Conversation 905-012

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

There's a story that's fresh.

It's layered with God.

Is there a way to call him?

Yeah, tell him that I think Ziegler just came in for the briefing and I'm sorry.

And tell him I think I better wait and catch him a little later today and I'll call him.

There's no urgency.

I just want to just chat about it and get it run up before all this stuff happens.

But that was not to join the staff, it was simply to

I don't know if it was Bob Haldeman's book.

I've heard of his book.

I don't know if it was Explorer.

There was a... What did Laird say?

I don't know.

Laird had said that he...

I don't want you to get in an invitation where you have to knock down what he said.

No, he's knocked it down himself.

Yeah.

He just said... See, the stuff in the story is that he was coming in to replace Haldeman there.

He was coming in to help reorganize the White House staff.

And I've shut that down.

I said, the president hasn't talked to him.

No, I have not.

You're right.

I have not talked to him.

I have not discussed it at all with him.

And the discussions with him could be to help on a voluntary basis with the Congress and some of our congressional children and our congressional and all that problems.

Right.

And an annual defense.

Right.

Good.

Well, that's good enough on that.

That was not recent contact either.

Oh, I didn't talk about that either.

Now, Wilson, people know he was in here and so forth, and I think you just say you met with him yesterday.

Yes, sir.

And why didn't he meet?

Well, he's a part of the process.

I was, I was, I was, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm

No, I've said you're staying in daily touch with Peterson.

I also was in touch with him.

I can say also that I'm in touch with him.

I don't want to set Wilson up as a counsel to you, but I... No, no, no, no.

Wilson said they made him...

I will not be seeing him again, but I said they got him to...

He has stopped to get... Perspective.

He has an analysis of the facts of the case.

He is a lawyer.

He has an analysis of the facts of the case.

Of all...

I've spent time with the press this morning, a lot of them.

You know, they're picking up very well on that.

I've told them about, you know, the ongoing operations.

Let me say this.

I don't know if I'm dealing with you on this, but I've had an issue with this for an hour and a half.

Right, I understand.

The Kissinger thing, the broad visit to Pompidou planning.

My point is, you know, fellas, that Kissinger going to Paris in mid-May just doesn't come down out of the clouds.

The president spent hours in Florida talking to him on the phone, and so forth.

So that's how we've been working with them.

And then, of course, he'll be announcing soon that he's going to Russia as well.

So we'll have to turn that off.

But this is part of the problems that we've got.

And we'll have to do it.

Also, always, at every opportunity, we're going to knock down the idea that the president has knowledge.

I did that yesterday.

The president was informed.

Just not true.

The president does not lie about that.

But I didn't mean to do that.

But I lied.

I mean, I haven't lied.

Neither have you as your spokesman, and this is what I'm telling you.

You should say this.

Look, you didn't lie to the press at all.

You were simply reporting.

Your job was to report to the press what you were told by members of the staff regarding this in terms of the staff said nobody in the White House staff is involved, period.

That's what I said, Congressman.

My point is that...

Anything that the president said, anything that I said as a spokesman was based on the information we had available at the time to make those statements.

That's right.

They said, well, what about March the 30th?

I said, the same thing applies.

The president got a process going on the 21st where he personally was involved.

What happened between then and the 30th is only—

What would lead us to have said what we said on the 30th?

In other words, expressing confidence in Dean.

And as a matter of fact, on the 30th, you were not aware that there was a problem with Dean.

Yeah.

Well.

Or did not have a... Did not.

Didn't have a corroboration.

That's right.

Okay.

Dean had told me about the problems.

Dean had told you about the problems, but he didn't tell you about his problems.

detailed problems.

In other words, you were— He had thought that he had some problems, or he thought he had some problems, but he thought that, you know what I mean, like every man, he thought—he'd been at Camp David trying to work hard— He was still in the position, and still is in the position, of talking to the U.S. Secretary.

Now, one thing we have to know is that, based on what I know now, Dean is involved.

If the Gruders could be believed,

about separation and procuration.

Dean may be involved, if McCord is in the league of attorney, regarding the payment of the pen and so forth.

But Dean's story and all of that was that he was acting simply as a counsel and so forth and so on.

