Conversation 903-006

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

That was exactly the right way to do that, I think.

And I think you were right at the same time.

And, you know, and then he brought up reeks, he said the reeks, and let it go, because Magruder told reeks that Magruder had talked about reeks

God's sake, that was when they had a guy.

recess in the hall in the White House in the dirty church every time

Reese does that?

No, this is something .

Oh, so they have, oh.

Other than that, I don't see any good, well, unless they're stretching out to people that have any real feedback time.

It's hard to figure out.

Well, yeah, it's burgeoning in other directions.

What the hell is that place?

I can't figure out anything.

They're trying for more information.

I don't know where to get them better.

And looking at their past murder, that's what they say.

Mabuder is, give us something that'll nail us and we'll knock our murder off.

See, he told Reeds.

Well, but Reeds better be careful.

Mabuder showed a lot of people what he said that he hasn't done.

and that's this is a part of a process where people are panicking because somebody says something that isn't that hasn't happened you cannot see this is the problem here we tend to look at each individual shot as having some having validity on the surface whether it's the washington post story today or yesterday or the gruder story that he told one person or that he told another but they don't check

So something is wrong with some of them.

You can't take all of them because they don't come together.

And maybe you can't take any of them.

The truth of the matter is you have to take some, but the question is which?

And who knows which?

And that is still a real problem.

People look at you and say, you know, come on, come clean and tell us what really happened.

Who knows?

I tried to explain to George, you know, what he said.

I said, you know, I said, well, George, in one of your campaigns, there's going to be activities of demonstration, counter-demonstration, and that sort of thing.

And I suppose that Reed's involved in that sort of thing.

But I don't know that, I suppose he's involved in one or eight of these, but I don't think so.

But, you know, George is panicked rather easily.

Well, I can imagine that they have a youth group working in all kinds of areas of, you know, demonstrations, infiltrating other demonstrations, anti-demonstrations.

I know what was going on in the Archipelago, the Dirty Pressure Department.

I don't know if that would be the reason for the Dirty Pressure Department.

If they had one, it wasn't very damn good, because that was one of our problems, is you could never get anything, any action in that area.

Oh, I said Georgia.

I said the right thing here.

It's like everything else.

It's right in 24 hours.

And they say try to introduce on more.

Right.

Yeah, the issue.

And that's what's happening.

No matter what brother thing he did, he's reflecting.

I think Bob did it.

Of course, this is just what we said.

They say, if you just release your people to speak at the Senate, that'll take care of it.

So you release your people to speak at the Senate, and they say, what else do you do?

Then you say, you busted the case, you shifted the people over, and the truth is going to come out.

And now you have Chris.

You nail, it would appear, public price, you're nailing the Attorney General.

That's right.

Campaign manager.

One of the calls this morning came to mind, but I'm not going to settle for scapegoats that you can't get away with if you're trying to blame this on Bruder and Dean.

Which I think is probably true.

And then they said, so you have to move it up to Haldeman.

And it's totally unoriginal.

And because you have to move to someone who's high enough to have that responsibility.

But the dilemma that you have with the president is that if you move it to Haldeman, then there's no way the president escapes responsibility.

That's right.

The other point is that on the waterway, you can't move it to Haldeman.

On the other thing, you can only very remotely remove it.

Even there, making the worst possible case of having everything of and believing of all the worst things that can be said, you make a very remote case of knowledge and of one overt act that was in itself indirect three times removed.

Now that's why we've got to work with the lawyers on this.

The question is taking it at its very worst and saying that every adverse witness's testimony is accepted and acceptable and believed where we come out.

And even there, they say you don't come out where it matters.

Well, you know, I, you know, I, you know, there's no, in the many places, it's going to be clear to all of us.

See, that's not really accepted yet.

The thing we don't realize is that we read these stories knowing more than the people who read them know.

And the people now, I think, think it's going to be hard.

No, I don't think they know.

I don't think they're, I don't think they believe what they're reading.

I don't think they can accept the possibility I was either.

But then on the other side, the enemies are pointing.

But then on the other side, they have to say, somebody must have been.

And we then will better point out who, because it won't suffice to leave it that some low-level types were in the game.

Unless you can make a rock-bottom case on that, but now I don't think you can.

There are too many people that know that the truth is otherwise.

I would guess that why they are is that they're, that's the same thing you talked about when you talked with them on Sunday, which is that they are scared to death to let the Urban Committee uncover anything that they have no right to uncover.

