On April 17, 1973, President Richard M. Nixon, Henry E. Petersen, and unknown person(s) met in the Oval Office of the White House from 2:46 pm to 3:49 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 898-021 of the White House Tapes.
Transcript (AI-Generated)This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.
I don't think we'll say that, Mr. President.
I mean, I think that's fine for you and I to share your concerns on that.
But to state that publicly,
it seems to me it will have a tendency to prevent people from coming in.
In effect, we'll be right back to where we were without the immunity statute, where the Fifth Amendment is a complete bar.
Even if we never utilize immunity, the fact that it's there and can be used to strip them of the Fifth Amendment rights is a terribly important tactic to have available.
That phrase in there takes that tactic away from us.
The tactic of immunity.
For example, we might want to immunize Strong.
No, no, no.
But then you get into the question of who's a person of importance.
The Washington Post may very well think that Strong's a person of importance.
Anybody who works at the White House is a person of importance, as distinguished from the minor underlings, as far as you're concerned.
It's a major government person, a major government person.
I would prefer to not say it.
But that's a sophisticated point, isn't it?
Oh, it isn't a sophisticated point after the fact.
But at this point in time, in conjunction with this statement, it's going to take a rather astute reporter to raise it.
Well, is immunity going to be utilized?
That question is easily fended.
That's a prosecutorial tactic, and that will be handled by the prosecutors if and when it's necessary.
You could say, I would hope that no significant figure is in your eyes.
It's mine.
I express my...
I don't know how to put it in a name.
I would hope.
I've expressed my concern to the Department of Justice that no person should be immunized.
That's too strong.
That's too strong.
That's a double entendre, if you like.
In effect, that says you're taking away a prosecutorial fool.
I express my view to the appropriate authority, shall we say, that I have not favored thee.
I have expressed my hope.
to the appropriate authorities that it would not be necessary to immunize any major official in order to develop a prosecutable case.
OK.
I don't know.
With the prosecution.
With the prosecution.
With the prosecution team.
With the prosecution team.
I don't think that means anything.
I think it says too much.
Yes.
What you're saying to me, as I say that, I want to be very clear on the whole of the curriculum thing.
That if they were left out of the non-indictable list, it gives me a little running.
I want to be very clear.
That's right.
That's right.
And it doesn't mean that they are going to eventually be indicted if you get the facts.
That's right.
But it does mean that they have not, that they aren't canned as a result of it.
That's what we're getting at.
You'd have to put Dean in that list, wouldn't you?
Yes, sir.
I guess you'd have to, whatever they pretend.
That's right.
And, you know, if we confound the...
Yes, but he does, but not in a first-hand sense.
But, you see, if he makes that statement in open court, it seems to me it makes your practical difficulties just as severe as if we had named him in the first place.
Well, I'm glad to get this kind of clear view of where the options are.
And if we, frankly, if we think that Sir Richard's going to elicit that kind of statement, we'll include him in the charge to the extent that we can.
Yeah, sure.
That's right, except it's only the fact that we can corroborate it later on.
Well, you know, I've told that probably not today.
And the, but I, I guarantee you at least 12 hours notice.
Can you get it up?
I'll guarantee you that.
I'll hold it up to make certain you get it.
Yeah.
The other hand, I suppose you should say Oscar Weiss, that third year starter, he did a hell of a big play.
I didn't say he did a play.
And other stories that are not so likely to blow up.
Could, could.
Everything's likely to go around here.
But at least you give me the, there's nothing in this.
If we ever take this back, do we go down there and, of course, we know this damn thing.
That's right.
So basically, we're in a pretty good position to say that.
Except I don't want to.
As I said, I don't want the Washington Post to break this case.
Well, that's right, and we don't either.
I want the Department of Justice and, frankly, the White House, because, as you can see, they're trying.
Okay.
I can see what you mean.
You would anticipate, then, if you didn't include them all in your general thing, the surrender will quite easily defend it.
And then he then will bring in.
If he brings that out, if we think that's a real possibility, then we'll have to decide whether or not, as a matter of conscience and professional ethics, we can put them in.
If we can answer that yes, then we'll put them in.
If, on the other hand,
We think there's no basis for it.
Even if Surrogate does bring out the hearsay, we'll just have to take the knuckle for it.
Sure.
Which is basically what Surrogate was.
Yes.
Colson?
How did you know about him, too?
Well, you know, Bidman went to Colson to urge leniency.
Colson then got in touch with Ehrlichman and Dean.
As Elizabeth said, we'll do the best we can and make no commitments.
Then thereafter, you know, apparently money flows, if so we're told.
Whether there's any relevancy or relationship remains to be determined.
Well, apparently to hunt.
That remains to be developed.
Dorothy Hunt was, according to McCord, the intermediary.
And another intermediary was LaRue.