And as far as, and I am constantly talking to the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Attorney,

He said, we are still trying to deal with him, work out something as to how or when he does testify.

And I said, what do you want me to do?

He said, keep him exactly where he is.

I said, if you think anybody should go, like McGruder's going.

Because he has

Well, not in any detail, but... Yeah.

All right.

Why?

Because he's gone to go to the grand jury and he's confessed his implication, basically.

That's what's happening.

Right.

Well...

I'm going to stay away from that.

Yeah, that's right.

You're not going to comment upon it when he's resigned for obviously... You're not going to go to the reading.

But I want to tell you, as far as Dean is concerned, the expression of confidence in Dean, if I call to him,

On Easter, it was just a call that I made to members of the White House.

That's what I told them, I said.

Hellfire, I called Destiny, too.

Sure.

I called all of them.

I called her up, and I called you.

Right.

I called them.

Sure.

I don't think I called maybe Michelle or something, but I don't know where I called them.

But I always called the top of the staff.

Sure.

My secretary, Rose Woods, had to be sent along, too, and so forth.

I didn't tell them that you were still at my office.

I was at the, Mr. President, I was in there when you were talking to them.

Did I say that?

Yes.

So he's basically...

But you see, the dilemma we face there is that if I go out and say that it's not true, someday there'll be a time to clear all that up.

Maybe, maybe, maybe.

But the point about it is this.

I am conducting an investigation, and if you're lying to me about it, it's that the president is not going to act on uncorroborated charges.

He will not act on corroborated charges.

That's why he is talking about all the individuals whose charges have been made all over the place, some in the press, some at the grand jury proceedings, at the grand jury that the president does not allow them to be reported in.

I mean, they are reported in Anderson's column.

But he, one of his talks with the U.S. attorney, he is getting daily reports on any charges he's making.

The president will act.

He will not act on any unparalleled charges.

But he, well, there were charges of corroborating and implicating any member of the White House staff, any members of this administration, anyone in this administration, present in the government service, who is implicated in

illegal, and in wrongdoing, let's put it that way, in wrongdoing, the president will act.

He will not act in the face of this epidemic.

At the present time, the grand jury process is particularly important that he follow that rule because it would impair the objective idea of the prosecution for the rights of innocent people.

attention with him.

And, uh, and, uh, the president, therefore, is, uh, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is,

He hadn't been the U.S. Attorney on the 30th.

He wasn't the U.S. Attorney until April.

See, until about sometime in April.

Whenever we got back from California.

No, we're fine in terms of that.

I've had those states.

There's no problem in terms of that.

But when we got back from California, the Monday after we got back from California, I saw a date for 15 minutes about his possible resignation and so forth.

I said, well, there's a certain chance that we can't move on in a situation like that.

Well, it's a fair thing.

We'll keep you on until we get some information.

corroborating this whole business.

The president is continuing to do what he did.

But let me say that he hasn't spent all this time on it.

No, that's the point I'm making.

He's spent a major part of every day on it.

The major part of every day is being spent on the business of running the government.

He believes that he has a responsibility, in addition to Garner's responsibility, to the domestic economy, in regard to domestic economy, and Garner's responsibility to the border policy of the police, that he has a responsibility, a personal responsibility, which he himself wants to see, that the, that the,

I'm not saying restore antiquity.

No, no.

I'm saying to see that no, that no, that every, that no individual in government service, and particularly no individual on his immediate staff, has been involved in what he considers a wrongdoing.

All right, what is wrong with ?

Is that illegal?

No, it's not one of the president's beliefs.

You've got to understand the higher standard, you know.

Wrong.

I've been talking about that, yes, sir.

Talk about it privately, wrongfully.

It involves not simply the technical violation of the law.

I mean, whether or not an individual speaks a very

But it involves proper conduct that is not consistent with any conduct that you would consider not consistent with the higher standards, higher legal standards.

I'm going to use this, I think.

I use that on background, and I think instead of me going out there today and spilling a lot of this out, I'm going to spend background time with the wires and the networks on this.

I think the posture they understand is one

Presence at work, that's why, on other things, and to spell that out.

