Conversation 897-016

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

A couple quick things.

I've been meeting with Bob and John this morning.

Did you go over the building case?

No, I was meeting with them.

Well, a couple very quick things.

As you have been told, I think, by John, I've been

involved in some of your meetings and so forth with Dick Moore, Len Garment, and Chappie Rose.

Len Garment, as Bob mentioned to you, wants to sit here.

Well, I'd like to offer a point to you.

Basically, I can get into some of Len's thinking with you if you'd like.

I would prefer not to.

But I think it would, my judgment, which I would like to suggest, is that it might be good to see

Lynn before Rogers, because Lynn may raise some points that I think would be good to check with .

Well, what I told Lynn is that .

Well, I told Lynn, I said, what you should do, man, is .

Well, what I told him is to take

time now before he sees you to lock himself in his office, to sit down and block out on yellow paper or, you know, his views so that he can present you a solution.

That's what he's doing right now.

I said the president does not need any more facts.

I see.

That's what I told him.

I said the president does not need any agonizing about the fact that we have a problem.

All that you, all that he needs, all that, uh,

he needs is your thinking, because you've been asked to steep yourself in it, as you keep saying, and you have done that, and you have a recommendation to put to the president.

Do it, but do the recommendation and don't spend the time agonizing.

So he's in that frame of mind.

Therefore, I think, you know, he's asked for five minutes and saying give him eight minutes or something.

It would be good to get his view before Rogers, because I think Rogers would be a good person to try him out on.

So that's the garment, the thought.

Now I can take your time with some additional thoughts now or wait, whatever you prefer.

John, we've been very frank in our meetings.

Well, he said he'd prefer me to talk to you alone.

Several things that should be provided to you so that you have in your mind, just from a general standpoint and perspective.

At the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Rosenfeld, who is the Metropolitan Editor for The Post,

who has been the man in charge of the story, because Woodward and Berg seemed to fall under the metropolitan side, which is unusual, mentioned to Ray Price, who used to work for Rosenfeld at the New York Tribune, that he has been agonizing over this matter, that they have a lot more information than has been present, that Rosenfeld feels that

The story will be told in its entirety.

But they are tying together some loose ends now, but he insists that anything printed is tied now.

This is what he said.

And that his concern is that it will, when the story unfolds and breaks by the post, that it will hurt the presidency, the current president, and the office of the presidency.

Ray, recognizing his view on this type of thing, although he did not do anything but report this,

points out that Rosenfeld is one of the few people in a high position on the post who is a conscientious professional, and indeed volunteered to Price, and I believe him, that he supported you for public office consistently, including the recent election, and makes that point to Price, but saying that this is a story that will be told and must be told.

Now, combine that with the discussion

speechwriter, Gergen, had with Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, also at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, on the basis that Gergen and Woodward were former college chums.

Woodward made the point separately that the Post has far more information than they have reported, that they are tying up ends now, and that anything less than full disclosure at this time would pose

with what I sensed from Woodward's inquiries to...

In other words, they got a few more things, but they don't know what we know now.

I don't believe so, but I think they're running down that line.

They're running down the line, I think we can assume, specifically on the post-trial information, because they've already had a story on that.

Now... That's a big story.

Yes, sir.

That's correct.

Now, Woodward also, Gergensen had some, you know, hang-ups in

to the degree that Gergen feels Woodward is into something that he's bigger than he can handle.

But in any event, both men made the point that they have additional information, broader in scope than anything that has appeared.

Woodward went so far as to say to Gergen that he would like to sit out with him and go over this with him, which Gergen did not do.

My view is that

The activity of the Post over the last five or six days suggests that they are hovering on the outer fringes here, waiting to assess what move the White House will take, and then drawing a conclusion as to whether or not to discredit that move.

So I think we have to keep that in mind.

Now, second, that is to put into perspective at least the press side of it.

The grand jury is very good.

You know them.

In terms of the posture of the President, and this is something that was talked about by Chappie Rose, who's a very sharp guy, Moore and Garner and myself, it seems at the minimum that should be done from the standpoint of the posture of the President.

You have been informed of certain information by the Attorney General.

