Conversation 761-007

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

He did a damn good job.

What's the situation on that?

On that contribution, was that before or after the 10th or 7th?

That's the only thing that you saw.

The contribution was made before from Andreas Dahlberg.

But Dahlberg didn't go to the bank.

It was a cash contribution.

Dahlberg didn't go to the bank until after the 7th.

He went to the bank and converted it to a cashier's check and then gave the check to Stans on the 10th.

There's a technical question.

Dahlberg is a finance chairman.

And the technical question is, does delivery to him constitute making a contribution?

Or is it not delivery to him?

Oh, I see.

So what's going to happen there?

I mean, I think we can work it out.

Now, one thought.

Yeah.

You ought to hit it two different ways.

One, the draft is ending as a result of the long term.

And two, of course, Vietnam has virtually ended as far as we're concerned.

But there are no draftees to Vietnam.

And that's done.

You hit both of those points.

It's very important.

Well, the lottery, too, is something that we've already achieved.

Yeah.

Well, frankly, the numbers now, the draft is so low.

Do you feel sorry about that?

on a planet that is not being supported by war, that's a very powerful planet.

When you figure the fact that when we came to office in 1960, that as compared to 68 compared to now, that you have over two million people that are either in the armed forces or in industry related to the war that are now in labor force.

This is a thing.

Sure, it causes a little problem for a while, but you have enough on a planet where the idea of

Jobs not based on war is a very strong way to get them on the negative side.

In other words, they said, oh, we didn't have war.

That's right, they ran.

What kind of a country in the world we're going to have five years from now, ten years from now, twenty years from now?

And that's what we've been thinking about.

We have done more about that.

Even Harris reported and spoke this morning.

We have done more about that than any administration in this century.

I don't say that directly.

It just happened.

We were here.

We were managing the opportunities.

Maybe somebody else would have, but we didn't.

And so in terms, not just of ending the war, which anybody in fact had done that the day we entered office and played with Don Johnson and Kennedy, because they were the ones that signed the trident, but we didn't.

The reason we didn't is we have to end the war in a way that will not destroy our ability to discourage that kind of aggression that will get us involved again.

So that's it.

But the main point is that in terms of the kind of a world, we could have just said, well, we're going to put our first priority in this war.

We could have ended the war.

What kind of a world would it be?

Well, it would have been a world in which the United States and Soviet Union would have been in competition and in an unrestricted armed race.

But who knows what would happen?

It would have been a world as the United States and communist China would have been in total isolation.

And communist China, which will soon have a billion people, would be the dominant power in the Pacific, not only in terms of number of people, but in terms also of its nuclear capacity.

Now, that isn't going to come five years from now or 10 years from now, but it is inevitable 15 years from now.

So whoever sits in this chair has got to determine, can the United States just sit by?

Sure.

As far as the American people are concerned, they'd say, well, these communists are all better.

Nobody knows that better than I do.

Nobody knows these people better than I do.

And nobody has less confidence in what they are trying to do to us and will try to do to us if we ever leave them alone, if we become weak, or if we become not worth talking to.

But looking at China and Russia, and of course this game is so sophisticated and so subtle that I wouldn't try to explain it too much, but looking at China and Russia, it's all part.

You couldn't do one without the other.

The China trip is directly related to the Russian initiative, and the Russian initiative is related to the China initiative.

That's what you have to understand.

But the most important thing is that looking at the Pacific, and three wars have started

World War II started there for us.

Korea started there for us.

Vietnam started there for us.

What have we done?

We have defused the possibility of another war coming from the Pacific by dealing directly with China.

And we've gone 800 million people, soon to be a billion people, from China.

And we've also done it by maintaining a delicate balance with Japan.

Very important to have that in mind.

This is hard to do because we've done it with mirrors.

It's done by a lot of hard work, a lot of experience, a tough line to add to.

I go up to the Russians, what have we done there?

Without giving a thing on principle, we didn't give anything in Chinese on principle.

What we have done there is for the first time in the field of arms control, we had already done something about limiting arms.

You see, the test van did anything.

I mean, you can have a test van.

What does a test van mean?

You can test underground.

So it's fine, but we're not going to have to test out the polluted air and so forth, which, of course, is no wise deal anyway.

But the main point is that now, for the first time, we have made it again in limiting arms.

We have a total limit on defensive nuclear weapons.

We have the beginning of a limit on offensive nuclear weapons.

But here's the important thing.

We are now going to go back to the Congress to prove which the offensive

having already proved yesterday the defense limitation.

We go to phase two.

Talk about phase two.

Who do you want dealing with the Russians, with Russia, and now negotiating a limitation on all offensive weapons with the Russians, which would guarantee peace in the world for a long time to come, but which also will reduce the burden of our expansion?

Do you want it?

And I compare them to him.

Do you want this fellow to go over there?

Why?

They take him in two bites.

I mean, it must be so simple.

I mean, not because he's a bad man, but because really, you can't be naive when you deal with these people.

I, I, and we just chat in reverse in our conversations when we brush up.

Oh, oh, oh, table pounding and wrestling.

It's cold steel.

That's the way it works.

Now, the main point is,

we have to continue what we've begun and that means continuing this great initiative with the chinese so that we will have negotiation and more communication so that the world and young people grow up as i use the jungle i'd like to have a lot of new people go to china it's a marvelous experience you won't like the system but you will like the people and that has never been possible before

So here is the whole great Pacific area, which California has, particularly the ones that have, Washington, Washington, Oregon, and the rest.

Here it is.

We changed it in.

And it was never going to end.

And we have to continue to change it.

Because it isn't, it doesn't mean it's changed and now anybody can do it.

This is a constant problem of nursing along, playing one, not against the other, balancing one with the other.

And with Russians,

We're moving on trade, we're moving on cooperation, and together we're going to rush them.

You see, up to the time, very subtle changes occurred with the Russians.

Before we met in the sun, the United States had even started an Eisenhower story, already had a program with the Russians of exchange.

But it was at arm's length.

We could exchange information on space.

We could exchange information on science.

We could exchange information on medicine.

Their scientists and our scientists, their doctors and our doctors, their spacemen and our spacemen, worked independently.

What we have done, and this is a great change, it is a great sign.

We are now at the beginning of Russian scientists and American scientists.

working together of russian doctors and american doctors working together to fight cancer cancer a russian scientific basement in america's basement here's the most graphic one going together to the outer space now this is real man why is that it's here that you can talk about people you don't like the communist system but you've got to admire the russian people they're great people and the chinese people are great people

And we have got to find what this administration has done, what we have done, because we understand, without compromising our principle, they haven't found surprise there, without making the world totally safe, it will never be totally safe as long as men and women, probably even more dangerous, women.