Secondly, I can't comment here because it prejudices the rights of other individuals and so forth.

I hit yesterday and I hit again any prior, if I'm asked, any prior knowledge on the part of the president or any warnings, I've hit that.

I think that's pretty well moving aside now.

I've done that in the background and also publicly with John.

And you can say that in this entire institution,

I don't know what he wants to say.

What I'm saying is that no one has suggested that the president acknowledge.

No, no one has.

Even Anderson in his column this morning made that point.

What did he say?

He said, there are sources which are complete.

Speak unequivocally.

The President of the United States had no prior knowledge or warning of this matter.

And then he goes to fairly or generally accurate terms to spell out the whole procedure, but it is clear.

Watergate or the cover-up?

No, he doesn't refer to the cover-up as much, but he refers to the whole procedure of how the cover-up failed, as he says.

But in terms of the presidency,

No prior knowledge, no warning on it.

This refers to the 21st.

The president proceeded at that time on an individual basis to find out what was going on.

And the line I'm moving this morning is the president, what's he doing?

He's finding out what happened, how it happened, and why it happened.

But he is not the president, while many believe that he should simply act precipitously based on

simply the statements, I mean, the charges that have been made, which have not been corroborated.

I'm not saying they're false.

They're uncorroborated.

The President believes that that is not the proper way to proceed, the proper way to proceed.

On the other hand, it's not only wrong to the individual, but it's inconsistent with our system of fairness.

without the American system of fairness and justice for any individual.

And the government would be like, including Ohio State, it's the kind of fairness.

Now, on the other hand, there is a higher order.

There is a higher, the president believes that there's a higher standard required beyond simply complying with the narrow limits of the law.

And that is what his final judgment will be when he makes it.

But he will not make that decision.

He will not make that decision until he has any evidence which is corroborative, which is clearly corroborative.

What does that mean?

He will not vote until the grand jury acts?

Gentlemen, I cannot say

to depend upon when he gets the evidence.

Of course, the grand jury action.

What does that move mean?

The grand jury action.

Some people are not indicted, but the president then feels they were cleared.

Oh, the president feels.

The president then will make a judgment on what is coming, what the evidence is at that time, not only with regard to any legal implication.

Legal.

But also with regard, not to moral, but with regard to the higher standard of conduct, the higher standard of conduct, which the President believes is required of people in government service.

Not in government service, not just in White House, but in government service.

believes that it's required of Congress, it's required of elected officials, and of the higher and of the top appointed officials.

In other words, the people in positions of higher responsibility, put it that way, in government service.

And it includes all elected officials.

It includes the top appointment and the top appointed officials.

This has been helpful to me all day today.

The other question which I'm shooting down, of course, is the fact that, see, what they're moving to now is replacement of White House personnel.

And I've just said, look, fellas, it was absolutely, the status of the White House staff is unchanged.

There will be, there is not going to be, there don't.

The White House staff is moving along.

The business of this government is going forward.

And all this situation here, all the speculation regarding the fact that the business government is not going on, you'd be the first to know.

But the fact of the matter is, you have not...

Talk to anyone?

You have not asked anyone to talk to anyone about it?

I have not.

The president has not said no, not Mr. Blair or anybody else has been talked to by the president or has been talked to by anybody else at the president's college and direction on these matters.

And nobody will be talked to unless

The president reaches a conclusion, reaches his own conclusion.

There will be absolutely no discussion of that.

The gentleman on the left can tell you there's not going to be any discussion.

Right.

And on the whole continent, is that being discussed in the White House, gentlemen?

No.

It has to be.

No.

That's so closely held.

Well, it has to be.

But that's an arrest.

But it's not.

Nobody's been talked to.

Nobody is...

But the operative thing is, have you asked anyone to talk to anyone else?

That's the operative thing.

Absolutely not.

But if you, in your mind, are talking to someone, could say, well, if that happens, I want to know.

That's different.

No, just to say, I have no knowledge of any such doctrine.

I just know this.

The president said, until he makes a decision, he will not talk to anybody else, and no one will have authority.

In other words, Rogers did not approach Rush.

You just simply approached him.

That's the point.

Rogers did not.