Because that will then move to legislative action, or at least higher, on why in hell did you discover this.

I don't believe I'll ask Peterson.

I don't think I'm going to ask Peterson about it.

I don't think you ought to ask anything.

You get these day-to-day developments, there's nothing you can do with them.

I think we've got to look at it in a little bit broader picture.

You can't help but get stimulated by each one of them, and then each one gets revised or changed or overwritten by something else.

The only problem is that we already have these national security checks.

Well, if they don't, if they don't, how can we avoid them?

I think he can just avoid telling them about it if he wants to.

We don't know what, so far, I've told him not to question them about it, I'm sure.

Well, I think if they go into it, well, if they went into it with the grand jury, then it would be out because the grand jury didn't submit.

That's why I can't understand the lawyers don't seem to get very excited about it.

I guess so.

Maybe it's not exciting.

It seems to me that that is more than the thing where you just sit and say, well, it must have been the court reporters.

And if it is the court reporters, they ought to indict the court reporters right now.

There ought to be, it seems to be, that's as big a scandal as the walkie is.

Nobody seems to think so.

I get the opinion that when it's the truth, you've got to talk to the columnist.

But what happens to the process of justice?

What's the point of a grand jury?

Go back to Bill Rocker's little lecture about the whole, you know, that you're entitled to be indicted before you are charged.

and ordinary, you know, people are.

You know, I think people would even more so want to come say that,

A critical point, as you say, is the PR of the presidential posture.

Resonant in posture.

You think we're in the right posture at the moment, isn't that right?

Yes, you're right.

Except that now, their line, I suppose, they gotta get something higher.

You can't help scapegoats when they're coming to your home.

No.

Or it's gotta be special.

I don't see it.

It's gotta be something.

Obviously, they're going to keep trying to help.

That's a critical argument.

The question is whether they make it or not.

At some point, that's going to be legal, but in some brackets, the question is really putting that out and seeing where it comes out.

I wonder what Dean was starting to try to do earlier.

I have a feeling that he did, that he didn't name names, that he, what he said was, you know, there's people higher up, deeper below the floor, it has a public name, and then the guy who put it out assumed it was Hoffman and said it.

Because John, what Ron says, John was surprised, startled, and chagrined that the name was named, because he said he didn't name any, he didn't name my name.

And I think he's playing both, but the guy misunderstood him.

He told him to get the story.

I would say there's higher-ups involved in this.

And that's his cover on it, which we expected it would be.

He was doing what he was told.

Now the question is, who will he say told him?

And then can he get away with saying that we told him?

I assume he'll say both of us did.

He may just say I did.

because he had much more communication with John than he did with any of his friends.

And he had no communication with you, so there's no way he could make you into him.

That's right.

So after the fact, when you were investigating, that's why I think you're covered, even on the Bob Mahan thing.

But that's, you're covered on the national security matters on that.

Well, I don't know.

The recollection, my recollection, frankly, I didn't make notes of that conversation.

I don't think we want to.

Well, apparently, certainly I didn't either, because I can't find any.

Maybe just, well, the, but we, if I'm close, it was also discussed in terms of blackmail, because it was in the same conversation, I think, some of which, well, I remember specifically my saying how much it would cost, a million dollars.

But then I said, we can start down that track if you agree that, you know, you'll go get me, but that doesn't accomplish anything.

He said a million or 10 million for the crowd.

And he agreed.

Well, there was no action taken as far as we were concerned, that's the one thing.

I don't know.

Did he call Mitchell?

Who did he call?

I don't know.

The general wasn't the least bit concerned about it.

About the leak.

He said, it's not good enough.

All right.

About a leak.

Almost a leak, he said.

About a leak.

That's fine.

I mean, I was in this other area here.

We didn't know they were leaking.

Well, so, getting to see them, and see what the boys think this morning.

Well, my view is that I'd like to perhaps have a short talk, if you have a matter for, for you, perhaps we could meet, you and John could come in, we could have a little meeting, maybe 10 after.

Sure.

Particularly if you could discuss

The question of how we deal with the public, how we stand on the, what we know is the recessive that's going to be built up, perhaps on you, and perhaps on John, too.

We've got to really have a, we've got to have not only a legal, but we've got to have a sort of a public stance there.

And I just don't think they were to go out without expression of confidence.

I think he's got it.

I think you can express confidence.

I don't think you should express confidence in him.

Listen to me.

President is not sure.

You think we're in the right posture at the moment?