We're all doing that.

There are two places in the world where you can have the most trouble in this place.

Nevertheless, to come down to this point, did you see, you could say that we have, we have, these great initiatives have changed the world.

And they've changed it, not so much for the benefit of the older generation.

I mean, we really didn't have to do it, because we could have gotten along for 10 more years if I were there.

But looking ahead at the end of the century,

We live in an entirely new world, where the Chinese and Americans may work together.

Not always great, but working together, at least not fighting each other.

And where Russians and Americans work together, and where eventually we get this terrible danger, which of course frightens everybody, particularly younger people who study the danger of a nuclear disaster, to get it under some kind of control.

Because if the Russians and the Americans work together,

They have the power to .

But we have, but we've only begun.

You see, it must point out to you, isn't it great?

We've now had the opening to China, so it's all about anybody else in the country.

You can't say, particularly with regard to Russia, gee, we now have arms control.

We don't.

It's only the beginning.

We've limited all defensive weapons.

But the weapons that each of the two great powers has in its arsenal today would destroy civilization.

So what we have to do now is to move from the limited offensive weapons to a new offensive agreement, which covers other weapons as well, and then eventually to offensive limitations.

In other words, offensive reductions in all kinds of weapons.

And it's only then that the world becomes safer.

Of course, the rules about their use, all of that, all of this, of course, will make the world safer.

So what we really come down to is that

When we came in, we had a war.

When we came in, we had a situation of no dialogue all the time.

When we came in, we had a situation of what appeared to be an inevitable arms race in continuation of the Russians, and no possibility of progress and cooperation.

And now I can assure you, we haven't ended the war, but we are ending it in a way that is not destroying

the ability of the United States, or at least the respect that the United States needs in the Middle East, for example, in Europe and in other countries, among its allies, who, if they feel that the United States can't be trusted, will disservice them.

But more important, in terms of the long haul,

The world will never be the same, and it will be bad.

Some better.

Don't overstate it.

It's not better, because it's an initiative toward the Chinese, an initiative toward the Russians.

But having taken these initiatives, we've got to continue them.

Now, what man do you want to have continue?

Who can you best trust to deal with the Russians and to make the world safer?

Who has the experience?

That's the kind of a pitch I think they can understand.

They'll say, well, if we hadn't done anything, then the opposition would come in and say, gee, it's time to have a new policy toward China.

Or they could come in and say, it's time to have a new policy of arms control.

See, we've already done it, and we know how.

And so what are you going to do?

Put somebody else in who doesn't have the slightest idea as to how you start?

See, I think this is important.

I know people who appreciate the fact that you know the Chinese leaders.

You know the Soviet leaders.

You've already talked with them.

You've already negotiated with them.

And they know you don't know.

And you're just one heck of a long ways from where you were.

And we're not sure it's going to work.

But we're just one heck of a long ways from where we were.

And this is not the time.

Well, another point I wanted to make, it's a small point, but just having traveled a lot and knowing a lot of people has improved.

I think that it's through the acts and the history, to the fact that I was vice president for eight years, to the fact that when I was out of office for eight years, I traveled a great deal on my own.

I have traveled to more countries and therefore know

on a personal basis, more world leaders than any man in the world today, of course, and more than any American.

And that's not an asset easily to be cast aside, because if you're talking about the Chinese and Russians, it's important to know what a guy like Duchess was thinking about and what makes him tick.

It's important to know what...

looking at looking at our neighbors to the south uh it's important to know particularly about manchester because brazil 20 years from now is going to have 200 million people and uh and uh it's effective and all these things you see whether it's that and it's so hard in indonesia which has 150 million people whether it's tanaka japan or my home for 15 years even though he's just not become prime minister

Knowing how it is, it's like a football season coming on.

You know, why didn't you put an experienced quarterback?

I mean, he knows the weaknesses.

He knows where to throw the passes.

He knows where to not throw.

He knows where the quarterback is strong, where he's weak.

And so is in this game.

You know what?

You do a little bit better.

You're not sure that you can solve it or not.

The world, I wouldn't get to the fight where we say, oh, the world is totally safe.

It never is.

I'd be quite honest about it.

It's a dangerous world.

And in a dangerous world, you can't take a chance.

with inexperience.

That's how I find it.

Because it is a very inexperienced world.

Do you think we can say that your trip to China was the thing that brought about, say, the better relationship with North and South Korea and things like that?

Let me, I will simply say this.

They are not related.

I do not want to say, I don't think you should say, I say this, but I would simply go on and say, look what has happened here.

A trip to China took place.

then the relationship between art and software really had changed.

Now look what has happened here.

The situation in other parts of the world has changed.

In other words, I take credit for it.

But don't say that I find it.

But we should say it is significant to note that in every area of the world, the situation is better now than it was.

Now there's only one area where you can say probably that it isn't.

And that's one that you can't believe about.

That's the India-Pakistan thing.

But that's because India and Pakistan have hated each other since the time they were divided and will continue to.

And there isn't much we can do about it.

But nobody's too worried about that.

I'm worried about the back of the nation.

Most of the people in the nation are independent children.

They need to break it down.

Well, excuse me.

I want to just ask one question.

I found that a lot of them govern young people.

Really respect and like your living.

And I personally do.

But I found, and the big question I get, for example, is not, you know, how do you feel about him, but how does the president feel about him?

Just keeping him on because he should because he's a vice president.

Can you give?

Yeah.

Well, I think the thing to do is that this is something that you would do, which I can't because it would look like I'm attacking the other, although I'm also attacking you.

I handled it in a rather subtle way.

I actually had a press conference here today.

I said, they said, why do you keep having them?

I said, well, I said, first, I have reasons to select him.

And I said, well, reasons have not changed.

And I said, after watching him for four years, I have seen him.

And we've had a very tough decision.

And the real question I had is, how does he react to tough decisions?

For example, how do you react when we have a major campaign?

How do you react when we have a major campaign?

How do you react to the arms control network?

There's a great division out there about arms control.

And I knew what was very interesting about him is that he is a man who has, not only does he have immense strength and his weakness, he's a man that is considered to be much, much younger.

He's cold and distant and all that sort of thing.

But I could see.

Agnew's strength is that he's a man, that he's a very strong man.

That means he's quiet, strong, poised, unflappable, totally unflappable.

I mean, basically, if the problem of emotional stability is involved, then it must be he's got a little problem.