The matter of expressing confidence, which they try these tricky questions from time to time, I'm going to stay where I am and say, gentlemen, the status of the White House staff is the same.

In fairness to individuals, in fairness to the processes the President is going through, I can

will not address any kind of...

Yes, because a number of people are consistent with the president's directing.

A number of people from the, I mean, you know this is, I mean, a number of people from the White House, several people from the White House have, have, have, have a, will be involved.

Have you said that before?

No, no, no, I can't.

Peterson told me I couldn't.

All right, well, I won't say it.

See, I'm—we're in a good position to not say what I want to be saying.

Then I would say that, yes, the president—yes, I would say that the president continues to—continues to have confidence until he gets the—you know what I mean?

We better not say it, because you know enough more deeply— Just say it.

Just—yeah, on the deep—just say this.

People are in their position doing their jobs.

But the president is not going to judge this case on any individual.

Either way, until he has a Robert Lucas, which satisfies him.

And he is going to be the final judge of that.

And having in mind his higher status, the president is going to be the higher status.

I think this idea of the higher standards that the President's going to require, meaning is to say, what are you going to be guided by?

The higher standards, something like that.

And he thinks that, he thinks it's, what do you think?

Yeah, I want to do that on the background.

If I walk out in the briefing and say higher standard now, they'll come at me with all sorts of dirty questions.

Well, then they'll say, now what do you think about this and that?

Now look, on the dirty stuff, though,

Let's not be in too much of a damn show.

No, no, no, I'm not.

Let me say, the point is, I think it's a mistake for the college to go for hiring a guy for $150 to go in Greece.

Yeah.

Not Greece.

The other one, where you let the second guy go to college on the ground, and you hire a guy for $150 to go infiltrate these groups to find out what the hell they were doing.

Yeah.

What in the name of God do they think we should do?

Would you tell me?

Tell me, does anybody raise any questions about the hired demonstrators and bomb throwers?

I think that's got to get in at some point.

I agree.

I can say that.

I don't know, maybe not now, but let's find out.

Now, let's understand that in campaigns, we had to do it.

The idea that wires were sent after May 8th, Christ the country was for us.

They won't send wires unless they want to.

As far as the hand is concerned, the false hand and so forth.

How can you lose my governance?

The dilemma is, as we discussed the other day, the double standard, which you're referring to, that you're being applied, you know, big deal about some 2,000 papers being brought and sent to the television station, a local television station, on a pole, which was the story today, you see.

The problem we face at this moment, in the posture that all of this has put us in, is that... That's right.

Now, we can move...

to the attack point, as we discussed before, at some point.

But now it's not the right time.

The right time is once you find out why, how, and what.

And once that is taken, then, and once you decide what you are going to decide, then at that point, we move ourselves back into a position to address the double standard that was applied during this period.

Although, you know, say, give them their credit where it's

That's right.

Right on.

Good.

And just let me say, for your own information, I don't know, we've, uh, we're wrestling strongly with the loaner, and it's more complicated than, in real life, it's more complicated than a deed probably.

You can't have a tree ever go together.

And they've got to make that deal with you.

And also, I've got to, I've got to get the goddamn thing to operate.

I don't, I know what's going to have to happen, and I think now they know what's going to have to happen at a certain time.

The question of timing is terribly important.

Absolutely.

That's what we— Right now, the idea that Connelly and the others have a horrible amount of time running out, and the president can take only one more swing, and maybe it's too late now.

I'm afraid I don't agree with them.

I would come to that opinion before I must admit.

But let me say, don't make any big mistakes in a hurry.

That's right.

And on this, that doesn't mean that you don't make them.

If you make them too late—

Basically, we are in the right position, Rudy Marlin and the rest of them.

I've said I'm conducting the investigation, the grand jury.

I'm talking to the chief U.S. prosecutor all the time.

I'm talking to the counsel, the staff, just to get their views about the activities of these men.

I want their analysis of the evidence.

And I can't read all this goddamn history.

Just saying that I need to say that.

Listen, there are reams of materials here and so forth and so on, and stories and so forth.

And I want their analysis of it.

Their analysis of it.

I don't think legal would have proper evidence.

And that's the purpose of my meeting.

