Nixon & Ziegler on Watergate and Media relations

Transcript (AI-generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI (WhisperX) and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Names and numbers are often wrong; speakers are not identified. Do not cite it as authoritative — verify against the audio and the finding aid.

Download transcript (.txt) · JSON data

Click a timestamp to play from that point; the page address then links to that moment (e.g. #t=125).

I understand what you're trying to do.

Separate.

You're going to separate the person.

I'm going to try to say that the statement in regard to the fact that the White House was not involved, you know, with reconnecting.

Well, I think it's incorrect.

Nobody's charged that.

I mean, nobody.

I mean, they haven't even...

I mean it's all by innuendo.

The other point is of course you're ringing the fence of people in an attack on the smear, and yet it's a last minute, use the word last minute, this last minute smear, smear stuff.

You also might think these activities took place.

But I think the main thing we must maintain is the White House background.

You've also got to be sure that the president didn't lie.

That's right.

Exactly.

Now, the other thing they're going to ask is, why does the president think of such actions?

He doesn't think they're any good.

And also, the president doesn't believe in heckling and violence.

and so forth.

That's why he's given instructions all over the country.

And you would trust that Senator McGovern would tell his people the obscenities, the violence in San Francisco, the assaults to Mrs. Nixon, to Patricia Nixon, Cox, and the rest of them.

That has no place in the campaign.

Violence, trying to shout it out

And we have been, we have given orders to everybody.

We have that in its own place, and neither has this.

Neither has this.

And also, the president feels that name calling.

It feels that this kind of vicious personal attacks that are being made to the other side in its own place.

And we did.

We did.

And that's why we are tackling issues, but only on issues.

Do you want to get a little of that?

I think the way you got it, I thought you did.

I'm going to lead out to this.

Mr. Chapin has already said the story is fundamentally inaccurate, one based on hearsay, which can stand.

Then on to the question.

Since the Watergate case broke, people have been trying to link it and then separate the Watergate away.

Then go to, in recent months, over the past weeks, our opposition has been making charges that have not been substantiated.

And it goes to that, after separating the Watergate,

After an extensive investigation by the FBI, grand jury proceedings, investigation by the DAO, no link has been established because there is no link in the alleged bugging and burglary attempt.

And seven men have been indicted and are standing for trial.

So that's standard.

In recent months, then I'll separate you in recent months from the past week's opposition that made charges without substantiation and then hit that side hard.

Talk about the technique of innuendo, the suggestions of guilt without proof, journalism, which is terms of hearsay and the fact that it has no place in the political system.

Justice espionage, sabotage, surveillance of individuals has no place in a campaign.

And then that's where I'll bring in your also heckling

Shouting.

Heckling is all right, but shouting of senators.

Right.

Shouting of senators.

Violence.

What's the word?

Violence.

Firebombing of campaign headquarters.

Trying to shout down speakers and so forth.

And then I'll make the point.

If you say, just like the tactics of the new left,

Then I'll make the point here, when I say sabotage, no one can do sabotage, espionage, surveillance, no one can direct such activities.

What about these White House personnel?

I'm going to go immediately from that to the point that I'm not going to dignify by confirming

stories that are based on sources that won't show themselves, based on hearsay, evidence produced by...

I'm not going to, I wouldn't say by confirming or not, I'm not going to suggest, because as you say, if you don't deny it, then I'm going to delete it.

I would say, I'm not going to take it by with confidence.

With confidence.

Stories, charges, that's what I'd say.

They will still say I refuse to deny out of this, but that's fine.

It's a better option.

And then if they really get heated, I'm going to say, I'm not going to turn this room into a kangaroo court.

I've got a little thing I've got to build around this, and I'm not.

Then if they get heated again, I'm going to refer to the Washington Post, the picture of Chapin under the name of sabotage, you know, any inaccuracies in the story.

They ask what the president thinks about it.

I'm going to say, let me tell you what the president thinks.

The president thinks that this is the time we should be talking about the issues.

We should be talking about taxes, jobs, peace, narcotics, defense, you know what I'm saying.

Amnesty.

Oh, amnesty.

That's what the president—well, is he concerned about this, Ron?

Is he upset about it, gentlemen?

I've already said, and the president has said, that this type of activity— No, we said two things.

One—

He would say, well, there's nothing about concern in terms of political smears that are being made.

No, he's not concerned.

He says he expects that.

He expects there will be a lot more in the next three weeks.

And we've been involved in instructing to pay no attention to any smears made by the opposition.

Who's the word?

Then second, is he concerned about such activities, being charged with such activities?

Yes.

they're fine public servants, and having them implicated in such things, that's concerning.

And then you say, gentlemen, I trust that Senator McGovern, you don't mind, did you use his term?