And LaRue used the alias of Baker, two aliases.
One was Baker, and I've forgotten the other one, for the transmittal of money.
One of the things that concerns me in this area, and again,
an area in which I may have made a mistake earlier in the game, is with respect to Kalmbach.
Now, I understand he's your personal lawyer.
Is that a fact?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Very good.
And I can say that if he, as I understand, they called and said, raise some money for the purchase over.
And I'm sure he was no damn conspirator.
Well, here's to that one.
In the early stages of the proceeding, when they had
in the grand jury.
I told Silbert, now, goddammit, Silbert, keep your eye on the bar.
We're investigating Watergate.
We're not going to investigate the whole damn realm of politics.
And I don't want you questioning him about the president's lawyer.
Well, he didn't.
Well, now, Comeback comes up.
And as you've heard on the news, I'm sure, today, he's apparently going to be called by the Senate committee.
But he also comes up in this investigation with respect to activating a comeback, raising money, or passing on money at Mitchell's direction for the co-conspirators.
So we're going to have to have a comeback back into the grand jury.
Well, that is, I suppose, there you've got to prove whether what he thought he was raising it for.
Well, I mean, even if he didn't know or he was misled, the fact that he did at the time would very, very well end up with him being a witness.
And again, on that particular account, I guess you were the one that said, the question is motive, what they're raising the money for.
You're trying to help them out with their defense, that's one thing.
But if you're helping them out to keep them quiet, that's the construction job.
That's right.
You know, if you're acting out a Christian charity.
That'll be the Michigan defense.
Well, of course, all the imprints just run the other way.
You know, that's a hell of a defense to have to put to the jury.
Well, I guess we've given you enough to chew on here.
We're going to get something out of the day.
I don't know if I'll see you tonight.
I may have a little bit of time.
If you don't think that you're going to come.
I'll be good.
We'll give you 12 hours notice.
nothing's going to happen today, I'm certain.
Even if we get an agreement today, you know, I can still hold it off a day.
You might hold it off even tomorrow.
That's right.
Because if we have to go see Irwin and Sirica, both, it may very well take a full day before we get both things accomplished.
I've got a huge schedule tomorrow.
It's an energy message and so forth and so on.
I don't want to tell you to hold it off, Irwin.
There's so many I's to dot and T's across this thing.
When you talk about holding off a day or two, it doesn't make that much difference.
That's right.
What do you think of it?
I think it's terribly important for you to get out front on this thing.
Irrespective of .
It says that.
That's significant news.
I think it's significant that it reflects that you're taking a personal interest in it.
I think it's significant that you say there's significant development, which means that you're personally informed and not only have endurance of what the prosecution is doing.
It's certainly not significant in terms of evidentiary fact, but we're never going to be in a position to do that anyway, unless there's public exposure in the court.
You know, there's another dimension that's present.
These fellows, Magruder and Dean, have talked to us.
They'd be less than human if they didn't watch to see if the system was surviving the test.
So there's another reason for their delay.
Conceivably, this may be too strong for the Department of Justice or the President or the people at the White House.
They're not going to have the courage to face up to this.
Let's wait and see what happens.
And if we don't see some movement, our bargaining position will become increasingly tougher day by day by day.
Believe me, it's the goddamn thing over here.
I think I'd probably go to Saudi Arabia.
Tell you the truth.
I gave a former attorney general of the United States being subject to criminal trials just for obstruction of justice.
Not for obstruction of justice.
Just terrible.
Okay.
All right.
Thanks very much.
I'll see if I can work something out today.
And if I don't, maybe tomorrow.
We'll see.
Okay.
Have a good day.
Yeah.
We'll try.
Hi, President Murray.
Sit down.
Sit down.
Yes, sir.
The, uh, anything you want me to know?
No, sir.
Uh, don't, as a matter of fact, I don't want you really to tell me anything on the grand jury.
I need to know it.
If you corroborate something, I don't want to hear it.
I need to know it.
Otherwise, I don't want to know about it.
That's good, because I don't think I would like, for example, I haven't been in touch with John Mitchell, but he might call me sometime.
I don't want to be in a position to never say anything.
Well, I understand how you feel.
I guess it would be legal for me to know.
Yes, I think it is legal for you to know.
Don't do it.
The problem that concerns me some there, I did see Bobby's last night.
I want to get an independent judgment on all this.
What I'm talking today about is about that gentleman.
He's very...
He's an admirable man.
He's able to follow me.
Yes, sir.
I'm an attorney general so far.
I gave it all to him in the park office, and I'm going to tell you here.
And his views are somewhat different from yours.
And I'm sure you will respect them, perhaps mine as well.
It's a tough call.
Indeed, sir.
I might say somewhat different.
I don't mean in terms of where you come out.
But in terms of timing and so forth and so on.