I had met twice with them.

I had no other place to go.

Now, I meet with Peterson.

So I want to get the facts.

I get the facts daily.

And he reports that he can give me other than the transcontinental reports, which I will not allow.

And then, but the president then will make his move.

He's going to make his move based on fairness, but on corroborated testimony and not on a bunch of goddamn charges.

The other thing you've got to sort of keep in mind is that we're going through a hell of a time.

We all know that.

You know, you're bad with the press and all the rest of the things.

But we're going to survive.

Oh, sure.

Absolutely.

You agree with that?

Yes, sir.

I think a lot of people will leave it as a pressure for us to survive.

I don't know.

I know.

This morning...

Excuse me.

I don't need to be too...

This morning, talking to the...

press there is no question absolutely no question that they understand where you are they understand why you got where you were not because you had knowledge and not because you covered up but as they are drawing the conclusion because the president was disturbed because of distorted information they don't know how that came about and they are looking for the move

They're anticipating the move.

And as a result of that, it's very competitive.

But for a moment, none of them want the president to be.

They want the president to be the president.

No.

They will press corps jumbled and confused and distorted and biased and everything about it.

They do want, they will have a sigh of relief

from the standpoint of the presidency after this.

And this is why a lot of these people say this could, although it is a impact on the presidency, it could turn the momentum.

In other words, a thing where the presidency is under some attack, some impact, to put it mildly.

Turning it around and moving could have a

Joe, in fact, another thing, all this crap about the president, all this, there's a thing that burns my ass, too.

What are they complaining about in 68?

That's right.

What are they complaining about in 1960, the 62 thing?

Right.

The 62 thing, that was the Democrats for Nixon Act that was presented up there, and just bullshit.

That's right.

Democrats for Nixon Act in San Francisco.

I don't know, but we can't get it right.

That is, it burns me.

When I came here, let's put it this way, from June the 19th,

From the time of the Watergate campaign, and from the time of the movement greater than that, we were like Caesar's wife in this campaign.

There wasn't one of these incidents they're talking about that occurred from that time on.

I don't believe so.

Now, let's look at it.

On the cover, yes, but I mean in terms of the campaign tactics.

They're referring to the primary period.

They're not referring to the period after the event.

I say, gentlemen,

Because let's understand, you're talking, let's get this properly focused, you're talking about activities that occurred in the primary career.

You're not talking about activities that occurred there.

And you say, tell me one time that a government happened.

I think you might ask them, one time?

I mean, you know what I mean?

One time was their violence.

You know, kind of whatever it was.

You know what I mean?

So with the ads, the ads, the ads, yes, that occurs in some ads.

In other words, I don't know, but I think those ads are supposed to be on the, you know, so I can't tell.

I can do this on background, but the time to do this is really not now.

We can do this.

But listen, you and I, all of us, Bob and John, we just got to stand as far as we can and take this goddamn battery.

Poor Dean, I mean, he's, he's a stranger.

He's just scared and injured.

And I just think the problem is he's always blackmailing when he can.

This president can't.

He's not going to blackmail the president.

You see, we talked about that.

He has to say that.

He can't even worry about anybody else, but I mean, he's a long-handed.

Does I like to talk to you before I plead?

Why am I going to talk to you before you plead?

You can't block mail because he's discredited.

He would be discredited.

No one would let him do that.

The weight of evidence, the weight of public opinion.

I'm saying I'm not concerned about the conversations that you hear in the context of what we talked about.

We talked about everything.

I said, Jesus, what about this cover?

Who is it?

What about Paul?

What about that?

Can't he do something?

Shouldn't he?

You know, how frankly you talk.

He used to talk to you about covers, didn't he?

No, he never did.

Maybe he didn't know that.

And he never talked to you about cover-up except the 21st.

And the point I'm making, or maybe a month, three, I don't know.

But the point, Mr. President, is that it would be that statement.

And that, you could be sitting here as any man, and what I say to you may, in your mind, say, there's something that that man is telling me that I should move on and find out about.

And when I get up, or an individual gets up and leaves, then you would proceed to say, I just talked to that fella.

He's selling me a bill of goods.