All right.

Agnew, Agnew has demonstrated he's got terrible anger in his character.

He's taken a great deal of heat, and he's given out a lot of heat, too, since he's been vice president.

But I, as the man who has to watch him, have seen him for four years in the high councils of this government.

And the way he's handled himself in crises indicates to me that he's a man you can trust in that job.

In case this skull-bearer shot me next week.

So we can say, then, that he is involved in all this?

Absolutely.

and all of this, and she sits in the cabinet of the National Security Council.

The thing to mention most, though, is the foreign policy.

That's what people want to know about our president.

I think they kind of want to, they think he's got a strong energy, he's got a strong ability to recommend and look, but I don't think they're going to mind.

I don't think they're going to mind.

Although we had had that kind of crisis in the past, I'm not really sure we ever left.

When we look back, I don't think we ever did get as much as we did in our 20s and 30s.

It was a hard day for him, but my God, it was nothing.

The United States had a, well, I don't mean that it wasn't a tough decision, right?

But we had a 15 to 1 or 20 to 1 advantage over the Soviet Union at that time in missiles.

I mean, there's no way to kill a decision that can be made.

It was a tough one.

I mean, Iowa, Iowa, all that.

Why, we were looking right down the Russian struggle.

They wouldn't have dared to do anything because we could agree with them.

But now, they've made a decision.

It was tough.

That was tough because we were looking right across from the Russians, people.

They didn't do anything because they wanted a summit.

That's what it was.

But the main point of my answer that I would make is that in the big decisions in which he has participated, and I put it that way because the vice president does not make decisions, he participates.

The president consults him in the national security.

The president has observed that he's a man who's at his best when it comes to

that he takes heat well, that he's a well-organized, competent man in half the big things.

And I would stay off of, because you said there are negatives involved, I would stay off of his running battle with the press, like that sort of skipped in the background.

I mean, we know what the press is.

I mean, mainly that's just, but I just stay off that because that to many is a negative.

I would also point out that

this idea that Engel was to catch young people is a marquee.

He isn't.

The difficulty is he really ought to do more young programs like he did well.

But I would say the thing that will pressure people about him is that, now let's be fair, I would say.

Let's look at Engel.

And let's see how he has stood up.

He's been criticized.

He's been ridiculed.

He's been lied about.

And he's always kept his dignity.

And he's poised.

and I've supported him the rest of my life.

That goes a long way.

Most young people that I talk to feel like he's not there for the decision.

So he's not showing any courage.

He's just there to cut the press down and .

The difficulty with that, Senator, is he's .

But he is, because you could say he's a member of the National Security Council.

And that is where all great decisions are discussed.

If you don't vote, the president has to make them.

If the president asks everybody, can you find out which of the strong men are the weak men?

The weak men will say, well, gee, do a little bit of work.

The strong men will say, well, that's pretty true.

And certainly, I understand that.

The strong men will say, well, I've thought this thing through.

It's a tough decision.

But we ought to do it.

That's what it is.

It takes a lot of balance because you see he's putting his whole reputation on the line.

Most men, I suppose it's true, never like to express an opinion, particularly in an office here, which may prove you wrong.

Most men like to play it safe and like to say, well, gee, you know, that's not

So why do you call them in?

I don't know.

I just use the word guts.

People like that too.

That particular way, particularly if you're younger, you see he's got guts.

He's got also poise and judgment.

In other words, let me just say, have you ever seen him, I'm unflappable, but have you ever seen him break down?

Right.

He's had plenty of reasons to.

And when they think of somebody in that chair having to make a tough decision,

They want somebody to use it, and we can talk all we want about emotions, or the church used to cry, and you didn't want us to cry.

The church would cry when we had to make the tongues.

You want it pretty cool about it, don't you?

Well, I appreciate it.

Thank you.

That's a great quote.

If you want to do it, let me see if I can go here.

If you read about, do you remember Mr. Dooley?

Many of you, when you studied political science, many Peter Duns, Mr. Julian Gilbert.

He's a great, he was a great Gilbertist with the late, the latter part of the 19th century.

I don't try to get this quote in a way that, you know, I remember that Alva Barkley once told me about this.

He was the kid about the office of vice-presidency.

And she told me about this quote, and I looked it up recently, and the quote was not

in relation to the vice-presidency.

And here's Mr. Julius, and this is in his dissertation in 1906, that's called T.R.

as president, because T.R.

hadn't become president, as you know, and then running for re-election and being re-elected in 1904.

He talks about the presidency.

He says, the presidency is the highest office to give to the people.

The vice-presidency is the highest and the lowest.

He said, it isn't a crime, exactly.

You can't be sent to jail for it.

But it's a kind of a disgrace.

Well, we wish you the best.

We appreciate your hard work.

Well, do they all have a...

uh, active intervention.

I will not, I'm not doing anything publicly in a political way, but the intervention for the reasons that are political.

Okay.

That's the news.

We don't want that.

We're, we're just,

That's the White House.

That's the reproduction by a British artist.

The river used to be much closer up.

Well, this is interesting.

Thank you for your decision.

This is a student, Ambassador Hansberg, designed and had it made by a group of people.

It has a ceiling, it's a planet, and it's a star.

It should be quite a nice thing.

Is that for you or for them?

No, this is one of its kind.

Well, that's probably very expensive.

I'll give it to Peter for you.

Probably a couple.

Yeah, they are.

And, of course, this one is, well, I have to sell it.

This is Julie's crew.

She gave me the name of it.

That's right.

It says, 2RJ.

As I pointed out, she was, what did they do, naked, all during the election campaign in 68.

So she and a couple of his group were with her.

Well, have fun.

Don't you go any more to the junior chamber confession.

I know those guys.

I know, I know.

It's a wild place.

At least it's all right.

There are a bunch of old men now.

I'm not sure.

What I started to tell you is a new development.

I'm going to call Clark and said I don't know who to talk to so I want to talk to you.

First of all, I was the source of the $25,000 that is now under question.

I gave it to a former fellow.

He said, I've been thinking about it, and I'd be prepared to release a statement.

He read the statement to Clark.

It would be to this effect if you people want me to do it.

He said, I didn't think about it.

I don't know whether this is good or bad.

But the statement says, I'm independent.

I've always been a political independent.

I have supported candidates primarily in the Democratic Party.

very close particularly and provide very major degree of support to Hugo Hunter.

However, in this election, I feel and have felt very strongly that it's absolutely imperative that the President be re-elected.

And I am supporting him for that reason.

Consistent with that support, I made the contribution of $25,000 to the President's re-election campaign.