First, there is a problem of, which I don't want to get your take the ringer on this, but the belief of the Granger, remember I already mentioned that to you.
Yes, sir.
I think you have to know that Dean has talked very freely to Mitchell.
I'm sure that's so.
And Mitchell, of course, is, I don't know, but I think he should know that.
Whether he's talked to others about that, I don't know.
Well, he's got a very close personal relationship with Mitchell.
Quite is.
I think you'll have to assume
Dean in this period, who's basically sort of in charge of the White House, and the rest of us are on the campaign, and so forth and so on, will probably have told people that he has information from around the earth.
Now, you just have to evaluate that yourself.
I just don't want the Department of Justice, and you particularly, after your, the way you broke the ground.
Just if there's a president, I'm sure that's...
I don't want you to get embarrassed.
No.
I have no concern about that.
Well, two things are correct.
One, Magruder's talking.
Magruder's going around trying to make peace with each.
In other words, he'll come in to me and say, look, I'm in this bind, and I have to testify, and
nothing i can do but i gotta tell the complete truth about the others but with respect to you i'm doing the best i can because the pitch he's making now we've talked to his lawyers about that with respect to dean it doesn't surprise me that he's going to mitchell he's he's probably getting information to the great jury
Oh, oh.
That's the point.
Oh, yes.
All right.
June, July, August, September, and so forth.
That's the point that I came into.
Yeah.
I don't think that's a critical problem so far as I'm concerned, Mr. President, for this reason.
See, we don't want to, after all this agony, I don't want the, I don't want the, well, the man that I'm relying on to be in any kind of fault in that position.
Mr. President, I don't want to be in that position.
Yeah.
Well, hell, you're
Let me tell you, when I spoke to Dean, I'm not, I'm not, I just want to be sure.
Well, let me make three points.
When I said it, it's almost awkward to say it.
That's why, that's why Roger, for example, has recommended the special counsel.
He's very much braver than anybody who's been handling the thing up to this point.
He's going to have somebody piss on him.
Well, there, uh, well, with respect to, uh,
To John Dean, it's almost awkward to say.
My conversations with Dean touched upon three things.
One, leaks.
Frankly, I tell you, I don't take very seriously.
I mean, that's part and parcel of the marketing vision.
The second was Dean's personal involvement.
That is to say, what we didn't suspect.
But what did he do with respect to the securing of the equipment and records in Hunt's office in connection with the motion to suppress, where he was a potential witness for the defense on the motion to suppress?
And the third was status reports.
Now, on those status reports, I spoke to him in terms of ultimates.
Magruder was a good witness in his own behalf.
Magruder
the grand jury didn't believe what he said about the money but not the testimony itself the result of the testimony so i don't have any problem no sir and i can make disclosure to an attorney for the government and of course my work you know dean was in addition to counsel the president obviously attorney for the government and they're not anything improper right well good now politically if someone wants to say as they say to
To Pat Gray, you shouldn't have been talking to John Dean.
Well, there's no way out.
That's why I raised the point.
There's no way out.
That was perfectly proper for Pat Gray.
As a matter of fact, it would be improper for him not to be in the second investigation of the goddamn thing.
And I'm certainly expecting to get all the FBI information.
What the hell is the FBI for?
That's right.
You know, I don't think...
I don't think... That's demagoguery, I think.
I don't take that seriously.
That's right.
The second point is that
In regard to our statement now, what we talked about yesterday, I'm working on it today.
I don't know whether I can get it ready for probably the second.
But I'll give you a call if I do have one.
I decided to, and I want to tell you roughly, it's sort of like the one we worked on yesterday.
But also, it covers the Airborne Committee, too.
We worked on a deal with them now where everything on the second session
will be having an executive session.
The right of the executive judge will be reserved and all the witnesses will be reposed.
So they'll take all of our people in the executive session and discuss matters, you know, like the judge brings the lawyers out.
Does that sound like a good procedure?
Yes, sir.
I only got the one reservation, and we alluded to this earlier in connection with the Magruder plea, and that is whether or not Senator Irwin will be
willing to hold off a public session that might interfere with the right of fair trial for the others?
Well, you and I know we should.
But I mean, my point is, I've got to say, I just want to be sure we're going to come to the White House on it.
But that's your job.
Okay.
All right.
Just so there's nothing else.
I don't want the goddamn committee to go forward.
All right.
Okay.
I think, frankly, if I ever mentioned, I'd be crazy if the committee didn't.
Gives him delay, if nothing else.
Right.
Delay.
The crisis of the committee gets in there.
We'll splash a lot of this crap in the name of McCord and all the rest in there.
He's sure he's going to change the menu to one thing.
And second, I would think that he's the purpose of, you know, these days, change the menu to television and the rest.
I think the Urban Committee would be highly responsible for this.
Remember the example I used with you in the history?