I'm going to find out what he's up to.

Or you could have been drawing him out.

You could have said, well, John, maybe that's a good idea.

That's what we did.

And well, let me see.

I said, well, John, let's suppose, like what he talked about with the names I told you.

He says, all right.

And I said...

That's probably a good idea, but that car didn't keep the money.

How would you get the money?

Clark and I thought about it.

I'd say, how much would it cost for a woman to— Two to four years.

How would you make a dollar?

I said, well, we'd get the money, but how are you going to get it to a woman?

That's the point.

I said, well, are you going to get it to a woman?

I said, to the Cuban committee.

But you see, that is why.

I don't care if John Dean has gone out and told the 60 people about that.

The fact of the matter is that as counsel to the president, he misled you.

He did not give you the facts.

He misled all of us.

He did not give us the facts.

Now... That's correct.

Now...

regarding the conversation that he actually had with Bruder, where he told Bruder how to flee.

And then the living walk.

Well, what was the living walk?

How much did living walk?

I don't know that, but I mean that.

But the point is...

I don't think he is.

When I've talked to him, he's never, never, never said anything like that.

But, Mr. President,

Just assume that he would be.

The fact is, he can't.

There is absolutely no way.

I can't speak in any other regard, obviously not Beakley, but from a public opinion standpoint.

One thing that may break there, and you should know, and this would be another difficult problem, is related to that, remember that break in the psychiatrist's office?

Yes, sir.

We have to furnish that information to the judge.

and they have a prosecutor out there in California.

I had to go to one of these situations because Dean had purchased it there.

Now, the judge may call Dean to testify about it.

Now, on the other hand, I asked earlier about it.

Earlier, he said, I said, what do you do, John?

I said, I approve the trip to find that information about Ellesmere on this next period, and could you be relating that to our own investigation?

I did not approve or agree to it.

I disapproved of that when I came back.

Mr. President, I think... Is that what you're talking about?

There's been a press, but not...

The break-in.

The break-in, but not who broke in.

Well, the break-in has been embraced.

Well, back when it happened.

But I think the point I'm making is...

But that's not the answer.

That's right.

I think... Watergate bunkers broke in with the approval of John Irving.

What does that mean?

That's horrible.

But, Mr. President, the point I'm making from the standpoint of the office of presidency, and I understand the position you are in now and the direction you feel you must go.

When you make a decision as you just outlined and talked about, when you make your move, things that now, before the move,

seem like, well, there's another story, and what if we would have made a move on Monday and then that would have come out, will not matter.

Because we face a public relations standpoint, a public opinion standpoint, where if it is a front page story and a national news story, where now, where some guy at the committee sent over 2,000 postcards to the WTTG in Washington to affect their polls,

It'll be a national news story.

How much is that?

Isn't that something you might say that you'd like to look at the mail in regard to the president's mom?

Sure.

We get hundreds, tens of thousands of foreign postcards opposing this or that or the other thing.

Shouldn't they hopefully make this?

That's the point, though.

Should it have been done by the campaign committee?

The president should have done it.

I didn't know about the goddamn thing.

Of course not.

Now, the point I think I'm making is that is a story.

If the Ellsberg thing breaks, that's a story.

But all of that can be put in a perspective of, as we discussed in Florida, of something behind, something you did not get known, something that took place, as you discussed in Florida.

And as you move away from it, all of that will move back in a way, too, no matter what breaks.

And I still really, I still hold that opinion very strongly, which I did in Florida, in terms of whatever decision that you feel is the right decision to make in this regard.

The point is, when you feel that the timing is right, once you move, the concern, obviously the problem will not face, but deem nothing.

He was trying to spill his guts about this.

He talked to the president about the fact that Bittman, Hunt's attorney, wanted to be paid off in order to keep Schott.

So what?

That's on the 21st of March, right?

That's right.

That's the day you began to take a personal interest in finding out what in the hell was going on, which you did.

So what?

You could stand before any forum.

You say the president told me to go out and get the money.

I didn't.

He could say that.

So what?

It's not true.

If he said it, let him say it.

He is a man who will be indicted.

Let me ask you this.

I have a very curious question.

