Conversation 893-016

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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 said he's not in, but I'll get him.

And first of all, to see if he's got anybody in it.

If not, we'll get Pat and get him started.

Bob said that you kind of wanted to work on it.

The main thing is that you can't really ask to work on it in terms of the taking what there is and making PR.

Sure.

He's got to be tied in.

You also have to get

Well, I thought we ought to get the team.

Remember, we had a group down in those parts of Vietnam.

A lot of this will be the same, but they have the only thing.

And we won't do it.

We can't do it every time.

But they all know that they've enlisted in the battle for the liberation.

That's what I want to get their people on.

This is our thing.

All right?

And also, you've got to make a decision for your people.

Sure.

Yeah.

Really, sure I can.

You know, the best thing, Jerry, is to get in a good fight and win one.

And then it's all for a problem.

And they're currently losing, you know.

That's the point.

But the main thing is they've got to fight.

Well, sure.

But I'll see you this week.

Amen.

You'll see in the details.

Three-fourths of an inch.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, yeah.

All right.

It's a bad idea.

John will be at this thing tomorrow night.

Why don't you buttonhole him there?

I'll let him know what you want to talk about.

You buttonhole him, will you?

Good, good.

All right.

Why don't you go home to Grand Rapids?

Good guy.

You couldn't lose it.

Let me say this.

The administration, after winning the caucus, cannot simply be concrete and say that we can't change a job or a title if the other side is ready to key a substantial.

Now, in my view, Mr. Kerr is a legislative adage.

Well, we know about this.

We talked about the staff name this morning.

And actually, Jim Cavanaugh, our health and aging guy here, is in touch with Cuy and he's negotiating with him.

So...

that's interesting because ford did call but he left a message

I'm touching about that with these guys because they complain.

Okay.

Well, that's probably why he said that.

kind of a deal we can make with Cleve.

Because he's a guy we would like to make a deal with.

Sure.

You know, he's supported.

He's good.

And he's influenced.

Well, on the other hand, Bob probably has already started.

Could be.

And I'll find out.

And I guess what I would use it to remember is that I consider that to be a justice report.

And it's, it's, I'm going to say, I'll always say

in their eyes attacking the committee that may come later but certainly attacking the democratic campaign and so forth they've got to sit down and get a campaign set up or i don't want to see it i must not see it i want the canada to talk to me about it but you gotta develop a public relations campaign what are your goals these are our goals but i know what you want maybe you want to talk about the virus

and how do we get them out, where, and so forth and so on, through the committee, through press releases, through television, or through talk shows, or through Congressmen's calendars, you know, it's that kind of strategy that's needed here that we don't presently see.

Okay.

Well, maybe we do, and I just don't know it, but let me find out.

And I talked to Mitchell again, since I've seen him.

Yeah.

And that's fine.

I'll have to talk to Stans and clear that off for Mitchell.

He called me back and said that Stans would like to tell me how much he's giving up and so forth.

So that's fine.

I'll listen to that.

I said to John, I hope you are focusing.

He had told me about a daily news story that I mentioned to you.

So I read it at the government forum.

And I said, John, I hope you're focusing on the kind of stuff that is being dredged

And he said, yes, I am.

Paul O'Brien represents me.

He said, I thought it was better to operate at that level or anyone to bring a new man in.

I said, well, I'm glad to hear that.

Is Paul preparing for the moment of truth?

And he said, yes, I'm spending a lot of time with him.

So he said another thing that was kind of interesting.

He said, Strong's

had told Mitchell that Irvin was not going to be tough, as tough as Mitchell thought, in these hearings.

Now, I suspect that's only for the sake of getting this settled, because Frost added, wants to settle.

Well, I think it's divisive.

I think it's a problem for him as it goes along.

And it's holding him.

Well, I mean, he's got

a little money to run the shop and pay the lawyers, all that kind of thing.

But Mitchell was anxious to tell me how good Irvin was going to be about all this.

I think knowing now and having him tell me that O'Brien is involved is a good thing because we can use O'Brien now as a

as a counter-offensive in a way that I didn't think we could be.

I know this is true.

First, we wanted it to work.

And so it won't help cover up this so-called crime.

It might work legally.

Just assume it might work legally.

It's never going to work in PR.

But the second thing is that if they ever get caught in the goddamn thing, as I say, that's the damn worst crime.

They're lying about that.

You see, let's face it.

He had the courage to do so.