Prior to

the reporting day because from my position it obviously was not desirable to have my name on a campaign list because of my long association with the center of the country and other people.

So that's that.

And that

may have an enormous political benefit to us, not just because it cleans up this thing, which it may well do, but because it explains the $10 million.

Then you say, the reason he says we have no thought of doing that is for exactly the reason Mr. Andreas has pointed out.

There are a lot of members.

There were a lot of others like that.

He said, I naturally, in the long time, I did not want to contribute any more at that time.

Because it was the law specifically provided for us.

The law provided for that.

I did not want to disclose it.

No, I feel I should have disclosed it.

Because of this question that's arisen about it, I feel I should have disclosed it.

And of course, you can say, because Senator Humphrey is now acquitted, yeah.

Yeah.

I'd be very good to do that.

I don't want to get McGregor involved in this.

Oh, you wouldn't get McGregor involved, you know what I mean?

He's involved in it in the sense that Andrews knows him better than anybody else.

Well, I called him.

I called him.

Earthman and me just read up the meeting this morning and said he needed to see us around.

And both John and I felt that it was probably a good idea

A political benefit.

There may be some negatives.

But the problem is that it's quite likely under this GAO investigation that Andrews is going to come out anyway.

If he is, we're infinitely better off to have put out a statement before he is turned up than to let them turn him up and then have him have to explain.

And then we can play back the fact that Dwayne Andrews and hundreds of other Democrats...

are supporting the president.

And it will become clear in this campaign, many of them politically, others financially.

Some of them openly and some of them for their very valid reasons, not openly, right?

Now we can tie that back to congressmen, senators, and other democratic office holders.

Make the point that many of them are supporting the president privately, although they of course can't publicly be clear.

No.

Well, if I had a stool to do with it, the way that you described it the other day, I'd have it in a diaper.

I'd have it in a diaper.

I don't know about the building, but sometimes I'd have it there.

Maybe in the morning.

Had no time.

Well, they couldn't even travel.

I mean, not in six weeks' time.

And then just try to keep out these crossfires.

First, I'm going to do this stupid GAO thing.

Well, I frankly think that we can do it.

I just don't want that to get to everybody.

All that kind of shit.

No, it's like you're basically running.

I'm just not confident because I think it's been rooted about.

It's called a paper.

It's called all that crap.

You're serious.

Sinister.

I think if it comes to its worst, we have to, you know, the whole thing gets out.

I don't think it's all that well.

I just don't want to critter it.

Because I hope we can keep Magruder out, and we sure as hell gotta keep Mitchell out.

That's, we could survive Magruder's involvement.

We would have a real problem with Mitchell's involvement.

And I think we're, apparently, we're all three on that.

Magruder hasn't testified yet.

We don't know if he went away.

I don't know.

I feel he's alright not testifying.

I was just thinking it might, but we don't put out a name list.

If you have another campaign group, that might not be a bad idea to let Magooder sit in it.

He did want it on the boat or something where names, you know, where identity could come out.

But if you had six or eight people in here, he would want to, not to get his name out, but just to look at, in a sense, sort of put your name out.

I'm not saying anything, but just so he isn't.

He doesn't feel he's ostracized.

He knows that he is.

Well, in a sense, as far as I'm concerned.

But the personal, what we might do is sometimes we do something.

We might let him know.

It's no problem.

Jeff's in and out of here.

I'd like to.

I think the anger is a good move.

Now, who's going to follow up on that?

I'll talk to John again and he was going to try and figure out what negatives John had heard of him and John Dean too, of course.

And I've got to check with John Dean because he's determined whether... See, I may be faster, you don't know that.

He just said, I go here with the money.

I did not want, I did it before they accepted me because I did not want my name since I was a supporter and I'm here to be helped.

As was, I did it under the provisions of the law that permitted me to do it.

There was no attempt to circumvent the law.

There was a desire to make it a private contribution.

The law provided for that.

Then you have the technical thing.

Earthland legally feels we have no problem on it, but Hughes' view at the moment is that delivery to Dahlgren didn't constitute the making of the contribution and it had to be turned to the committee.

That seems to be a little absurd.

If Dahlgren was the Midwest Financial Committee, he is the committee.

Sure.

And when you turn it over to an agent, what does that mean?

Every nickel has to be handed more than he stands?

I don't know.

I'm just starting to think that Hughes may ask.

I don't think they did.

I didn't even know it was that.

I didn't.

I saw Philip S. Hughes.

I didn't know.

I thought it was somebody else.

Someone told me that's all the same thing.

I didn't know it was back to government because we went through it a lot.

I don't think they did.

I was thinking about next week as to whether or not we ought to, I'm thinking now that the time is coming down on us for the convention, maybe taking the day off to go out there to Philadelphia or Wilkes-Barre, Jordan, Kansas.

You had a reason to do it when you had it accomplished to shove on Monday.

The only other thing that we haven't actually done to some extent is revenue sharing.

That we really shouldn't, but that would be, that's not a problem to me.

And where would you want to put your head at when it rolls down?

Yeah, that might be Thursday.

That would be great.

We'll do it as quickly as we can.

That's a hell of an event.

Hell of an event to publicize broadly.

Right?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Because it is something, I guess, for everyone to share.

It's really helped us in cities and county commissions.

That must be one thing that goes home.

Oh, it has, and it's, well, it's not an issue.

It's an accomplishment.

It's a good, it's, well, it's an accomplishment, and it's philosophically, it's a good talking point.

It's a, however do they hold it, and, you know, it was a, it sounds good.

It's what the hell you're talking about.

It doesn't, it doesn't affect you at all.

but it certainly could still make a difference in life.

Well, Kennedy said this morning on the Senate floor that the United States was purposely bombing Dan Spice and the purpose of North Vietnam that we were pursuing this policy.

He said even though they may say it's a burden, that it's still bombing Dan Spice.

So I was asked that question by Reuters this morning, and I acted like I hadn't heard about it before.

And I had Ralph Harris wrote a questionnaire, specifically, what did the Senator say on the Senate floor, you know, through the things.

And I hit it pretty hard.

I said, the President of the United States in his office made it clear that we are not pursuing a policy upon the demands of Biden.

He said, recently, we have released very extensive intelligence material

data on the entire matter, explained that the 2,700-mile dyke event that scope of damage it would have occurred would lead to flooding.

And I hit the propaganda thing.

I said, I don't care where it's at or who said it.

Statements like this are irresponsible, are uncalled for.

And I said, it cannot help but increase the enemy propaganda efforts which they are waging.