I trust that the opposition will show, with respect to the president, and see to it in the balance of this campaign, it's time that they

If the opposition doesn't speak up, I call upon the opposition to speak up against the tactics of violence, obscenities, something stronger than the shouting down.

trying to break up rallies, trying to break up meetings by shouting and so forth.

If the opposition doesn't get up, they must take responsibility for what occurs in the comments of this campaign.

They must take the responsibility.

They do not speak up.

They have been silent about this.

They have not refuted it.

And David, I say that any of this that occurs in the future, there's a responsibility for it.

We have issues with that.

Also, another line I'm going to use, too, I might hit the tips too deep about the superficial self-righteous people who are using that technique.

They condemn with outrage.

if used by those with whom they disagree.

In other words, the technique of innuendo, the technique of guilt by association, the technique of... Hey, let's examine the techniques here.

These are the, I say, these are the techniques that I, as you well recall, the use of hearsay evidence.

of the use of hearsay statements, misdemeanors, the use of hearsay statements, the use of innuendo, the use of guilt by association, were the very techniques that were condemned as McCarthyism by the very people now that are used to those, by Tennessee, the United States, the Washington Post.

You have a number of, you have seen one, you said, I have a discount, put it this way.

There are over 100, there are 106 of this,

to have found there are 106 editorials written in the Washington Post alone, major editorials, condemning the Old Hood Association's support.

Now, when are they going to speak up?

Because when are they going to get away from this hypocritical double standard?

Hit it.

That would be another good thing.

Attack the Post.

Attack the editorials.

The hypocritical double standard.

of everything else, we don't condone it.

Separated from the water, my impression is absolutely correct.

We have checked this.

That statement is totally true.

And there's been nothing, there has been nothing to develop on this most intensive investigation in probably history to disprove it.

And nothing will be.

And third, as far as these activities,

The problem you've got, of course, is that some of these kids were probably, I mean, I don't know what his name was, Stalag, or... Strong.

Strong, and the rest of them.

But you know what I mean?

There are, when they're planning routes and so forth, they do do things.

Sure.

I don't think that's what really

No, but see, the moment we get, we talked about this at length yesterday, because of the double standard, because of the approach, the moment we get into that, then... No, no, I don't want you to defend it.

My point is, I'm concerned about your saying that the President condemns it, and that had brought out what they did.

That's the way I'm going to do that.

But beyond that, gentlemen, I'm not going to dignify these type of stories.

Well, Ron, won't you just say, Ron, why don't you just say whether or not he directed our visit?

Are you conducting an investigation, gentlemen?

I'm not going to get into that.

And if you want to quote me 32 times saying that the White House response is, I'm not going to dignify these stories by commenting— You're not going to dignify this kind of—you're not going to dignify hearsay.

You will not dignify hearsay, smear, or innuendo with comment from the White House.

The White House is not going to dignify—here's a good one.

The White House is not going to dignify hearsay.

I carried your assassination, smeared by innuendo, and did my association with combat.

And I urge you to follow the same strategy, both of them.

Remember, I'm a victim of those four things.

Got it?

Yes, sir.

And I have been on the FA press.

You ask me as many questions as you want, man, and my answer is the same.

OK.

Well, as I say, you're going to have a very, very difficult committee.

We have an EC for two, three weeks, three weeks.

And just right through, right through, a peaker composure.

On this one, I will get back.

But I would, sometime, I'd just say, look, you, the gentleman there, are you asking us if you're reporters or book haggis?

You know what their trouble is?

That's because they're dying.

They're dying.

You know, they look at those people yesterday and try to make some out of the 82 points of y'all at 9 points in 6 weeks in the end of the week.

So that's 8 points behind.

30 points in 16 major states.

But you're crazy.

You know, they're dying, but you're great.

But all this crap, they're just, now they just want Carr and Fetter and Spear, the president, and the United States.

That's all.

Okay.

Don't be worried.

No, I'm not going to show no worry.

I'm not going to, you know, I'm going to say, rather than working on his, I do it very cold.

What am I doing?

Well, you can say, what are you going to announce, please?

Rick, I'm going to do a radio Thursday.

I don't want to do it once a year.

I'm going to use that today.

I don't know what it is.

later this week.

And when are you going to announce, the subject will be announced.

I'll have that tomorrow morning.

And what about the Philadelphia?

Are you going to have that leaked out and confirmed this afternoon?

I wouldn't try another stop.

Mix that in.

Let's put that to a mark with a permanent set, you know, and so forth.

Okay.

Good luck to you.

Okay.

Nixon & Ziegler on Watergate and Media relations

AI Summary

Audio

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Transcript (AI-generated)

Also recorded on October 16, 1972

Cite this conversation

Nixon & Ziegler on Watergate and Media relations

AI Summary

Audio

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Transcript (AI-generated)

Also recorded on October 16, 1972

Related conversations

Cite this conversation