Because otherwise he would have admitted that he was an espionage agent of the Soviet government.

And you'd lie about that, too.

Anybody would lie about that, even though it didn't, even though it was mentioned in the pen.

But you see, it was a horrible crime.

But this other is not a horrible crime.

That's my point.

I think John's got to face up to that.

I suspect.

Don't you think that's good advice?

Yeah, but I think that's advice that has to be given to him.

I think his inclinations would be

to say, I've got to cover this up to protect the president.

I mean, that would, you know, that would be the, that would be the rationalization.

Protect the president.

Well, that's the rationalization.

But it's nevertheless the way he would put it.

I've never talked to him about it.

But, uh, but, well, Brian, but again, you know, you know, go ahead.

Well, I was just going to say, um,

Well, Brian has got to be giving him that kind of advice if he's any good.

He's a good lawyer.

That's what I, that's what they tell me.

You don't?

Yes.

Talked to him a long time.

Pretty solid citizen by the looks of it.

And very well versed to, oh, 48, I would guess.

Very well versed in this case.

Lived with it, you know, right from the beginnings.

and knows everything there is to know about us, probably right down the line with him.

I think you should do that one Saturday afternoon and say, look, where did we come out of?

Look, John, we've got to sit down here and see the real stories coming out.

What is it that you want to say?

Where did we come out of this damn thing?

They've got to be getting the line regarding how the defense got this thing.

It's much better to say that than say, God, I don't know.

The other thing I want to come back to on the Bob situation, the reason I want to dig at these facts, these things hard now, dig right to the bottom of what the hell is the cop, what kind of people are going to be, and I don't mean to borrow trouble.

No, I understand.

I don't mean to worry everybody about it and all that, because the most interesting

worry about things that aren't going to happen.

But you know better than that.

You must do that.

On the other hand, looking at the possibilities, you've got to look down the road.

The one thing you've got to work on, that's the danger of putting Bob out there before the committee.

Well, I've been going over this.

I don't want to have a situation four or five months later.

I don't give a damn.

they won't commit now

As you know from talking to Baker, they're keeping their balance in this thing.

They're not the White House's men.

They're going to wait and see how this all turns out.

They're not going to get splashed.

We have to appeal to them.

We have to argue for it.

We have to do everything we can to get them.

But they are still to be won.

And it's a neat trick to work with Howard Baker right now.

He's with us in sentiment.

And he's not about to endorse anybody at this point.

He's very standoffish.

So he has to work our way along.

No, that's right.

Now... Those are things that could eventually happen.

Matter of fact...

This is the argument that Baker has got to be used with regard to going into the Democratic imagination as well.

No, Irvin's sensitive to that.

He talks that way.

And he recognizes that the committee credibility and I, you know, challenge him on what sort of report he was going to write, so.

and he said oh it's got to be it's got to be even-handed and i understand i've got to have a majority of the committee and he said that's not what he said with wiker on there that's not going to be easy to get and uh so on and then he uses wikers his talking course but um garmin made a good point an interesting point and that is that somehow or another in all of this he and

probably I have got to retain a measure of credibility with Urban and Bakery, which means that we cannot be in a position of overreaching.

Well, first, we were talking about the tactic of demanding an early hearing and the tactic of my going over the night and saying, we want it to start next Monday.

Now, that's a short-term advantage.

Len's argument is that there's a long-term disadvantage

that's the point and so uh well no but on the other hand i think you have i think you're back in positions early in the framework of the court justifies all of them must be heard that's the point that's a better that's a much better uh uh proposal from our character and much

the earliest possible hearing date without saying any specific date.

It's our understanding that McCord will be called immediately after the recess.

And the ground rule we propose is that we commence immediately the day after his final day with the first White House witness.

Now, I want to retain a little flexibility as to who that would be.

Because we're thinking in terms of Holland being the lead-off witness.

Maybe not.

We want to see how the court goes in.

That's what I was thinking about.

So, anyway, what we'll try and do is represent our client and at the same time keep the lines open on the other side to the extent that we can.

It may be that at some future date, we'll have to cash in that credibility with Irvin and Baker.

You mean Timon Farmer?

Yeah, but not now.

We wouldn't want to throw that away.

But don't give on the fight.

You can't let the court testify and let that ride.

That can't be done.

Absolutely.

They're going to smear somebody.

God damn it.

They've got to have a chance to answer this.

Are you satisfied at this point, and we're kind of at a crossroads on this because I am going over there tonight trying to reduce this to writing.