I said, there's no question about the fact that you guys have been around for a long time.

And every year there's flooding in North Vietnam.

The propaganda campaign is so clear, I said, that they want to blame the flood on the United States.

So I got through that line.

And I think he deserved it.

I don't know why he continues to get in these.

He must have in his staff a real lefty, because he throws this out there all the time.

Someone's pushing it.

He goes on the staff stuff.

Presidency is the highest office.

The vice presidency is the next highest and the lowest.

It ain't exactly a crime.

You can't be sent to jail for it.

But it's kind of a disgrace.

I told you.

But Alvin, I don't want to hang out with him.

But Alvin Martin once told me that.

Old Alvin Martin, he said, he used to quote her.

That copy of that thing that she made, I accept that quote.

I'm not trying to give a sample of it.

I mentioned to you, I guess you might even say, I don't think that's something you can say.

I don't think you can say that to me.

President, going to Alvin Barkley, he said one of his favorite stories, the Vice President, he was, I don't know if you remember, the quote, you know, President, quote, he was a priest, and that's, of course, a sugar problem.

But it doesn't answer the question, it is a strange experience.

I'm not sure if you have any questions.

And then everybody said, well, I've never met you.

I said, you know, for that purpose.

You know, you see, I don't have too much to talk to.

It's a crime.

You can't be so chill.

You can't do that.

It's a disgrace.

They pressed a little harder this morning on $25,000.

$25,000.

Oh, yeah.

And I cut.

I simply made the point, investigations go ahead and shoot them.

You know, this type of thing has no room in the political press.

The press is starting people conquering.

But the peer committee at one stage said, well, look, and I was like, look, Stan's been a bag man for the Republican Party, a former cabinet member for a long time.

As an oppressor, I got together with him and talked to him about it.

I said, I have a right to ask you a question.

He said, does the president have a reaction to Senator Scott's suggestion that he receive the Nobel Peace Prize?

And I said, I don't understand your question, Mr. Pierpont.

He said, what is it you're trying to say?

And he said, well, let me rephrase the question.

And he said, does the president, I said, I've never heard the president talk about it or even comment on it.

I've never heard anyone.

So they were in a little wobbly mood today.

I guess they have.

Not all of them.

They didn't follow up.

I'm sure you're very solid on this.

What I've said is actually correct.

We've got nothing to do with it.

We've got nobody to hire.

As far as we know, we've got nobody to hire on the committee.

But it's quite clear it's people who are screwing around.

Don't say that.

No, no, no.

You can't say that.

That's being investigated for.

I've also been very, you know, kind of relaxed on this from time to time.

They'll ask about, well, the president said he wouldn't be campaigning until after the convention.

He's meeting with young people.

I said, listen, that's totally consistent with what the president said.

I said, the president's met with McGregor.

He's met with Mitchell.

He's met with a lot of people to talk about things.

But I mean...

The posture I'm taking is being very— That's right.

But to be very relaxed about it.

When's the president going to start his campaign?

I said, the president of the United States believes in what he's doing, where he's going, both domestically and foreign policy.

He's going to speak to the issue starting now.

We're not going to be superficial about the thing of one day we're going to say we're going to start a campaign.

I think that's the right posture to take.

Don't you?

Sure.

The way I do that is to say that I'm trying to pin something.

Maybe just do it on your own.

Or how do you want it?

I can handle this with a simple word.

I'll say this.

If you're going to chat with me, you can remind me of one about the barbers.

My favorite story, because of all the discussion, I always said, I said, as long as Alvin Barker used to kid his, you know, kid about the vice presidency, this is one of his favorite stories.

He looked it up.

I said, I recall him making some story.

He did it about the vice presidency.

The other one, of course, Jackson, you know, the fourth one.

The question is to honor all the cities.

The question of presidency is the most important issue.

That's the other part of the vote.

The question is to honor all the cities.

The question of presidency is the most important issue.

Question two, how the Department of Labor, how the Department of Human Welfare is going to propose a new agenda.

I'm kidding.

It's not going to work.

You know, this is good, particularly for guys doing, you know, weekend pieces.

I've used that east and west and west, you know, record, you know,

Many times I gave it to, in fact, just the other day.

What's that?

East and West.

Oh, East and East and West.

West and West.

Two great names.

Face-to-face from the opposite.

Well, I can't recall.

I'm wondering.

But it's very reflective of your essence of people's view.

Everybody knows the line east is east and west is west, but never the twain from me.

Nobody knows the next two lines that follow, which are, except two great men, two strong men, who meet face to face, although they come from the ends of the earth, or something like that.

Well, that's a good one.

But they use that type of thing where oftentimes they'll use a quote at the top of their story in italics, and then they'll weave their story, and that's what Beckman was doing.

I don't want to let you do the wrong impression.

They weren't coming at us.

It was a group.

They didn't need to press them.

Well, they have to answer the question.

They have to answer it.

But I think... We don't need to...

They don't have to.

It's legitimate.

Pierpoint deserved to be cut off.

They said, does the President have the right to stand?

I said, the President of the United States, as far as I know, is not discussing this.

I have to stand.

I said, secondly, he has confidence in Stanton.

Does the President feel the law he's been in?

I said, of course he does.

Does the President feel the proper procedure should be accepted?

I said, of course he does.

Absolutely.

But when Pierpont called... No, we want to get the bag.

It's a long time bag.

But we've got, as far as we're concerned, we can suppress this.

We've got enough time to do it.

But we haven't cooperated on the investigation, right?

That's what we've hired the only guy that did the whole line.

And the whole line is that everybody's been directed to go out there.

There's no way else.

Everybody's been directed to go out there.

They don't cooperate.

They have no jobs.

and the investigative agencies are looking forward to the investigation.

It's a very thorough question.

We want to expressly stop it.

Well, the editor of the Post ran quite a big column on the editorial page explaining

He did it in an odd way for them, because it was terribly honest, which you don't expect folks to be.

They ran a picture the day of your press conference.

They ran a transcript of the press conference, and on the page that they ran it, they ran a picture that showed North Vietnamese repairing the dikes.

It showed damaged dikes and people working fixing dikes.

And the caption said, North Vietnamese workers work to repair dikes.

The picture was taken by so-and-so of the Nang Phang Dominance Agency.

or something.

Well, it wasn't fake at all.

It was a real picture.

But what they didn't point out was the picture had been taken five years earlier.

Who found it out?

I don't know who found it out, did he?

I don't know what came through.

In fact, he writes a column today.

The editor of the Post.

No, it's a guy.