You have become aware of your own initiative over the past period.

that we held is stated.

You face a situation where John Dean, your counsel, who was placed in charge of this, provided you an accurate Watergate report, but not a complete one.

Therefore, but the facts that the president has been told, at least as I understand it, in terms of Dean, is that you were forced to make judgments

based upon only 32% of the information that he had available to him.

In all fairness to John, I'm talking now about what will come out later.

That's correct.

So I'm saying... Well, also... No, the rationale is

Yesterday, or at some point, the attorney general says to you that the grand jury is uncovering information.

That's it.

But I'm not going to give the attorney general like, you know, we found that out ourselves.

That's what I said.

Through our investigation, we were turning it over to get that out.

I mean, I found it to the dean and so forth and so on.

That's a must.

I agree with that.

My point on John Deaton is that based on the information that you have obtained, you are now aware that he had information that he could have provided to you both post

and pretty trial, which has just now come to your attention.

Now, the only action that people can relate to on the part of anyone, when you become aware of that information, is decisive action, unless the man did not do right.

Yeah, the problem you've got there is this, being the scapegoat is only going to make it worse.

I mean, what do you think of the three-yard homeowner, to be quite candid?

Of course, Dean would not necessarily be the scapegoat in this case.

But the only choice you had, Mr. President, is in terms of that, at some point...

But at some point, the trial records, public trial records, will show that Dean did attend meetings

that Dean did have information that suggested the corruption of justice or something of that sort.

And the reaction to that would be, if he did not tell you, then you should have been aware of that.

So particularly from your counsel, if he had that knowledge, so that you could move against him.

If he did tell you,

So in other words, there's no positive way out of it.

So the action now, in my view and in the view of this group, is, at the minimum, action.

Well, let me tell you, the US attorney is going to tell me that Peterson told me last night that I said, I'm going to get her.

I said, get me a resignation.

He said, don't do it.

The rest of all, we're negotiating a plea with him.

Now, if I got older in the day, they would say that with knowledge, they would judge their efforts to get other things.

Now, how do you handle that?

Well, let's see, that's where I... That's the problem.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't...

I looked at that question last night with the readers, and I said, look, I got this information, so I'm going to let it go very quick.

And Joe Bean, right out of his admission I had here this morning, he's going to get it to me.

I see your point, buddy.

Minimum action, it seems, is that the president announces awareness, developed over the last few weeks, meeting with the attorney general, the action that you've undertaken here in the last 48 hours, which brings to your attention that you had before you less than all the facts.

Then, based upon the information that you have received, you have taken certain actions, appointing a special prosecutor.

No, we aren't going to look at this.

We can't.

But I've taken the action of receptively turning down this qualification.

So I appointed Peterson as being the man acting in charge of this thing.

And he reported directly to me.

Nobody else, nobody else in my house.

Peterson's reporting directly to me.

And don't worry, he's telling us the son of a bitch.

That's the best I can do.

Well, that's, that, that, I suppose, look, that is special prosecutor, really, but not doing anything.

It is special prosecutor.

We can't go to the outside.

I think we're probably going to the outside.

One of them says, this is the people, Mike Peterson, he was one of the special prosecutors.

He said he'd take him a month to learn the goddamn thing.

And by that time, he said the Washington Post and the Irving Committee would have it all out.

It looked like the Department of Justice hadn't done its job.

He said, no, we haven't done the job.

He says, it's going to look better if we do the job rather than the urge of anyone in this paper.

Peterson.

Peterson said this to me.

He tried to.

Peterson is solid.

Solid.

I mean, solid in what way?

Well, I mean in terms of any prior contacts he may have had with Dean, in fact.

He is coming in.

He took me last night when he thought I should get the rest of the issues called and heard as well, Steve.

Well, the Peterson thing is an action.

Oh, yes.

We're talking about minimums now.

And they've reported correctly to me.

That's correct.

That I'm...

I wish there could be more.

Of course, then there's...

Delays in case.

Then there's... No, I think this is better than the special prosecutor.

Go ahead.

Then, of course...

Further action would be the Dean step, which is the...

Accept his resignation.

Or at least remove him publicly from any involvement in the case.