Are you satisfied at this point that we have made the right choice as between these two positions that are different?

First position, we've had an investigation in the White House.

seen any evidence of anybody in the White House being involved.

Therefore, we're going to fight for our boys.

Position one.

Position two.

This is President speaking.

Um... Or you speaking.

Well, this is the White House speaking.

It's this kind of approach.

Um, look, um, I don't know where the truth lies in this thing.

Um,

I'm in favor of getting at the truth without fear of favor.

I'm going to do everything I can to elicit the truth, and I expect the Senate to do the same, which, as you see, is one step removed from that other position.

Well, I think you've got to say, I mean, and why the hell haven't I dug into it before now?

Well, you have dug into it.

I think what we've got to say is this.

in between, let's simply say, an investigation had been conducted, and the President has sworn statements from all members of the White House staff that he did not participate, and therefore, that he, but as far as he's concerned, he welcomes, he welcomes the committee's further investigation into this matter to get it about the end of that period.

Do you see what I mean, Al?

Can you get away with that?

I think so.

Now, the reason, there's some shadings in this, and

for instance, is extending your arm around the White House witnesses.

Right.

Symbolic.

And that's a fairly fundamental decision to make.

Some of these other ground rules that we're negotiating for the White House people is the same kind of thing.

And the other approach would be to say,

You're on your own.

Go ahead.

You know, anything.

Get it over with.

I want to know the truth.

And so we're... All right, so your point is it's the PR reaction.

It's the appearance.

The appearance of those approaches.

But let's get to the more fundamental one.

The reason we're sending harm up there is not PR.

That's correct.

That's the reason, but that's not the appearance.

The appearance is, this committee has asked my boys up here, and by golly, I'm going to send a fellow up there to protect them, because they're my boys.

All right.

Well, I didn't believe that open tonight, sir, as far as anybody coming up would be likely.

Well, I'm just suggesting...

fundamental decision is to your posture in this thing.

And you're saying to me, dig into the facts and kind of spinning out that scenario where Bob got me thinking about this after we talked.

And I realize now that if we go the way that we have been going and Bob goes up there and he testifies and Garment fights for executive privilege and the invocation of the ground rules and advises the witnesses and

We go through this whole process, and six weeks later, bango, there's a torpedo that comes in there.

It's an entirely, let's put it another way, the imputation to you is much stronger.

Really?

Well.

I wonder if it isn't obvious from the very fact that the boss goes up there and we're still standing with him, let's face it.

All right.

Yeah, but see, that isn't the second posture.

The second posture is not standing with anybody, but the president standing alone.

saying, everybody's got a burden of proof in this thing.

Maybe some of these people badly served me.

I'm willing to see how it all comes out.

I don't want anything said of that guy.

Sir?

I don't want anything said of him.

Oh, no, I understand.

I'm not going to articulate anything plain as I know it's true, correct?

Doing things.

Yeah, we're doing things, which is symbolic of one approach.

And yet we were talking a while ago along another approach.

Thanks.

And I want to be sure that we... Well, Garland, at least still in any of them, I see you're finding, at least Garland plays the role.

He's got to do the coaching of the way.

Oh, yeah.

And that is enormously useful.

Enormously useful.

He can work out all kinds of details, and then he can be the ground, sort of the focus point here.

What did they do?

I thought one of them he was going to talk about was Gene.

He did, at great length.

It was interesting.

Thompson, the Republican, acquiesced to the idea of interrogatories.

Dash did not.

The upshot of the whole meeting had lasted three hours, and there was no agreement.

is long and short.

My position tonight is that he's not going, and that we're going to have to work on some kind of an alternative mode.

Now, they said an interesting thing last night.

They said, well, we'd like to know within the next week of 10 days whether Dean is coming out, because we'd like to subpoena him immediately and get the litigation started.

We figure we can be through the Supreme Court by summer.

And within that way, because Dean is so central to our case,

we will not prejudice the orderly development of our case.

So they propose, as soon as we say Dean's not coming, to subpoena immediately, frame the issue.

So my thinking on the basis of that is to hedge the Dean thing tonight, not crystallize.

say that evidently the staff conversations were inconclusive, that I would propose that they continue talking.

And if you, when you go out and report an agreement, get it, you've got an agreement, you would say as far as Dean is concerned, still open the question.

Well, you disagree.