What did he say?

He says, this shows the power of a picture and the problem of the need for responsibility.

This is in a sense that this was an inexperienced caption writer who didn't.

who wrote out a detailed caption under pressure of time, ran it.

The implication was, particularly because the president had all the questions about the dikes since press conference, the implication was that this was a dike that had been damaged and that they were running a picture proving a dike had been damaged.

And he said that implication was totally wrong.

And it was clearly identified on the back.

They pulled the picture out of the file.

And on the back of the picture, it gave the date the picture was taken, which was five years ago, 1967.

That's great.

So he explained that, but that's very...

The bastards, they got caught so blatantly that they had to untie from it, I guess.

And they probably figured they better cut their losses by running a total explanation and apology rather than getting hung up on it.

Thank you.

85% of them say, bomb the goddamn shacks.

These assholes out here, we're raw on the hate and we're raw about the dice.

I don't care what Kennedy says.

The rest of us stand right there.

Sure, we're going to kill them.

We're going to kick these bastards in the ass.

Even Harris had his goal this morning.

They say we haven't ended the war.

The amount of support for mining the harbor is higher now than when we did it.

I've got to admit, the people are tough.

And that's bite and die-bombing at these bleeding hearts.

It's just the people that nominate McCutcheon.

I mean, they're listening to their own voices.

That's all.

Their own prejudices.

The hell with them.

I would let them whine and whimper and, you know, I'm a soft-headed, take their psychiatric treatment, which I got there all the time.

I'll try to forget about it.

When the hell is he going to take it?

I don't know.

Press gives him a play.

Incidentally, I've mentioned that I'd like to have a greater job to see that all of our chairman down to the level of recommendations and letters and so forth.

That's a trickle-er.

Why would we send out an extra?

Because I know students.

I know we made lots of leaves out, but why not, you know?

And then put out guidelines as to what they are, accommodations for service or something, or other accommodations, submit names.

You know, we have various levels of understanding.

You can write letters to someone.

Whoever's going to be at a special anniversary, 50th anniversary, a wedding,

Uh, do you think that would be a good idea?

Sure.

Get our people around to send those in if we can send them out from here.

And let's get a couple of extra people if necessary.

If we get them sent in, it's easy.

If we're sending them out, there's no government that's looking for them.

That's what our people, that we've got on the price group and the rest of the people better.

I was wondering if you had any further information on that.

Yes, I do.

I just saw the paperwork on it.

It's very interesting.

This is entirely a Peterson operation.

Schultz was dead set against it.

That's why, as I said, because it was restricted.

Remember, I said, is this Schultz?

Because he's supposed to be in charge of Simpson.

Well, he's the head of the economic man.

This was operated entirely out of commerce.

Peterson had a breakfast to which he invited Stein, Cashin, two or three other people around here.

And it was pretty well decided there.

It was never sat through here.

and apparently under the statute he has the capacity to do it.

I don't know.

I don't know whether he was or not.

I'd have to go back and look at the list.

Well, he was consulted, I know, but whether he was there or not, I don't know.

In any event, Peterson apparently came to the conclusion it was a close call, and then he simply informed a lot of people over here, Flanagan and others,

that he had done this, sent him a copy of the press release.

So it was very much a unilateral operation.

And that's how we, you know, didn't know anything about it, still didn't.

I asked Jones what he thought about simply reversing it.

He said, well, I think Congress has been through that before.

He said, oh, well, it's past the Senate, past the House.

And he said, there's just almost nothing left to do.

Well, I'm checking that now.

George says it's past both houses, and I don't know that.

And just before I came downstairs, I asked if they'd check that for me to see.

No.

And if that's so, if it's not so, and it's only past the house, George strongly recommends that we simply rescind it.

He says it was a mistake to begin with, and county might only be dispatched.

Oh, sure.

Sure.

I would call Carl Lewis, I think would be the best.

I'd call my office.

We've got Mr. Dick Cook, please.

Richard Cook.

It's not there.

That's why I don't think we have too much time on anything.

He's right there.

We have no idea how many.

We could pretty well catch him, but there's no way we can catch all of them.

All of them.

I was hoping we could reschedule before the Senate asked me, but I guess we can't.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, that's true.

The only thing is if we have to do the cattle on another area, we might balance this off.

Well, all right.

Where did that come from?

Yeah, let's see.

Yeah.

Oh, yes, yes.

You don't think John Carman would call him on this, do you?

Would it help?

If you like, you might just say to Henry, you know,

Yeah, there was somebody that, or you could call them, you could tell them, tell them, Henry, I haven't seen McCrory in some time.

You might see him and say, gee, we really need help on this and could you do something?

Why don't you try that?

Yeah, Henry could use my name and then do it, do it with him, do it with him, you know what I mean?

But you ought to pay attention to the old man anyway.

Have Henry, you know, tell him, I'm talking to McCrory sometimes.

All right.

All right, thank you.

Well, I've got that.

I've got appointments.

I saw a show this morning with C. Arthur this afternoon, and you can't see Connelly until Monday.

But yes, Schultz says two things.

Number one, that prices are getting better and will get better the closer we get to the election.

He's very confident that food prices will consistently improve without controls.

And he says, the perception of another proposition.

And he says he wouldn't try and talk you out of controls.

He feels that if you do freeze, the day it is, it's August 15th.

And he says he'd want to be recorded as being against the idea of a freeze because of so many negatives that are associated with it, because he's not persuaded that there's a substance in me, but nevertheless he recognizes what it lasts for.

He said he would cause O'Brien to be audited.

And that's underway.

So, we had a regular session.

And I would say that by close business Monday, I'll know everything that I can.

I'm sure O'Brien knows he's being audited.

He'll know.

He'll know it.

He said he wasn't sure.

He wasn't sure about the, they're broken down into regions and this investigation is being conducted out of the region, out west.

So he said they don't have to bring major men out there to conduct the investigation.

That's what the file is on.

What we were, I was also going to ask you about your evaluations of the, of that Dahlgren thing and so forth.

A statement by you?

Yeah.

I had a call yesterday, and he said, you know, I've been in California.

But what I want to say is that I think he stole your money.

Oh, sure.

And I'm sure that he contributed to his earnings over there.

So they know it and they're going to pop it at the propitious time.

I'm not sure you would.

No, but I think he'd pass it along.

Oh, I understand.

But I think you have to find Edward Benavides and so forth.

They would get that knowledge and they would use it to get the word of their advantage.

Get it out now.

I think there are all those pluses in it that you just saw.

Yes, there is.