That's right.
He dropped the committee investigation the day the grand jury took it out seriously.
Well, I mean, your accommodation with the committee makes my job much easier now.
Well, I think he would have been very, very suspicious if I had gone up there and it was still the possibility of confrontation between you and he.
No, because we still haven't gotten the assent from, well, not only Sirica, but Magruder's lawyers.
We're still waiting for them to come back.
It's been a long time.
Yes, sir.
Now, in regard to my policy, I think you should know, I thought it over a lot.
Where we come out at the end, we shall see.
We can be sure.
All of them are early.
Dean actually will have to go, because he's admitted that it's very deep, isn't it?
Right?
Yes, sir.
I don't think that.
I called him earlier than at this point.
He had a red document.
I'd only let him read what he would give me, but then I elaborated everything I could on this thing.
And his judgment was this, that earlier, it's a very thin, very thin reading.
He said, particularly, he said, if there were any witnesses to the fact they had a packet of the director of the FBI, it wouldn't be the country.
I don't understand.
I'm not trying to judge it.
No, I understand.
No, I agree that it's very, very serious.
He says he's got to get more than that, or they're not going to get earlier.
That's right.
That's right.
And the other point that was, that you made, was Dean said that he had probably, that he had told him everything on June the 19th.
Yes, sir.
You know when he told her?
California, after early March.
Dean told Hurley to admit.
That's right.
So it's a curious thing.
It's a great concern to me.
I'm sorry, Dean hasn't told me.
He didn't tell me.
He hasn't heard of me, but I mean.
What he admitted was that he was present at the Watergate.
Dean already knew from prior dealing.
that Liddy was involved, you see.
Oh, actually, the president wanted him.
That's right.
I thought he also, I thought you said he told everything.
Well, I think that's correct.
And he probably filled in the details.
But you recall, at least from the meeting in February in Mitchell's office, Dean knew what Liddy was up to.
Yeah.
Because he had come back to hold him and said, we should not be involved.
Yeah.
That's right.
That's right.
That's right.
Which makes it more credible.
Now, this brings us to a basic command decision with regard to what you do by way of speaking.
The main thing is not only what you command.
And you can look at it in terms of the fact that anybody that this touches should go out without this command.
and look at it in terms of the fact that it touches them and going along that line.
That's clearly a part of why they're running a legal stance on it.
Let's suppose, just to say it early, it's a case in point.
That's the thing that brought me back over here.
But that proves to be a W legally.
You don't get any elsewhere, I mean.
And the question is that nevertheless, that in itself would raise a cloud over early.
that would mean that he would be no longer useful.
And therefore, your advice, I mean, some of your, at least, was, you know, Mr. Sack, Baldwin, Kirk Erickman, and Dean, now, all three, because in the one case, Dean should be known that he has committed a felicity, and in the other case, there is a possibility of charges which may not be proved, and which may not be ignitable, but which, from the standpoint of the public,
that it will so involve them that it will cut off their legs.
And let me say that I buy the second point, as well.
The only thing is, it's a question of how and when you do it.
And that is my point.
And so I decided we would have each on a different basis.
And by that, I mean that a policy counter would be that
Anyone who refuses to cooperate will, of course, be sacked.
Anyone who is indicted will be put on leave, indefinitely, until he's trucked.
That's our system now.
If you indict somebody, I will then put him on leave indefinitely, which means he's out of his job and he'll have to go.
What would happen in that instance, of course, is that
Most of the people that are involved here will be reassigned.
So I'm just saying, at least at this concept, you're going to leave.
I said, oh, hell no.
I said, I can never come back.
That's what we would say at this point.
But it gives them a chance.
Now, here comes the grave.
And you started by saying that.
But I think publicly, by Magruder in open court, any charges that are made, not through Lee from the Rampant Ranch, right, publicly, which corroborate in any way against anyone in the White House staff, then he will be able to take a leave also.
And of course, what will happen, probably, I would predict, I know that they will come in and sign.
I mean, they'll come in and say, look, I can't do my job.
But I mean, the point is that my position is indictment means that if you cooperate, you're fired.
Indictment means you're asked to take a leave until you are cleared.
And then the individual will say, I can't do my job.
He's a top individual.
Or if it's a secretary, for example.
I had one the day before, a big three.
And third,
In the area of charges, charges are made.
What I'm thinking of here is Magruder.
If Magruder goes to open court, as I understand it, you'll make a statement in open court, which will name you for sure.
It might name Magruder, all of them, and might name her, right?
Well, what we propose to do is file a one-count conspiracy indictment that would name Magruder and unindicted co-conspirators.
And put their names in the indictment?
Yes, sir.
Then when the court questions the defendant with respect to the facts that reflect his guilt, Magruder then would be expounding on the indictment and, in fact, stating what the evidence was.