Yeah, and we're trying to work out a satisfactory appearance, which I'll, and I can put our side of the position, you know, our, our,

for that reason.

Their stand was too big and stuff like that.

I can screw you around with a great big staff like that.

They will be less effective.

They have more.

they'll tend to break down into groups, one working on Watergate, one on Segretti, one on something else, and they'll miss at the joining points.

It depends a little on how they're organized.

It probably depends on that.

Mary, they were talking last night that they don't want anything before Jim, including McCord.

Right.

Not including McCord.

If they can possibly get Sirica to postpone the sentencing again, they will try.

Postpone McCord again.

Right.

See, that's the limiting factor right now.

They have to complete their examination of him before sentencing.

so that he sees how the court performs.

In a very real sense, McCord, in all his weaknesses, is the product of Sirica's arrest.

And it's the proof of the fallacy of the judge being

Well, I think so.

At the proper time, I think Buchanan ought to give that to Wilson and some of these guys who write about the court's incredibility.

We've got to start working on it.

whether we just want to talk about the fact that we aren't meeting our wife anymore,

It seems to me

I'm not so sure, as sure as I was, that you wanted to take talking again to the leaders.

I know I asked that.

If your statement is, tell us, Paul, pretty well, what I'm getting at is that I don't know what it really adds in that case.

I don't want to be in a position of restating the obvious, restating that being in battle, and also we've got to realize

Would you have any objections?

We canceled the cabin meeting, Craig.

We don't have a lot of breath.

Postpone it for next week.

Talk to him about energy.

I think we've got to have a cabin meeting.

We're there, you know, just so that they can come in.

Why don't we say, be sure the coals are carefully made.

Oh, sorry, fine.

That's great.

And that'll be on the subject of energy, which touches all our departments.

I have some other things to hand out.

Your reason for canceling is what?

So that you can do the reading?

No, frankly, I... You just don't want one?

Don't want one.

For one thing, it's too early to get the energy thing out.

And, uh, I had... She gets to be left on the schedule just to see if we wanted to do this Watergate thing.

And, uh, I'm not terribly keen on doing it.

At least, it's the reason that it does restate... We're objecting to this meeting.

We're inviting all the cabinet to do it.

the other speculation was whether or not we would have anything on the economy that we want to discuss well

I would like you to have a crack at this in your reading over the weekend.

I mean, Charles Schultz is doing the actual put-together work.

He'll be gone.

He'll be gone, but actually, if there's any conversation, it's a question, I think, of just reading it.

It's simple in the way that it's been written, and I think you'll be able to see what the realities are here.

I don't know what rental he's coming up with, but I think it's going to be restricted controls.

Well, he's always a...

He's the bold play guy.

I'll have a memo in that will describe both Arthur and John Connolly's positions for you.

Will you see both?

No, I'll see Arthur.

Unless it just happens that Connolly's here, I'll talk to him on the phone.

He's going to be here tomorrow.

Oh, is he?

Oh, well, you can get it in person from him then.

If you want to draw him out, I'll see him, whichever you'd rather.

Okay.

Well, that's fine.

I had intended, I didn't know you were going to be here.

I had intended to phone you.

Well, I'll see Arthur and give you a synopsis of that.

I can't get over the sort of deep-seated feeling I've got.

Well, of course, that's what science tells you.

That's kind of a, that's a sort of maritime equilibrium kind of thing that Herb argues for the most.

if there is serious doubt that it will work.

If that's what it is, if one of the bifrongers is doing that, it used to hurt the boom.

In other words, I'd a hell of a lot better have the boom in inflation than to have no boom.

Well, you know, their attention span is only 36 hours.

It seems to me it really does.

And old Lasseter can't remember a year back.

You know, what's happening now?

What's the problem today?

Yeah.

Well, they said they'd call some analysts, and they said, where are they going?

I listen to a guy, I listen to a fellow every morning while I'm shaving.

And they don't.

He's a business editor at one of these news stations.

And he always gives you that bulletin.

The market was off three points yesterday due to the Israeli attack on the Palestinian guerrillas.

It's a damn thing, you know.

And, you know, he doesn't know.

That's right.

I think you probably are right.

It may be, may be that we'll have to look to see if you look at it, sir.

What's Garment's view probably is that he shouldn't go there next.

Who's it?

Hold on.

Garment.

That Garment shouldn't go?

Oh, no.

No, no.

I'm just trying to sort out here what we're doing and whether we're passing a point of no return.

That's the best way to find out.