Yes, sir.

There's the people of Earth, and the truth is going to come out.

And now you have Chris.

You nailed, it would appear, public pressure, nailing the Attorney General.

That's right.

Campaign manager.

One of the cops is fighting me with my gun.

I'm not going to settle for scapegoats that you can't get away with if you're trying to blame this on Bruder and Dean.

Which I think is probably true.

And then they said, so you have to move it up to Haldeman.

And it's totally unoriginal.

And because you have to move to someone who's high enough to have that responsibility.

But the dilemma that you have with the president is that if you move it to Haldeman, then there's no way the president escapes responsibility.

That's right.

The other point is that on the water gate, you can't move it to Haldeman.

On the other thing, you can only very remotely remove it.

Even there, making the worst possible case of having everything of and believing of all the worst things that can be said, you make a very remote case of knowledge and of one overt act that was in itself indirect three times removed.

Now that's why we've got to work with the lawyers on this.

The question is taking it at its very worst and saying that every adverse witness's testimony is accepted and acceptable and believed where we come out.

And even there, they say you don't come out where it matters.

Well, you know, I, you know, I, you know, I, you know, I, you know, I, you know, I, you know,

I don't think they can accept the possibility I was either.

I think, but on the other side,

But then on the other side, they have to say that somebody must have been.

And we then will better find out who, because it won't suffice to leave it that, oh, that's our conviction that some low-level crimes could be committed in a game.

unless you can make a rock bottom case on it but now i don't think you can there are too many people that know that the truth is is otherwise by the grandeur you'll be getting into the extraneous issues of the very critical department more than i can figure out uh i would guess that why they are is that their

That's the same thing you talked about when you talked with them on Sunday, which is that they are scared to death to let the Urban Committee uncover anything that they have no right to uncover.

Because that will then move to legislative action or at least hire.

Why the hell did you discover this?

I don't believe I'll ask Peterson.

You've got to read your letters.

I don't think I'm going to ask Peterson about, like, how to talk to them and so forth.

I don't care.

I'm afraid.

I'm afraid it wouldn't do me good, you know.

What do you agree?

I'm trying to read that stuff.

I don't think you ought to ask anything.

You get these day-to-day developments.

There's nothing you can do with them.

I think we've got to look at it in a little bit broader picture.

You can't help but get stimulated by each one of them, and then each one gets revised or changed or overwritten by something else.

So now they're mine, I suppose.

They gotta get something higher.

You can't help scapegoats when they come to your home.

Or it's gotta be special.

It's gotta be something.

Obviously, they're going to keep trying on all of them, and that's a critical argument.

At some point, that's, I believe, going to work, and then most of them, at some point, it's a question of really putting that out and seeing where it comes out.

I wonder why Dean was starting crashing it early.

I had a feeling that he did, that he didn't name names, that he, what he said was, you know, there's people hire a peeper, roll the floor down, and then the guy who put it out assumed it was Hoffman and said it.

And I think he's playing both, but the guy misunderstood it.

He told them to get the story.

I would say there's too many problems.

We already have a new general national security judge.

Well, if they don't, if they don't.

and he can just avoid telling them about it if he wants to.

We don't know what, and so far, I've told him not to question it about it, and I'm sure that he would have enjoyed it.

Well, I think if they go into it, well, if they go into it, they're going to fire us and follow the nest.

And if that's his cover line, which we expected it would be, then he was doing what he was told.

Now the question is, who will he say told it?

And then can you get away with saying that we heard that it'll be out because you're injured and it's leaked?

That's one, I can't understand why you don't seem to get very excited about it.

I guess so, maybe it's not exciting.

It seems to me that that is more than the thing where you just sit and say, well, it must have been the court reporters.

I assume you'll say both of us did.

You may just say, I mean, put a tough one there because he had much more communication with John than he did with me.

Right.

And if it is the court reporters, they ought to talk to the court reporters right now.

And there ought to be, it seems to be, not as big a scandal as the one he is.

But nobody seems to think so.

And he had no communication with you, so there's no way he can hang you into it.

I get the picture that when it's the truth, you've got to talk to the call from the driver.

But what happens to the process of justice?

What's the point of a grand jury?

In fact, Bill Rogers told a lecture about the whole, you know, that you're entitled to be indicted before you are charged.

And if ordinary, you know, people are... You know, I think people would even more so want to say that...

A critical point, as you say, is the PR of the presidential posture.

President, your posture.