On the undiagnosed conspirators, this is Magruder.
But that would be in the water, that would be in the boat before it happened.
Magruder's been hung before it happened.
Well, he's also involved in the obstruction.
He is.
Because he purged himself before the grand jury at the suggestion alone.
So you would, so what you would have a Magruder, you would say we hereby indict Magruder and the following unindicted co-conspirators.
Which means an unindicted plaintiff.
That just means that for one reason or another, we don't want to charge him with time.
For example, I'm indicted.
Your name is an unindicted co-conspirator.
You're just as guilty as I am, but you're a witness.
We're not going to prosecute you.
I need to know that, because I don't know that.
But all of those people that we name, we propose to name only to the extent that we feel we can corroborate it.
The one thing we can't afford to do is name, for example, John Mitchell, then come up six months later with not enough evidence to name him.
That's right.
That's right.
Now...
Well, then I would consider that a charge.
That's right.
That's right.
In other words, there, in fact, I would then say that anybody that was indicted, if it was an unindicted co-conspirator, would then be immediately put on leave.
That's right.
Now, the other thing I want to tell you, though, and I say this strongly, I thought about it a lot.
I don't care what you do on immunity with Strawn or any other second people, but you cannot give immunity to any top people, not Dean.
Dean's state don't want it all on Earth.
Dean is the Council of the President.
After the flap of gray, I wonder what this will draw, because he says, Christ, after your flap of gray, the rest of it will look like that you're protecting yourself.
I just want you to know that you get immunity, but I will have to attack personally.
Let me put it this way.
I will not do that without your knowledge.
If it's necessary for me to do that, I'll come to you first.
And then we can reach an agreement that, yes, you'll have to disavow it, and that was a decision of the prosecutor.
I don't want to make that decision, Mr. President.
I don't want to immunize John Dean.
I think he's too high in the echelon.
But it's a...
The prosecutor's got the right to make that decision.
Yes, sir.
But the point of it is, if it comes to the question of...
Because your close relationship with Dean, which has been very close, it would look like a straight deal.
That's right.
But you've got to figure it.
That's right.
And I can say, as far as the president is concerned, if John Dean gets in, I don't care.
Early on in the hall, when all the rest of it, I can start to think about, well, why the hell did we give him immunization and not the poor goddamn humans?
Just don't sound right.
for you because of your relationship with the president.
Well, I hope we don't have to do that.
I'd rather have a plea for a lesser offense by Dean.
I think, too, that it's going to look awful.
We're in no disagreement on that at all.
The thing that scares the hell out of me is this.
Suppose Dean is the only key to Holman and Erlingman.
And the refusal to immunize means that Holtzman and Ehrlichman go free.
That's the decision that we're going to ultimately come down to.
Well, if you'd like to come in and leave with what you've got, sit there.
I will.
And let me handle all of it early.
I will, sir.
You get my question?
Yes, sir.
But I don't have to do anything to halt an argument just because what Dean says.
I can't do that.
It's got to be corroborated.
I agree with that.
Yes, sir.
And I'm not going to do anything with those two unless it's corroborated either.
Dean is a...
I didn't realize it until later.
I guess my guy is scary, doesn't he?
He's a man under great pressure.
Sure.
I feel it, of course.
So do I.
My lawyer.
34-year-old male with a bright future.
He's worked his ass off.
I understand.
But I just can't.
I cannot, for example, in good conscience, and you cannot in good conscience, say that you're going to consent and hold early, or anyone for that matter, or close down to on the uncorroborated evidence of John Dean.
So basically, what your problem is, and the problem of the prosecutors, is to find some corroboration for Dean.
Precisely right.
If you come in to me with Dean plus corroboration, and you tell me that, then we've got a difficult decision whether or not we want to immunize him or whether we have these solutions.
That's the importance of strong?
Maybe.
You see, that's the other, of course, you're strong in that case.
See, another way you can handle that is by getting curious.
Is it the, uh, Haldeman early game?
Well, let's take one.
Let's take Haldeman, for example.
Now, Erdman.
Erdman's the best case.
They're close to me, but they seem to be more tangential than Haldeman, right?
You both are more tangential than Haldeman.
Yes, right.
Let's take Erdman.
Let's say that the only testimony we have is something about, uh,
All right.
So, is he in the coalition?
I suppose you cannot get anybody that will corrupt from that.
All right.
And the question is,
Mr. President, I wouldn't prosecute Earl Quinn for that.
You might not.
Yes, sir.
Now, the second point is, let us suppose...
I mean, if he were a junior partner in the Peterson-Nixon law firm out in Oshkosh, I would not.
But as senior advisor to the President of the United States, I would.
That's the difference.
I can come to the other point.
Suppose you have deemed an imposition of...
Judge, it could be where he makes this charge against her.