I mean, it's, look, they're, uh, they tied everything.

They're gonna say, well, they're gonna haul it mostly.

Well, of course, that's the way I'm accustomed to trying a lot.

I think it's helped a little, but it's marginal.

I think it helps to get the things set up.

They've got to get some big fish and fry them, and then go away.

Well, as I said, my tendency is to...

He'd get a theory of the case, and he'd lie in the weeds.

He'd let the other guys just run all over him, all the way through the trial, until he got to what he considered to be the slain issue.

And then he'd bang that for all he was worth.

And that's just two different ways of trying a case.

That approach would say, in effect, don't have a garment up there.

And just kind of let things roll until we got to what you consider.

whether we may come, what the chances are of our coming to a position where the Republicans, the responsible Republicans, will say, Mr. President, you must go.

Now, let's examine that.

If the responsible Republicans say that, you could take it as,

And it isn't.

Now there is the, but I think if you were to question the environment now, he'd say, yes, go through the horror that is created.

And his usefulness in dealing and running the government is killed.

That's the point.

That's, that's her, you can, I expect at a point in time, you'll hear that kind of argument, regardless of how the evidence goes out.

I mean, that's obviously going to be the Achilles heel argument.

Regardless of how well he comes off, regardless of how the heritage comes out, the Joe Crafts are going to say, well, you know, I'll browse through your stuff.

Am I the Joe Crafts that I'm concerned about at the time?

Not just the columnist stuff, you know?

Now, they haven't yet.

I just alert you to the fact that it isn't an either-or kind of situation.

You're going to get that kind of talk.

The question is whether it's going to be pervasive, intolerable, or not.

I don't think anybody's smart enough to be able to say.

But I'll sure watch and try to minimize it.

One of the ways that we may be able

is for Bob to sit down with guys like Goldwater and Bannon and people of that ilk before he goes before the committee and say, I'm going.

Do you have any advice for me?

Well, obviously, Goldwater's advice

I have some tax types upstairs that I've got to get up and talk to if you don't mind.

You see,

We must avoid a situation.

We see what I mean.

We must avoid a situation where... Where...

They, in fact, killed...

I understand.

That's it.

We don't have control over it.

Part of it is so uncontrollable in this sense.

Let's suppose Bob goes up.

He does a fine job.

He's a good witness, and he's off.

Now, I'm thinking of Jim Grutter as an example.

He might blow.

Yep.

And the day after he blows,

And he's apple-cheeked, incredible, and all that.

Then the crescendo will start.

All of a sudden, it's McGregor's line.

Yeah.

But, you see, that's no good.

So it's really almost uncontrollable in that sense.

And he's used up in the process of saying McGregor's line.

That's right.

No way.

So I think we just have to...

We have to pray a little on that one, because it is out of our hands to handle.

How does McInerney stand at the moment?

The grand jury is disagreeing.

The grand jury is still going back over the ground.

And probably call him.

If he called again, I would judge.

But probably after Dean has called.

Dean does not yet have a firm date.

Because Dean now will try and resubmit it.

Is that right?

Yeah.

And by golly, I'm going to send a fellow up there to protect me because they're my boys.

All right.

A fellow up there to protect me because they're my boys.

Well, I'm just suggesting to you that we're rapidly approaching, almost unconsciously, a fundamental decision.

Just suggesting to you that we're rapidly approaching, almost unconsciously, a fundamental decision.

And you're saying to me, dig into the facts, and kind of spinning out that little decision as to your posture.

And you're saying to me, dig into the facts, and the scenario with Bob got me thinking about this after we talked.

And I realize now that spinning out that scenario with Bob got me thinking about this after we talked.

And I realize if we go the way that we have been going

And Bob goes up there and he testifies now that if we go the way that we have been going, he defies in garment fights for executive privilege in the invocation of the ground rules and advises the witnesses.

And Bob goes up there and he tests it.

We go through this whole process.

And six weeks later, bang, there's a torpedo that comes in.

He defies in garment fights for executive privilege in the ground rules.

invocation of the ground rules, and it's entirely, let's put it this way, the imputation to you is much stronger.

Really?

We go through this whole process, and six weeks later, bang, there's a torpedo.

It goes up there, and we're still standing with them.

All right.

It's an entirely

See, that isn't the second posture.

The second posture is not standing with anybody, but the president standing alone.

Let's put it another way.

The imputation to you is much stronger, saying everybody's got a burden of proof in this thing.