Oh, yeah.

Well, honestly, I already did that two weeks ago.

Right.

But no one knows that.

The public does not know that.

Then, of course, there's the Magruder problem.

However, that is dealt with from the... Well, Magruder would be removed.

He should be suspended.

That again, I'll ask Peterson if he wants me to remove him before we testify.

See, that's the point.

Since we know that he's involved, I think we should just have him removed.

Well, that's something that... That'll tip off the case, though.

You see, they don't want to tip the case off to the press anymore.

I understand they don't want to tip off the case, but if there's going to be bold action from the part of the presidency after the nine months where you did not have the complete evidence, we have to be very cautious in not having the Justice Department crack it.

Well, I'm very aware of it.

I'm going to hit Peterson hard at 1.30 today.

That's a very good one to go on.

Okay, well then that could be the minimum.

And perhaps then also make the point that Grand Jury is the place to pursue this in fairness.

Maybe have a comment about the committee itself, but those are things once you determine your first election that can work out.

Thanks.

That's right, but keep in mind the public posture.

For example, the news today on the Watergate is simply the fact that Mathias has associated himself with Irving, and White House aides who do not appear should be arrested to come before the committee.

So what do you think we should do?

Do you want us to say that Will O'Hare didn't?

Well, I think whether or not you say that or have to say it depends on the course of action you determine, see?

Because— You're still against Irving, right?

Well, I think that, as you said earlier, becomes sort of irrelevant now that—

I think action could be taken, or at least there's an option for action to be taken at the total checkmate to continue putting out a business.

Let me say this.

Yeah, that's true, but would you say that the...

I can say this, and I can say it, and I'm correct at all, if you're a board of committee, you can take a recession.

Do you believe that would be...

Under oath?

Oh, yes.

Right.

That's what I mean.

I apologize.

I think the decision regarding what we say and do about the committee rests on what your decision is and what you do about Dean Magruder and how you intend to proceed.

I think that is the last decision that should be made based upon .

I think he would agree with my assumption.

That is the last decision to make.

Okay, that's option one.

There are others who in this group and in the discussion.

No, sir.

That would say you take the steps which I just mentioned, but also based upon the information that you have compiled over the last period, recommend that you suspend all members of the White House staff who have been mentioned to you as having any contact.

The problem with that, of course, is that you never recover it.

I don't favor suspension, though, sir, because you gain nothing.

Under that line, under suspension, you've condemned them, number one, but you've accomplished nothing.

Because you still have information coming out in the trial about the men.

And secondly, you have information coming out in the press about the men, which is the same result as whether or not they're here or they're suspended.

So I accept that I have cleared the White House.

but you can't do that you've cleared the White House of anyone having prior knowledge of the Watergate burglary but you have not cleared anyone in the White House of having even tangential knowledge of the post-trial post-arrest periods and the facts as they seem to be stacking up

at some point, it may be May the 15th, it may be May the 25th, it may be this Friday, information is going to come out, probably in the press, regarding Haldeman and Erwin.

And I think if it doesn't come out at that point, it will come out at the time of a trial.

What would you do about that?

How do you anticipate that?

Well,

I think any decision that is made has to anticipate that.

Ron, I'm trying to get what you did, because that's one question I'm going to get into.

Ron, what do you think we should do about that?

You wouldn't have their, you wouldn't suspend them now, is that right?

I would not suspend them, no, sir.

Why not?

Well, because you accomplish nothing through suspension.

In order to make a decision on suspension, you've got to make a decision on losing the man.

In other words, my point is... Well, when you say suspend, I'm going to say I'm sorry.

But I didn't say they are suspended until they're cleared.

That's right.

But having said that, you have to...

Assume you never get it back.

You'll never get it back.

Okay.

So don't...

Therefore, you want...

The other point, that's what the argument is.

They say, well, God damn it, they're going to be driven out.

Yes, sir.

That's a very strong argument.

It comes down, if I can attempt to summarize here, it comes down to limited action, which is the first option we've talked about, or total action.

Now, there is nothing in between.

In other words, suspension is not a good idea, because suspension is really total action, but you do not, as the president, benefit the most from the suspended suspension.