No, what I'm getting at now, no, no, no, my point is, suppose you come in and say, look, I've got this charge.
Just wait, wait for this one hundred percent, but let us suppose you have witnesses that give testimony and credible witnesses the other day.
Then we'll deal with her.
If you haven't heard,
Coulson, for example, apparently is supposed to know about that and loves it.
He was there and talked about the... Clemson.
What?
Talked about Patrick.
Leading the country, all that business.
Coulson.
Liddy.
Liddy.
Was Liddy there?
Liddy gets his instructions from Dean.
Yeah.
Liddy passes the information on the hunt.
Hunt tells us in the grand jury that Liddy said his principles said that I should do this.
Hunt doesn't know who the principles are, he said, at this stage of the proceeding.
Even if he does know, it's that he knows only by hearsay.
He's probably not going to be admissible.
Well, I'm not sure that we are.
I'm not sure that we are.
See, that's where you get into the tough problem.
But the other thing, it seems to me that on that basis,
The better way to handle it is for you to rather than immunize Dean.
You see, to immunize him for something that can't be corroborated, it's a straight deal between, you know what I mean, which looks different.
Well, I can see Mitch is saying, well, John Dean was talking too much to Henry Peterson, and Peterson did this, and Dean pulled the plug on him, and he hasn't done it to lie.
But we're not going to do that, Mr. President.
We're going to have, we'll have cooperative witnesses all along the line.
But I see the problem, I think we're looking at it a little bit differently.
And I see the problem in two dimensions.
And Chris, I see it in this respect as a neophyte.
Obviously you and Bill Rogers are much more experienced in these affairs than I am.
But maybe because I'm a neophyte and one of the public, I see it perhaps more clearly, at least from a different point of view.
It seems to me that just the things that they have done impairs you.
I agree with what you're saying.
Well, Mr. President, if I can put your mind to it, I've been arguing with those prosecutors for three days on this issue.
Well, if I sound like a devil's advocate, I would say the same thing to the prosecutors.
How in the hell can I immunize John?
That's the point.
Well, I feel
I'm not going to protect anybody.
I want the goddamn facts, and you can get the facts from Dean.
And I don't care what you testify.
I don't care.
He doesn't care.
He doesn't testify.
I'm going to make my decision on the basis of what you tell me.
Dean has told you.
And just a little feel of the whole thing.
But I've got to do it my way.
I've got to get it.
I've got to get it a certain way.
So what I'm going to do is this, that when charges, charges are made, if you're charged and made a certain course of co-conspirators and so forth and so on, out.
Even when they're not done, out, out.
Well, that takes care of that, but that is the time to do it.
And I'm going to say that today, if I may say that.
I'm going to say that we, well, I don't know what I mean.
Well, I'm not going to use your technical terms.
Well, that's what I'm saying.
I'm just trying to indicate that as far as there must be cooperation, that there's any evidence to indicate that.
Let me ask you this, Mr. President.
What would you do if we filed an indictment against McGruder, hypothetically, and we named... McGruder.
McGruder.
To which he's going to plead.
And we name, as an undicted co-conspirator, everybody but Haldeman and Ehrlichman.
Never mind that the variation improved between them for the moment.
I don't know about Colson.
Colson's, again, peripheral.
But Mitchell, LaRue, Marty, and what have you.
And we name all of those people.
We leave out all of them in an early one.
Now, one of the things we had thought about
Leaving them out was to give you time and room to maneuver with respect to the two of them.
Let me ask you.
Can I ask you?
Yes, sir.
Talking to the president's office.
Mr. Irwin.
Oh, is this in there?
Yeah, I think it's in there.
All right.
See, we've got to run it over, too.
I'm making a great big show of it.
No, sir.
I didn't say that.
No, sir.
No.
It was not a question.
It was a question of whether or not they were publicly identified in that pleading at that time.
Well, for example, as a scenario, that comes out.
You say, this is a shocking revelation.
As a consequence of that, I've consulted, and I've just decided to clear out everybody here who might have had, as a consequence, Mr. Ehrlich, Mr. Haldeman, are going.
And thereafter, we would proceed with the evidence, wherever it took us.
That's what we were thinking about, to be perfectly honest with you.
That's right, unless we're going to be able to go forward.
Well, I don't want to labor the point.
I think I made it clear that it's my point of view that I think they have made you very, very vulnerable.
I think that they have made you wittingly or unwittingly very, very vulnerable to
rather severe criticism because of their actions, at least in public forum.
They've eroded confidence in the office of the presidency by their actions.
Well, you know it.
I don't have to elaborate here.
Let's begin with this proposition.
Let's not get in the way of what we've got to do.
Do you have any ideas?
Well, you know, there's another thing.
Have you decided to accept Dean's resignation?
No, I decided that we've got to treat him all the same.