I'm willing to see how it all comes together.

I wonder if it isn't obvious from the very fact of the facts.

All right.

Yeah, but see, that isn't the second posture.

The second posture is not standing with anybody, but the president standing alone saying, everybody's got a burden of proof in this thing.

I'm willing to see how it all comes out.

I don't want anything to say to that guy.

Serve to that one.

I don't want anything to say to that guy.

Hold on.

Sir, I understand.

I'm not trying to articulate a .

That isn't going to work.

Oh, no, I understand.

I'm not.

That's, that's, that's, that's .

Well, I understand.

You can't even complain as I'm .

No, I, I.

Doing things, yeah, we're doing things, which is symbolic of one approach.

I don't mean to articulate this, but I mean that we're, and yet we were talking a while ago.

Doing things, yeah, we're doing things, which is symbolic of one approach.

And yet another, we were talking a while ago.

Along another approach.

And I want to be sure that we,

But more than that, he can negotiate with the committee staff.

And I want to be sure that we work out all kinds of details.

But more than that, he can negotiate with the committee staff.

He can work out all kinds of details.

He did.

at Great Lane.

It was interesting.

Thompson, the Republican, acquiesced to the idea of interrogatories.

Dash did not.

It was interesting.

Thompson, the Republican, the upshot of the whole, acquiesced to the idea of interrogatories.

The meeting had lasted three hours and there was no agreement.

Dash did not.

The upshot of the whole is long and short.

meeting and lasted three hours and there was no agreement.

My position tonight is that he's not going and that we're going to have to work on some kind of an alternative mode.

Now they said an interesting thing.

They said, well, we'd like to know within the next week of 10 days whether Dean is coming because he's not going and that we're going to have to work on some kind of an alternative mode.

They said, well, we'd like to know within the next week or 10 days whether Dean... And that within that way, because Dean is so central to our case, we will not practice coming out because we'd like to suggest the orderly development of our case immediately.

So they proposed, as litigation as we say,

Dean's not coming to subpoena and frame the issue.

That within that way, because Dean is so central to our case.

So my thinking on the basis, we will not prejudice the orderly development of our case.

So they propose, as soon as we say Dean's not coming,

to subpoena immediately.

That is to hedge the Dean effect tonight, not crystallize it, frame the issue.

So my thinking on the basis of that is to hedge the Dean effect tonight, not crystallize it.

Say that evidently the staff conversations were in

And I can put our side of the position, you know, our point of view on it.

And I can put our side of the position, you know.

I'd rather not give them a definite no on our point of view on it at this point for that reason.

But I'd rather not give them a definite no on Dean at this point for that reason.

Yeah.

they'll tend to break down and they'll miss

at the joining points.

And they'll miss at the joining points.

Depends a little on how they're organized.

They were there to talk last night, but they don't want anything before June.

Including McCord?

Correct.

Including McCord?

Correct.

Not even talking to McCord.

If they can possibly get Sirica to postpone the sentencing again.

Not even talking to McCord.

If they can possibly get Sirica to postpone the sentencing again, they will try.

Right.

See, that's the limiting factor right now.

Right now.

They have to complete their examination of it before.

They have to complete their examination of it before sentencing.

So that he sees how the court performs.

in a very, in a very real sense, in a very real sense, McCord, you know, McCord and all his, all his weaknesses is the product of Sirica's arrest.

Weakness is the product of Sirica's arrest.

Yes.

And it's,

And it's the proof of the fallacy of a judge being that way.

The rest is producing a bunch of...

The rest is producing a bunch of goddamn crap.

But the incentives you see in this... Goddamn crap.

But the incentives you see in this thing from a cork are just the first thing that comes into his mind.

Are just the first thing that comes into his mind.

Mind.

He doesn't get any...

time, I think Buchanan ought to give that to Wilson and some of these guys who will write it, ought to give that to Wilson and some of these guys who will write about the courts, get credibility, write about the courts.

They've got to start working on the courts.

They've got to start working on the

The other side, maybe, I don't know.

The other side, though, is that I do want to see about that.

Whether we just want to talk about the fact that we aren't meeting our wife anymore.

You know, the writing, so the writing, the listening, the information, you see, we want to see it.

On the other side, I think that our friends in the writing department, such as the President's and Wilson's and so forth, you ought to be a little on every side, though, is the background for that.

I do know the whole situation.