I think this guy's an agent.

This fellow with the Midwest is an agent.

Yeah, yeah.

That's what I'm saying.

And, uh, received by the agent is received by the principal.

I just don't see why I'd go like that.

Unless it's a statute.

As long as it's negotiable, that's a, that's a receipt, as a matter of law.

Unless the statute should expressly say,

The receipt shall be deemed to be today to find a deposit or something.

I've got it.

But suppose that Midwest chairman has his own fund bank account.

Seems to me deposit there would be a deposit to the reporting of the campaign.

No, but I say, if there were a home office bank account and a branch bank account, deposit in the branch is the same as deposit in the home office.

I don't know who's turned Hughes on to this.

I imagine Califano knows him as well as we do.

Yeah, yeah, but I mean, somebody's been talking the same thing.

He was on to the line that the gift was, you know, the new statement about when the data, the fact that data would get to Califano.

Yeah, yeah.

Effective date of gift, in my opinion, is when the guy gives it.

That's the question of the week, too.

That's the age of the dog, and that's the contributor.

That's the age of the dog.

The dog is the contributor.

The dog is the collector.

If the gift was reported, I think that's where this could be.

If he gives a check, day-to-day performance...

It doesn't get in the mail or something?

It doesn't get around to being deposited until April 20th?

No, I don't think so.

Until April 20th.

Sure, but that isn't the fact here.

This was cash money.

There was nothing to be negotiated here.

The agent took delivery of cash on Saturday.

I think that's the clear case.

If he'd taken delivery of a check, I think he'd be arguable until the check was negotiated.

I see.

I think he almost has to.

That's right.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah, well, and I think it's going to come out because it's beyond our control.

This guy plays both sides.

I understand he is, but he's talking to the other side.

Well, I lost him.

He's lost confidence on this, I think.

Well, Bob's point is that that explains the way the $10 million is going to be called.

It gives you a basis for why.

Right now, we have a tough time saying, why won't you answer?

Why won't you tell us who they are?

Sure, we don't have to, but why do you want to hide it?

Now we've got one reason for why we want to hide it.

Because the contributors want to do it.

Why?

Because they're Democrats who support Democrats.

uh that he instructed sloan to make money available to lady he did it on the basis that lydia was engaged in

making sure that there were no demonstrations at the convention and for doing certain security at the headquarters and all that sort of thing.

That from time to time, he was vaguely aware that Sloan was making disbursements to Liddy and he assumed Liddy was doing what he was told.

But that he was never given an accounting as such from

from Sloan, didn't follow us, and was busy with other things, and made a number of assumptions.

But after this happened, he discovered that Liddy had grossly exceeded the scope of his deployment, and he was fired.

How does Sloan... Sloan has been promised immunity and he has not testified yet before the Grand Jury.

He's only...

Thank you.

He has only talked to the U.S. Attorney and Bureau.

And... Why did they?

Why did they?

Because he said he'd take a amendment otherwise.

And he felt he was...

He's not going to testify.

Yeah.

He asked him.

No.

He was there very briefly.

As soon as they learned that he was going to take the fifth, they pulled him off.

They brought him in for a conference with his attorney.

They asked him.

He said he was going to take the fifth because of technical violations of the Campaign Spending Act or Campaign Financing Act.

So they granted him immunity.

And they've been interrogating him in the office and not taking him back.

You sure?

Well, this was, no, it's been three or four days.

I thought it was like last Friday.

Is he going to say that he was wearable?

No.

He's going to say that he was told by Magruder to give Libby the money, and he did.

And what he did in...

Keeping unrecorded cash and handing it out and so on is a violation.

There's no question about that.

Maury stands his face very long because some of this obviously comes back to him.

Sloan couldn't possibly have done all the things that it's clear he did without Maury having some knowledge of it.

Maury and all.

Well, he undoubtedly had some knowledge of the fact that it was a lot of cash.

I would be very surprised if I had any knowledge of what was being done with the cash.

Oh, I agree with that.

I'm talking about the second full violation of the Campaign Spending Act.

Or he had full knowledge of that, I'm sure.

He knew there was cash there, and he knew that they were using it for intelligence and dirty tricks business.

He knew that Liddy was the guy that was doing that, and he knew that it was X times 20.

More, he doesn't let money go out without knowing about it.

Oh, here's the, this is the highest I have.

There's no conference on it.

Right, you're done.

The other half of the bill is with regard to the CIEP, and that's laid over, so you won't have it down here to sign for a while.

Well, Maury isn't.

They're not calling Maury?

No, they're not.

We've made sure they aren't.

Well, they did, and we stopped them.

I would shed a client base.

What basis?

But it's very embarrassing to you that this guy's not just some bohunk off the street.

He's a former cabinet officer.

He's subject to all kinds of notoriety.

He has no way of protecting himself against the inferences.

And it just wouldn't raise hell with a campaign.

And it just couldn't happen.

Well, certainly, I hope that's the same view regarding infection.

That's right.

Absolutely.

And in fairness to Clint Eastwood, this took place while he was out of town by one of his guys, who exercises bad judgment in calling and subpoenaing Maury.

So we're on top of that, and Maury is not going to be required to do anything in the state, but he'll handle himself very well, I'm sure.

At the same time, he's quite wrong in the mouth about the whole killing effect this has on his ability to raise money.

I've got to find God.

That's my only concern right now.

I just sign these down and pass.

I'm happy that he doesn't have to go see the grand jury.

Pardon?

Friday.

Last week.

Yeah.

We got a question.

I can take a statement.

I don't know what they had to call him.

Anybody can answer my question.

I'll do this anyway.

Yeah.

The best guess now is that nobody's going to get indicted except the burglars and Libby and Hunt.

Well, they all plead not guilty and there are no trials until after the election.

that all the burglars are all going to plead not guilty.

I can't imagine.

I cannot imagine.

But that's what they're going to do.

Let me ask you a little bit.

I told him, I said, you know what?

I think that helps.

And the fact that Brammer was out trying to shoot the president, following him in the camera, and all of them down here.

So that was just a reaction.

And I think both Red Brammer's diary and his was a document.

The guy himself, he's crazy.

He can make a super bestseller out of that book.

All you have to do is type it up.

It's spectacular.

It's a piece of writing.

It's sick as hell.

It's very interesting.

Disgusting.

Sickening.

The guy's all screwed up sexually.

He's got that in the diary.

Oh, yeah.

In great detail.

Exquisite detail.

He writes like a novelist.

It's obviously the best way to get in line.

Yep.

