little bit of sand for her, and they have a reasonable time to see whether the Senate's going to act.
You'll know.
You'll know quite rapidly when Manseil gets the first request from the Policy Committee for a hold.
And how long he puts the hold on.
You'll know in a matter of a few weeks.
Of course, you have the other delay of
the committee reports.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
Yeah, that doesn't matter.
Matter of fact, those reports I want to see.
Sure.
Well, no, because the majority of reports should close it off.
It may be a vindication, which would be fine.
The issues, guys.
It's good to have a committee report.
That's what I mean.
I want to see it.
I don't know if there would be a committee report.
Let's get the majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee to sign a report, if they will, saying that they think this whole goddamn thing is flimsy and an inhonorable man.
Now, that's what we're aiming for, yes.
The interesting thing, Mr. President, and I think that
most significant is that my checks with people who count... McGregor's gotten some feelings from some of the congressmen that it's beginning to have an impact.
But I took, for example, to Bradshaw, Dave Bradshaw.
Yeah, you're in Chicago.
He said this, he said, there's no effect.
He said, forget it.
He said, it's unimportant.
Lou Harris said, don't under any circumstances
back down and withdraw our client duty.
Not now.
It's not hurting you.
And he made a very interesting point, which I haven't gone back to check.
He said that after Carswell and Ainsworth, we did not decline in the polls at all.
I haven't gone back to looking to see if that was true.
He said those kind of defeats don't hurt you.
People sort of take them as followers.
The Washington politics is right.
We talked to Bryce Harlow.
He said, don't worry about it.
He said, I've just come back from Ohio, and this ain't very big in the provinces.
He said, it's a big story around here, but you haven't been heard yet in the provinces.
Let's go to the other end.
On the other end, the one thing that you can't have.
You can't have a situation where you can't be a senator again.
You can't have a situation where you can't be a senator again.
You can't have a situation where you can't be a senator again.