I feel that you ought to, in other words, get the writing from the press, the opinion makers, and the other parts of the piece together.

get them understanding that they can quit.

They can quit now writing about wanting to cooperate and work on this on the bench.

You know, the Roscoe Drummond group that I, I think they've done a great job.

They've created the parents of that.

It seems to me it's not like, in writing for Mr. Drummond, it's that, Wilson and so forth, you ought to be a little,

It seems to me it's

What I'm getting at is I don't know what it really adds in that case.

I don't know what it really adds in that case.

I don't want to be in a position of restating out being bad.

We don't have a lot of red hot dogs on our farm.

Postpone it to tomorrow.

Yeah.

Postpone it to next week.

Next week, talk to me about energy.

I think we've got to.

We're going to have a cabinet meeting.

I think we've got to.

We're going to have a cabinet meeting.

We're there, you know, just so that they can come in.

We're there.

We want to be safe.

Be sure that the calls are carefully made.

The calls are carefully made.

I respectfully suggest that they're carefully made.

Be careful today.

The cabins have several cabins.

And that will be on the subject of energy which touches all our departments.

Um, no, uh, frankly, um, no, I, I, frankly, I, I just don't want one.

Don't want one.

For one thing, it's too early to get the energy thing out.

And, uh, I had to move the thing out.

And, uh, I had to move.

She gets to be, she gets up on the schedule just to see if we left on the schedule just to see the Watergate thing.

We wanted to do this Watergate thing.

And, uh, and, uh, I'm not, I'm not terribly keen on doing it.

I'm terribly keen on doing it.

The reason is, the reason is, the reason is that it does restate the rules.

It does restate the rules.

The other speculation was whether or not we would have anything on the economy that we wanted to discuss.

And we said whether or not we would have anything on the economy that we wanted to discuss.

And we said we really won't.

And we really won't.

And so my folks as well, I just as well,

I just will not have it.

I would like you to, well, I would like you to have a crack at this in your reading over the weekend.

I would like you to, I would like you to have a crack at work.

You'll be gone.

Actually, you'll be gone.

You'll be gone, but actually you'll be gone.

And I think you'll be able to see.

It's quite what the reality is.

And I think of just reading it.

It's simple in the way that it's been written.

And I think you'll be able to see what the realities are here.

I don't know what it's coming up with, but I think it's

I'll have a memo in that will describe both Arthur and John Connolly's positions for you.

Will you see both?

No, I'll see Arthur and John Connolly's positions.

Will you see both?

No, Connolly's here.

I'll talk to him on the phone.

Oh, is he?

Oh, well, you can get it.

You can get it out there in person.

I don't know unless it just happens in conversation then.

When he's here, I'll talk to him on the phone.

If you want to go out, I'll see him.

Well, is he going to reduce his drive?

No.

Okay.

Well, that's fine.

Oh, well, you can get it.

You can get it.

I didn't know you were going to be here.

I didn't have the phone.

Well, I'll see Arthur.

If you want to go out, I'll see him.

Okay.

Oh, that's fine.

I had intended, I didn't know you were going to be here.

I had intended to phone you.

Well, I'll see you after and give you a synopsis of that.

I'll see you in my mind.

I can't get over it.

It's sort of deep-seated.

I can't get over it.

That's kind of the... That's kind of the... That's just sort of... That's just sort of...

Maritime equilibrium kind of thing.

Maritime equilibrium argument.

That's mostly what they have a concern about.

First John.

I think my reason is this.

If there are surges, that will make it work.

If that's what you just did, one of the bike runners will do it then.

You just heard the boom.

If that's what you just did, one of the bike runners will do it then.

In other words, I tell a lot.

You just heard the boom.

I've got the boom in place.

I have no question.

In other words, the question is

I, I, I lend you money.

And if you were to talk to the Wall Street assholes today compared to three days ago, as I said, I, I, I, I lend you money.

There's a number coming up for all of us.

There's probably less coming up.

And if you were to talk to the Wall Street assholes today compared to, you know, their attention span is only three days ago.

There's a number of six hours.

It seems to me it was really done.

They're coming up.

Well, you know, an old, old asser can't remember a year back.

Their attention span is only 36 hours.

It seems to me it really does.

An old, old asser can't remember a year back.

You know, what's happening?

I mean, what's the problem?

Yeah.

I listen to a guy, I listen to a fellow every now and then.

I listen to a guy, I listen to a fellow every morning while I'm shaving, while I'm shaving.

And they don't.