Because everything that would result from the...

It's my view that you can't act on home and herb unless and until charges are made that are serious, that impair their effectiveness.

And then they've got to come in and say, we are, we asked them to resign until we got a chance to do it.

But they, I think that has to be, is that what you would say?

Or do you think you should wait until you have, see if I've had, see if I'm there in the titles of whatever charges you've made, they're entitled to their day of court.

Absolutely.

And they may not even be in there.

They may not be in there.

I don't think they will be.

My point is that I just feel that I can't do it.

But on the other hand, their usefulness may be destroyed.

Do you agree with that?

That's a very real possibility.

So how do you handle that?

And when you wouldn't handle that, that's the whole point.

Their usefulness is not destroyed yet either.

That's where the tough call comes in, between minimum or maximum action.

But under the minimum action, I think the point I'm making for your consideration is that the minimum action at some point down the line, information regarding Segretti and Hall, information regarding

the $350,000 and all of it.

Information regarding how it was transferred to the committee will come out.

All of that transferred to the committee will come out.

All of that will come out as its own testimony.

That fact is going to come out as its own testimony.

That in itself, that fact in itself, public opinion, if not legally, is enough to condemn Bob anyway.

If not legally,

is enough to keep Ed Bob anyway.

So...

So... That's...

So... That's... That's... That's the tough... That's the tough call.

Do... Is the call that... Take a call.

Is the call that... Is the call that you... Is the call that you take minimum action and allow these events to unfold and then take minimum action

And allow these events to unfold and then deal with the Haldeman situation as it develops.

Is that fair to Bob?

Is the Haldeman situation as it develops, is that fair to Bob in this unparalleled presence?

Secondly, the suspension route is fair to no one.

If the garment line is, and I've discussed this with Bob, I've discussed this with Bob, very frankly, if the garment line is the broad approach, very frankly, if the garment line is the broad approach to it, he rises to it, he rises above it, resigns above it, resigns and carries the thing at the higher level.

In other words, he carries the thing at the higher level.

Bob establishes himself in public opinion, in the country, as a man who was not responsible, who was not guilty of responsibility, who was not guilty of illegal illegality, but a man who recognizes that things can get illegality, but a man who recognizes that

things can get out of hand and government steps out of hand and gets up to the problem, steps up to the problem, and moves on that basis.

Now, I told Bob, as I passed this view on time, that I'm the one that can even draw judgment on that, because I have a long-time association with Haldeman, and it's tough for me to, but I did feel the responsibility to tell him this.

Well, if... You prefer the big play?

And I'm not prepared to give you a statement on that.

And moves on that basis.

Now, I told Bob, but in making a judgment, it seems to me that you should be candidly told by all of the people who have awareness of this, that this will be a long time, that I'm the one that can even draw a judgment on it.

because I have a long-time association with Haldeman, and it's tough for me to...

But I did feel the responsibility to tell him this.

The story will come out in terms of not only the Magruder activities and the Mitchell activities, but also... Well, if...

But also, but also, the story regarding White House staff people at the highest level...

I don't, I'm not, I keep, I'm not prepared to give you the statement.

Don't come out.

Oh, sure.

No question about that.

At some point.

Accepting that, accepting that.

Mr. President.

But in making a judgment, it seems, what action does the president take to totally isolate to me that you should be candidly told

Oval Office from this, as it should be and is, so that the impression of public opinion by all of the people who have awareness of this, that after these nine months of cover-up, cannot suggest further cover-up.

So that story will come out in terms of not only the Magruder activity, but bold play versus minimum play is a

Minimum action on it ensures the fact that the story regarding White House staff people at the highest level will come out.

It is an ongoing story of revelation.

Ongoing for how long and how broad and distorted in scope?

No question about that.

Accepting that it is hard to predict, but it is ongoing.

The committee, grand jury, leaks, trial testimony.

Accepting that, what action does the president take to the bold play or the broad play, if taken, must be taken in its entirety.

Totally isolate the invisible office from Chappie Rose's point of view.

Because if a bold play, so that the impression of public opinion, Chappie's put a bold play.