I was going to say that would be terrible.
In fact, his resignation, he'd be out talking with the president.
No, no, no.
I told Dean that I had to all the same.
No, that would be unfair.
I agree.
Absolutely.
I talked to Dean about it.
He said, well, he'd do it if they did.
He'd like to do it if they did, too.
Well, he's not.
to a conditional basis.
I said, well, just stay long until we see what happens.
No, I'm not going to condemn Dean until he has a chance to present himself.
No, he's exactly the same person.
See, that's the point.
I put all three of the same bet.
Very good.
How's that sound?
You see what I mean?
Yes, indeed.
So we have the same rule for any strongman.
I'm not going to throw strong on somebody because he's been down for a grand year.
No, I agree with that.
He put it in there.
Well, you know, Strong's right at this point debating whether he wants to be a potential defendant or a witness.
You got it down there now?
Well, he's not down there now.
His lawyer called around noontime, and we told him, go back and talk to your client and let us know one way or another.
Right.
What do you get out of it?
What do you mean?
between variations of immunity.
In all probability, there is not enough evidence to implicate Strawn as a principal.
There may be some evidence to reflect some degree of culpability.
But he is, at least at this point in our judgment, a fringe character, the type of person where we would not have to formally analyze him.
We just say, look.
You're a witness rather than a defendant.
Tell us what you know.
That's right, but it's distinguished from formal immunity, which requires filing in court.
It's best described as immunity by estoppel.
That's really the prosecution.
I think we're going to catch all the hell out of him.
Scared the hell out of me.
Roger Joseph.
Roger Joseph.
That's Christ.
He said to television, for God's sakes, if you've got that many of you here, he said that he is a, he sees the tight ball of the grave and the rest of Venus.
Whatever, whatever area we think, the public, I mean, the big shot, Christ Urban, I think he's a big shot.
You know, the whole Senate judiciary.
I mean, Dean is the guy that the whole exact impression is about.
No, this carries on.
I have indeed.
That's the toughest decision I have faced with him.
But what the hell?
He can talk without it.
I guess if he was a defendant, he wouldn't talk.
That's right.
Of course he wouldn't.
He wouldn't.
Is that your problem?
Well, you know, if I can, yes.
Of course, even if I come up with a lesser charge, it damns the records, because that would blast the hell out of all of us.
that we let him plead to even to a lesser charge.
Ideal charge, the position would be the same as Magruder.
You plead to one count felony indictment.
Take your chances.
That's right.
And that's what we're trying to work out with Dean.
And that's where the five years max.
Out of two years.
Probably.
Dean's lawyer said, you know, we'll try this whole day of administration.
They say we'll try this whole administration.
I don't have any choices.
I'm just aghast at the whole damn thing.
You must be, too.
Because I see no rhyme, reason, stuff.
That isn't good.
Yeah, for all this, sir.
For this.
And, you know, I look at John Mitchell, and I admire him.
I know.
Good man.
Yeah, I'm just shocked.
Oh, I haven't really noticed this.
These jackass has gone off.
He's living this crazy life.
He hunted a whole bunch.
He's done this crazy damn thing.
Mitchell wasn't lying in the store.
Grooters and Wheat Fog.
He started going after a goddamn thing.
He got in, and then afterwards, he got in and got pounded by what happened afterwards.
That's right.
They were calling him.
They said, oh, Christ Almighty, we can't.
And basically, they were trying to protect me.
You know that.
Well, you know, LaRue broke down and cried like a baby yesterday.
He did.
And he wasn't that so bad on admitting the obstruction of justice and subordination.
Yeah, right.
resigned.
He said he probably pleaded.
He didn't even think it worthwhile to bring a lawyer with him.
Yeah.
For something that can't be corroborated.
It's a straight deal.
I mean, you know, I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's,
But we're not going to do that, Mr. President.
We're going to have, we'll have cooperative witnesses all along the line.
And I see the problem, I think we're looking at it a little bit differently.
And I see the problem in two dimensions.
And Chris, I see it in this respect as a neophyte.
Obviously you and Bill Rogers are much more experienced in these affairs than I am.
But maybe because I'm a neophyte and one of the public, I see it perhaps more clearly, at least from a different point of view.
It seems to me that just the things that they have done impairs you.
I agree with you on that.
My point goes down.
It's a difference.
I don't think you can do it on the fact that we had this hell of a flat bill.
Actually, T. Gray wasn't confirmed.
It's because of me.
I've been arguing with those prosecutors for three days on this issue.
Well, if I sound like a devil's advocate, I would say the same thing to the prosecutors.
How in the hell can I immunize John?
Well, I feel
protect anybody.
I want the goddamn facts, and you can get the facts from Dean, and I don't care what he says.
I don't care.
He doesn't care.
If he doesn't testify open court or anything of that sort, it doesn't make a difference.