There's a business editor at one of these news stations.

And they don't.

And you don't.

There's a business editor.

Well, I think you probably are right.

I think you, it may be, it may be, it may be that you want to see if you look at it.

It may be that you want to see if you look at it.

What's, Garmin's view probably is that he shouldn't go there next.

Who said that?

Hold on.

The Garmin said that?

Hold on.

I'm just trying to sort out here what we're doing and whether we're passing points.

The garment should go?

Oh, no.

No, no.

I'm just trying to sort out here what we're doing and whether we're passing points and no returns.

The best way to find that out, I think, is to agree whether or not garments be

They're going to, but I don't think we're going to get it anyway.

I don't believe, I just don't believe that.

I mean, it's, look, they're, they're there.

It's going to change that.

I mean, it's, look, they're, they're going to say, well, they're holding.

I'm not sure.

That's the way.

That's the way I'm accustomed to trying.

I lost it.

That's the way.

That's the way I'm accustomed to trying.

I lost it.

Well, as I said, my, my thing, well,

That's just two different ways of trying to case.

That approach would say

the way uh

we must look down the road on Bob and see whether the chances are of our coming to a position

My intention, whether the, whether we are, because you do it particularly for the Madison's, for me, it is, whether there wasn't a chance of a higher competency, but I think if you were to a higher position, where the Republican city has to go to the borough,

that a responsible Republican, for his usefulness, in dealing, in running, as we'll say, is killed.

That's the point.

Now, let's say, let's say, I expect it's examined.

If a responsible Republican say that, you could take it and say,

particularly when the man is innocent, and if he is innocent.

Now there is the, but I think if you were to question the environment now, he'd say, yes, go through the horror that is created.

Well, his usefulness in dealing and running the government is killing.

That's the point.

That's, that's her, you can, yeah, I expected that, that.

...regardless of how the evidence goes in on their... ...regardless of how the evidence goes in... ...regardless of how the evidence goes in... ...regardless of how the evidence goes in... ...regardless of how the evidence goes in... ...regardless of how the evidence goes in... ...regardless of how the evidence goes in... ...regardless of how the evidence goes in...

That's going to be obviously going to be the Achilles heel hurting.

Regardless of how well he comes off.

I understand.

I just alert you to the fact that it isn't an either-or kind of situation.

It isn't an either-or kind of situation.

The question is whether it's going to get to be pervasive in that kind of talk.

The question is whether it's going to be pervasive, tolerable, intolerable, or not.

I don't think anybody's smart enough to be able to say, or not.

I don't think anybody's smart enough to be able to say, but I'll...

But I'm sure watching and trying to minimize it.

And one of the ways that we may try to minimize it, one of the ways that we may be able to minimize it is to sit down with guys like Goldberg.

to sit down with guys like Goldwater, Bannon, and people of that ilk, and people of that ilk, before he goes before the committee, and say, before he goes before the committee, and say, I'm going, do you have any advice for me?

Wouldn't make a difference.

I have some tax types upstairs that I've got.

I have to get up some tax types upstairs that I've got.

I don't want to.

You see what I mean?

Thank you.

I don't believe that's going to happen.

I understand.

That's it.

We don't have control over it.

And this guy does a fine job.

No, I'm thinking of Jim Grutter.

He does a fine job.

No, I'm thinking of Jim Grutter as an example.

He might blow up.

Yep.

He might blow up.

Yep.

And the day after he blows up,

And the day after he blows, he's apple-cheeked, incredible, and all that.

Then the crescendo will start.

So it's really almost uncontrollable in that sense.

And he's used up uncontrollable in that sense.

And he's used up in the process of saying Magruder's line.

No way.

So I think we just have to say Magruder's line.

That's very low on that way, because it is.

So I think we just, it is out of our hands to, we have very little to handle.

I don't know how to extend the moment on that one, because it is, it is out of our hands to, to handle.

I don't know how to extend the moment.

Grandjuror, it's just Grandjuror.

Grandjuror is still here.

Grandjuror is still going to come back up on the ground and probably call him.

He'll be back on the ground.

Because Dean, now trying to resubmit, is that right?

And it's changed them today.

Today, strong.

It's great.

They've already been on it.

And, well, strong.

It's been great.

They've already been on it.

There's a sad thing.

And, well, I mean, there's a sad thing.

I mean, there's a sad thing.

That's right.

Go ahead, Sam.

therapy therapy therapy therapy therapy