Do you think we're in the right posture at the moment?

Yes, sir.

Except that now, they're mine, I suppose.

They've got to get something higher.

You can't help scapegoats when they're coming to your home.

No.

Or it's got to be special.

I don't see it.

It's got to be something.

Obviously, they're going to keep trying to know, and that's a critical target.

At some point, that's, I believe, going to work, and then the total, at some rate, it's a question of really putting that out and seeing where it comes out.

I wonder what Dean was talking about earlier.

I have a feeling that he did, that he didn't name names, that he, what he said was, you know, there's people higher up, people lower down, and then the guy who put it out assumed it was Hoffman and said it.

I think he's playing both, but the guy misunderstood him.

He told him to get the story.

I would say there's higher-ups involved in this.

And that's his cover on it, which we expected it would be.

He was doing what he was told.

Now the question is, who will he say told him?

And then can he get away with saying that we told him?

I assume he'll say both of us did.

He may just say I did.

because he had much more communication with John than he did with any of his friends.

And he had no communication with you, so there's no way he could hang you into it.

That's right.

So after the fact, when you were investigating, that's why I think you're covered, even on the La La Land thing, that that's, you're covered on the National Security Act.

Well, I don't know.

Maybe just, well, the, uh, but we, if I close, it was also discussed in terms of blackmail, because it was the same conversation, I think, which, well, I remember specifically my saying how much it would cost, a million dollars.

I said, no, I said, we start down that track and you agree that, you know, you don't get me, but that doesn't accomplish anything.

He said a million or 10 million or credit.

I didn't agree.

The facts still relate to each other.

That's a privileged conversation.

He can't use it.

He can try to use it publicly, I suppose, and then move on in some other way.

Well.

There was no action taken as far as we were concerned.

That's the one thing.

Right?

No.

I don't know.

Did he call Mitchell then, or who did call him?

John or, I don't know.

Any of the, I don't know that anybody did.

John Roe?

No, John Roe wasn't the least bit concerned about it.

Well, indeed.

He said, don't do it at all.

That's right.

So after the fact, when you were investigating, that's why I think you're covered.

Even on that thing.

But that's, you're covered on the National Security Act.

Well, I don't know.

Maybe just, well, the, but we, if I'm close, it was also discussed in terms of blackmail, because it was in the same conversation.

Well, I remember specifically my saying how much it would cost, a million dollars.

I said, we start down that track and you agree that, you know, you'll go get me, but that doesn't accomplish anything.

He said a million or 10 million for the credit.

I didn't agree.

The fact still relates.

That's a privileged conversation.

You can't use it.

You can try and use it publicly, I suppose, and then you move on in some other way.

Well.

There was no action taken as far as we were concerned.

That's the one thing.

Right?

No.

I don't know.

Did he call Mitchell then, or who did call him?

John or, I don't know.

Any of the, I don't know that anybody did.

well my view is that i'd like to perhaps have a short talk

perhaps we could meet you and John to come in.

We could have a little meeting to go before.

Is it good?

Maybe 10 after.

Sure.

Particularly if you could discuss the question of how we, even with the public, how we stand on the, what we know is there a chance of this going to be built up.

Yeah.

Perhaps on you,

to, we've got to really have a, we've got to have, not only a legal, but we've got to have a sort of a public stance there.

And I just don't think they were to go out without expression of confidence.

John Rook?

Oh, Andrew.

Or, you know... No, but John Rook wasn't the least bit concerned about it.

About the leak.

He said, it's not good enough.

All right.

About a leak.

What was the leak?

He said, about the family.

That's why the family is just underground here.

We didn't know they were leaking.

Well, so, getting to see them, and, uh, still looking forward to seeing them this morning.

Well, my view is that I'd like to perhaps have a short talk, if that would be a matter for, for, for you, perhaps we could meet, uh, you and John to come in, we could have a little meeting.

I think he's got, I think you can express confidence, well, I'll talk to him, I don't think you should express confidence in him.

We'll see.

Bye.

Sure.

Particularly if you could discuss the question of how we, even for the public, how we stand on the, what we know is the crescent that's going to be built up, perhaps on you, and perhaps on John, too.

We've got to really have a

We've got to have, not only a legal, but we've got to have a sort of a public stance there.

And I just don't think they were to go out without expressing confidence in you and your honor.

That's what I'm concerned about.

I think he's got to.

I think you can express confidence.

I don't think you should express confidence in him.

We'll see.

Bye.