He goes to New York, and he wants to get a girl, and he goes into a massage parlor or one of these, you know, prostitution places.

And, well, he did and he didn't.

And he writes us all in very, well, not really, Lord, but believable prose.

Yeah.

And when he's trying to get from Michigan to Canada,

and take these guns.

He's afraid that when he gets to the border, he'll be searched.

So he goes to these elaborate ends to hide these guns.

And, of course, there isn't any search.

And he talks about his reaction to that and how easy it was to get across the border and all that kind of stuff.

So he's in a motel, and he's getting his gun out, just checking it, and he shoots it.

He just checked into the motel, and he's checking the gun, and he accidentally shoots it.

and shows an interesting mind of scared to death.

This is the gun motel.

He's going to come in and catch me with the gun.

Now he runs over and flips on the television and turns it up.

He says, fortunately, it was a war movie going on with a lot of shooting.

And I figured I was okay, you know, because she came in and just said, there's a real loud.

He worried about where the bullet went.

That bothered him for the whole rest of the, for the whole rest of the book.

But there it is.

Yes.

There was no question about it.

And why the hell?

It was very easy.

It was very hard for him because of the demonstrators.

He was pissed off as hell about that.

It's obviously true because having been there, I talked about being parked at a gas station on that road along the riverway when you were driving over to the guest house and

got all set out there to shoot you from his car.

Then other people parked in front of him and ruined that, so he got out to shoot you from the street.

And he was all ready.

Your car went by so fast he couldn't find you.

He went out to the airport and gave up there because there were too many people.

He said he went over to the front of that lot, and that's where he was all set and was in good position.

And then, remember the Mounties?

We knew they did this.

That son of a bitch Trudeau did it.

They moved.

The demonstrators right up the second day when you went into the West Block there.

Yeah.

And moved the demonstrators right up by the door so they could give you a bad time.

That may have saved your life.

Right.

Because he was there to shoot you.

You're right.

Right.

We sure were.

This is for the cabinet guy.

This woman in the book says those

filthy, nasty hippies if they only knew what they had done.

Frustrating.

And finally he gives up.

He suspects somebody's following him.

A guy in a trench coat is following him.

Secret Service.

So he leaves.

Taking movies out.

So he leaves.

He comes down here.

He's not going to look at my movies.

I don't have any of them.

He came down here and read about the ping-pong, and he even thought that was a public event.

Well, yeah, and then he left, and as he was leaving, you walked across the street from here to the Treasury, and he missed that.

It was off-wind that he headed back for Michigan.

That was in the paper this morning.

I didn't see that.

Yeah, that's in there.

He picks up the paper.

And he sees that on the day that he left here to go back to Michigan on an impulse, you walked across the street and he thought to himself, now I could have been there.

And so then he gave up on you completely.

That's why.

And he started stalking other people.

Well, he'd been on others earlier.

Yeah.

Then he decided to go for you because he figured what the hell if I shoot Wallace, nobody's going to pay any attention.

as the St. Wallace shot.

Whereas if I could get the present, then everybody would cheer and jump up and down.

There'd be a lot of publicity.

And you know, the first part of this book is buried somewhere.

The first 150 pages of the diary.

And his thought is, his thought is he'll sell the whole thing and get very rich.

He's copyrighted the second part.

He will too.

It reads like, you know, any bestseller novel.

Yeah.

It's got all the stuff in it.

It's got the drama and the sex and the suspense.

Weirdness.

Yeah.

Suspense.

Everything that sells books sell them.

Better sales sell them.

Even First Last Quarter is where it is.

You can't execute it.

I don't know.

What was that?

I don't know.

I think for all practical purposes, unless states were reenacting them.

There are a couple of states where it's not a discretionary.

I've got good old Congressman John Rhodes here to talk about my love of mine.

Probably better go on service.

I don't care.

Right.

I think we have a woman's liver pretty well neutralized.

We've got a position why we'd be all okay with it.

Yeah, we've got Republican women that want to raise hell down there.

They want to raise hell down there.

Horses and quarters and all that sort of stuff.

I think we're getting around them.

I think so, we are.

It's interesting, did you see that whole breakdown in abortion?

Yeah.

Women don't favor abortion.

Women are opposed to it in countries where men are in favor of it.

I guess not.

Look at the split between men and women.

Well, let's see what happens.

I see.

I see why.

The only reason I... Well, the main reason I think Andrews ought to do this is that it's going to come out anyway.

I don't see why it couldn't be avoided.

I'd rather it be an easy win.

But it won't come out.

Never mind.

But you gave him the money?

Yeah.

But where did the other guy get his money?

He's under no obligation to say where he got it.

He's already got it.

He got it from his retired friend, Wes Andrews, who were living down in Florida.

He was down in Florida.

It wasn't last year.

He was following up some of his contacts down there.

Now, fortunately, that happens.

He happens to jive with Andrews' story because Andrews was in Florida and is a retired Mr.

Midwestern.

So, fortunately, God told enough of the truth that it fits.

He doesn't have to tell who it is, unless the rule of the gift was made after the fact, after the disclosure date.

But I'm not so sure that it's... That it's a good thing to do it.

The negative on it...

is that it adds another facet and it creates more interest and attention.

But it seems to me it's good attention this time.

I'm a pixel.

I'm pretty happy to contribute with the money.

You've been asking me questions.

And there's of course the possibility that it'll come out anyway.

It's not really the certainty that I said I could have or anything like that.

Well, I don't know why they didn't want it.

For the same reason we do want it out, I would think they would not want it.

They'd much rather have a mystery about whether $25,000 came something of it.

Grab it out, then demand it as a reason for us to get it out.

Which is sort of interesting.

Well, it's being very money.

I mean, Trigger out there wants it.

It's democratic.

It's actually worth it.

It couldn't have been a better source.

So that particular one and that, it's ideal.

It adds one more sort of surrealist atmosphere to this, which I think is also not bad.

The whole thing is sort of a bad dream all the way around anyway.

Then next week, if you don't mind, we will have the signing ceremony.

Otherwise, I'll start doing some thinking about it.

I'll be glad to do anything in the way of it.

I'm not prepared to get it.

If we ought to get something, I didn't know about it.

We ought to do it.

If you're asking about other groups, the one other one that might be worth your meeting is the advertising guy.

I meant the article, exactly.

He should have come in.

Have you ever met him and he's, you know, running a house or something?

Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely.

Well, you'll work out to do some of those and carry on.

And let's go back to that.

Let me get the food out.

I really kind of got to get a little feel about the California.

Got to go out there, got the college there, and the college up there.