Does Dean carry a tape recorder around with him, I was wondering?

No.

Heavens no.

You don't think he'd walk in here with a tape recorder?

Never.

Why not?

I've seen John Dean.

I've gotten all of my guidance from John Dean.

Impossible.

I don't understand.

I would find the whole thing coming out.

I have a daughter, of course.

So, you know what I mean?

But I don't, if it comes out of context, you could say, well, I've got a tape of this or that.

I don't have a tape of my voice.

It's no problem.

If he had a tape.

What do you say?

That was part, that was the point where you began to investigate.

I think it is not the problem.

Now, I think Henry Peterson, I don't know if you could discuss this with him, would say it was not a problem.

I mean, with all of his legal background, John Dean, in the posture he is in and the posture he will be in, cannot affect the presidency.

Now, by saying that, I don't say that the presidency, as we talked about in Florida, is not affected and that an action will have the problem passed.

But it will move you to the position, as we discussed in Florida.

But in assessing this, Mr. President, anything that Dean would say, anything that Dean said, I think it would make it even more dramatic, for example, if Dean would say that.

Because then you could pinpoint precisely why and what you did.

I mean, it is not an unusual investigating technique.

To draw a man out, to say, fuck, I'm on your side now.

How are you going to do this?

Here's what you should do, John.

To find out if here's a man who has been doing something wrong or was intending to do something wrong and moving on.

That's my analysis of Dean, the facts I have.

And as I said, for the last three or four weeks, I have never been concerned about Dean.

He does not have a threat.

Because of his credibility.

because of his credibility.

He thinks he's got a threat.

He thinks he has a threat.

Of course he thinks he has a threat.

He's probably told the lawyers, you know.

Well, Mr. President, John Dean also thinks, in his mind, as we talked about in Florida, to his heart, his soul believes that he was operating under direction.

Of all of them.

Absolutely.

He believes that.

He believes it.

I know he believes it.

Just as strongly as Bob and John.

Now, I would believe Bob and John for the people

Because Dean has misled me somewhat.

But Bob and John believed in their heart and soul, and they should, that they were undirected.

So, as we talked about in Florida, that brings about a greater possibility for continuity, which is the difficulty of the dissension now, because they're going to have to argue about it.

Well... No, no, no, no.

being terrible in Melbourne, of all people, counsel to the president, to kind of talk to the healthy doctor, like I talk to you.

Like, oh, I'm filling up things half the time, but I'm not thinking about doing it.

Oh, of course.

I mean, I'm thinking about it.

That's why the comments are big.

That's why we're on things after the privilege.

How close to the president talk does he have to think?

Well, everything is going to be out in the press.

Now we've got to talk about it.

I've got to run things back.

I've got to run things back

And to my suggestion that that be done.

I say, Henry, I think that's what we better do.

Other purposes trigger him to say what the hell he's done.

This is my hope.

Why not Dean?

Well, I don't know.

Incidentally, Secretary Rogers called and wanted me to pass on.

He is prepared to do anything he wants to do.

in terms of this whole problem everybody you know it's a funny thing i think a part of your kind of rally but i mean people like economy

This matter, this dinner,

Mr. President, that's on May the 9th, isn't it?

By May the 9th, I think you probably have this thing pretty well sorted out.

uh if you haven't sorted out i would go without question if you don't have it sorted out i think it's a close call as to whether you go or not because your your assessment i think of the congress when they come back here next week you see we've had a very we've had a this week has been

Good week.

I tell you, this seems like Peter should move on.

Mr. President, if I am not, I'll go back to make the point.

Bob refers to the Dean problem, and the Dean problem is referred to an awful lot.

I don't think there's a Dean problem.

Now, Peterson may be able to feel that there is a Dean problem.

I think that your action should not be, as President of the United States, should not be delayed, if that is a factor, by John Dean.

He does not, from a public opinion, John Dean could be hauled before the grand jury tomorrow and make charge after charge.

And when the facts unfold on this thing and develop, he will be discredited.

Plus the fact, I also believe, that the longer the dean feels he has something to use against higher authorities, the more likely he is to use them.

I agree to show you better for step one.

Okay.

I agree to show you better for step one.

Okay.