I'm going to make my decision on the basis of what you tell me, Dean, and so you can.
Just vote.
Not fully.
No, he broke down, but when he came to testify about John Mitchell, he just broke down and started to cry.
Uh,
Mr. President, if I didn't have confidence in you, I wouldn't be here.
I just wouldn't.
Did we do any good on the Liddy call?
I don't know.
Maroulis, his lawyer flew down.
His lawyer flew down, and we had Liddy brought over to the cell block of D.C. Court and made him available, and that was yesterday.
And, of course, I'm sure Liddy's thinking it over, but we'll see.
That man's a mental case in a fashion.
I guess Bill Rodgers was shocked, too.
God almighty.
Bill?
Yeah.
Everybody was shocked.
But we're going to handle it.
That's what we do.
This thing, these things, too.
A little feel in the whole thing.
But I've got to do it my way.
I know.
I've got to get it.
I've got to get it a certain way.
I don't know what happened.
So what I want you to do is this, Victor.
When charges, charges are made, if you're charged, made of certain co-conspirators and so forth and so on, out.
Even when they're on a diet, out, out.
Well, that takes care of that, but that is the time to do it.
And I'm going to say that today, if I can say it.
I'm going to say that we, well, I don't know what I mean, but we've got to handle it.
Go on and do something else.
That's what we're going to do here.
Damn, I admire your strength.
I tell you.
That's what we're here for.
Well, I know, but I've been around gentlemen long enough.
Well, it does me too.
I agree.
Well, you're going to try to see if you can get it another way.
That's right.
I mean, that solves the problem for me.
And a book.
But you may not be able to.
And that's not how you get Dean.
He's the only one.
So...
Otherwise, you go the other way.
Okay.
Incidentally, I talked to Pat Gray again.
Yeah.
I went back again today.
Did he put that piece together?
Yes, sir.
What happened, he said he met with Ehrlichman at Ehrlichman's office.
Dean was there.
They told him they had some stuff from Hunt's office that was utterly unrelated to the Watergate case.
They gave him two manila envelopes that were sealed.
He took them.
He said, they said, get rid of them.
Dean doesn't say that.
Dean says, I didn't want to get rid of them, so I gave them to Gray.
But then Gray took them back.
And I said, Pat, where are they?
He said, I burned them.
And I said.
He burned them?
Well, I'm not going to use your technical terms.
Well, I'm just saying.
But I'm just trying to indicate that as far as there must be cooperation, that there's any evidence to indicate that.
Let me ask you this, Mr. President.
What would you do?
If we file an indictment against McGruder, hypothetically, and we name McGruder, to which he's going to plead, and we name, as an undicted co-conspirator, everybody but Haldeman and Ehrlichman, it's terrible.
Unrelated.
The only thing he can say is that he did it because it was political stuff.
You know, the cynics are not going to believe it was unrelated.
Oh, yes, of course.
I said, did you read it?
Who handed it to him?
Dean?
Who knows the contents?
And they were finding another one.
Dean and Earl Hickman.
Dean, great, since he never looked at it.
Never mind that the variation in proof between them for the moment is Colson.
Well, I don't know about Colson.
Colson's, again, peripheral.
But Mitchell, LaRue, Marty, and what have you.
Those big fish.
Yeah.
Who did you name?
Dean?
oh yes yes uh and we name all of those people we leave out already not at this point we'll have to get to that obviously
called them in an early.
Now, one of the things we had thought about leaving them out was to give you time and room to maneuver with respect to the two of them.
I think it's incredible.
You know, I just, I said, I said, I suppose because I just kept them at their words.
Seaman, come up to your work.
I'm talking to the president's office.
Mr. Irwin.
No, it says stay there.
Yeah.
See, we got around a thousand, too.
I'm making this great big shape.
Oh, this is the thing.
You may have fallen early to believe you were uninvited
No, sir.
I didn't say that.
That would be a straight sentence.
No, sir.
No.
It was not a question.
It was a question of whether or not they were publicly identified in that pleading at that time.
Yeah.
And, well, for example, as a scenario.
...about suppressing the facts.
I believe that the committee on the rules of the document totally preserved the document.
It divided the appearance by what it was saying in the first and second session of the program.
Second, thank you for expressing your opinion on every question.
Actually, maybe the issue of whether the proceeding could be televised to me, that has never been a central issue, especially in the separation of power from the other way of solving.
Thank you, it is.
That's not a right thing.
Yes, sir.
For the company, so for the song.
All White House staff will appear to find your attentionable and all proper questions.
Hmm.
I don't think that would be there.
I don't see how you can say private information that came to you without almost becoming personally involved, at least as a result of witness.
As a result of very serious charges.
Yes, I think that has to be modified.
What is the term that we wanted to say about significant development?
Significant development.