After these nine months of cover-up, cannot suggest further cover-up.

If not earlier than he would have Holloman, I think, do it on a broader scale.

so that bold play the bold play or any play that does not tell the whole story versus minimum play is should take that as a disaster see because if Bob for example would say give me a minimum action on it

$350,000 was here and we didn't use it, send it back to the committee.

Disaster.

Because it ensures the fact that it is an ongoing, maybe in a month, story that's going to come out.

The man took it in the suitcase and all that type of thing, which in itself is not illegal, but revelation.

Ongoing for how long and how broad and distorted in scope is hardly impression in a public opinion.

As I told Bob, my view is

that would destroy Bob and retain him as a person for a bit, but it is ongoing.

The committee, grand jury, leaks, in the country.

Yep.

So.

He doesn't lay it out.

He doesn't know where the hell it's going.

He doesn't, sure, contest the plan.

The bold play, or the broad play, if taken.

He doesn't, but he takes a hell of a lot of it there.

So you've got to say that.

Must be taken into account.

In its entirety, and this is Chappie Rose's point, because if a bold player, you ask me, what do I think of the bold player, the minimum option?

When I get to that point, which I think of the bold player, my recommendation is not very good because I've obviously given him the lead.

You see, there's another problem, too.

Let me put a bold player.

If not, it concerns me that I didn't know this thing, if you could be sure.

I didn't know about the 350,000 number.

Earlier, he would have Haldeman, I think, do it on a broader scale.

I didn't know.

I mean, Dean didn't tell me.

Haldeman didn't tell me.

You know what I mean?

Now, the bold play, or any play,

that does not tell the whole story.

It is fraught with disaster.

See, because of Bob, for example.

See, this goes to the argument that Jeff would say, give me an honest picture.

$350,000 was here, and we didn't use it.

Send it to your brother's place.

The point you just made, back to the committee, the disaster, because in three weeks, maybe in a month, it's going to come out.

Having become aware of this information, after nine months of all of this press speculation, look at the suitcase and all that type of thing, which in itself is not illegal, but the impression in the leaks and so forth, much of which

You are fined out within a 10-day period.

As I told Bob, my view is that would destroy Bob and would taint him as a person for a 20-day period.

That's your own admission.

A lot of that was right, and you were not told about it.

You were not told about it by Dean.

You were not told it in the country.

Yep.

You've got to lay it out for me before you let us go.

Even hold it.

What is the legitimate reaction?

Not only of a president, but of a man who runs a company, or a man who has any... You asked me what I think of the bold play or the minimum use.

It's the question.

I don't even have the option.

Shocked.

When I get to that point, my recommendation is not very good because .

In other words, if I which is .

You see, there's another problem too, you know.

The case information was provided to you that said to you concerns me that men, particularly I didn't know this thing.

could have given you additional information for you to make judgments something people can relate to

very hard on the men.

It's...

I've, you know, never...

I've read in the papers about the defense.

I was a little busy in that story this period.

Been through something like this, obviously.

But you say it's hard on the men.

Let me just say, I'm not... See, this goes to the argument that Chappie Rose makes in the more...

Thank you.

Thank you, but

The point you just made, having become aware of that, after nine months of all of this press speculation, leaks, and so forth,

much of which, in this particular case, is accurate.

You are fined out within a 10-day period or a 20-day period.

That's your own admission.

But a lot of that was right, and you were not told about it.

And we're not told about it by Dean.

And we're not told about it from others.

Even Holden.

What is the legitimate reaction, not only of the president, but of a man who runs a company or a man who has any... No, no.

From a slightly, slightly situation.

In other words, if yesterday afternoon, which is the case, information was provided to you that said to you that men, particularly in this case, D, could have given you additional information for you to make judgments on the information.

fail to do it, then the action that you take must be snuffed.

It must be bold.

It's something people can relate to.

Now, it's very hard on the men.

I've never been through something like this, obviously.

But you say it's hard on the men.

Let me just say, I'm not thanking you in cold terms.

Well, let me tell you this.

We're going to have to, we're going to have to, I don't know which one, Dr. Rogers, and I'll consider all these things, but you can be goddamned sure that it's