DOCUMENT 30–1: The Watergate Tapes: Nixon, Dean, and Haldeman Discuss the Cancer within the Presidency

Reading the American Past: Printed Page 294

DOCUMENT 30–1

The Watergate Tapes: Nixon, Dean, and Haldeman Discuss the Cancer within the Presidency

President Richard M. Nixon used the powers of the presidency to violate the law and spy on political opponents. When the burglars who broke into the office of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate building on June 17, 1972, were caught and arrested, they quickly began to demand financial help from their employers in the Republican Party. They also threatened to tell what they knew about other dirty tricks they had perpetrated. On March 21, 1973, John Dean, the president's counsel, met with Nixon in the Oval Office to inform him of the demands of the Watergate burglars and the dangers they posed to his presidency. Secret tape recordings of that meeting and others were made public in April 1974 by President Nixon. He announced in an address to the nation that “I know in my own heart that, through the long painful and difficult process revealed in these transcripts, I was trying in that period to discover what was right and to do what was right.” The transcript of the March 21 meeting, excerpted here, demonstrates instead deep involvement in criminal activities by Nixon and leading members of his administration. The transcripts of the Watergate tapes provided all Americans with a detailed, word-by-word portrait of the inner workings of the Nixon White House.

Transcript from Tape-Recorded Meeting, March 21, 1973

D[ean]: The reason that I thought we ought to talk this morning is because in our conversations, I have the impression that you don't know everything I know and it makes it very difficult for you to make judgments that only you can make on some of these things and I thought that —

P[resident]: In other words, I have to know why you feel that we shouldn't unravel something?

D: Let me give you my overall first.

P: In other words, your judgment as to where it stands, and where we will go,

D: I think that there is no doubt about the seriousness of the problem we've got. We have a cancer within, close to the Presidency, that is growing. It is growing daily. It's compounded, growing geometrically now, because it compounds itself. That will be clear if I, you know, explain some of the details of why it is. Basically, it is because (1) we are being blackmailed; (2) people are going to start perjuring themselves very quickly that have not had to perjure themselves to protect other people in the line. And there is no assurance —

P: That that won't bust?

D: That that won't bust. So let me give you the sort of basic facts, talking first about the Watergate; and then about Segretti; and then about some of the peripheral items that have come up. First of all on the Watergate: how did it all start, where did it start? OK! It started with an instruction to me from Bob Haldeman to see if we couldn't set up a perfectly legitimate campaign intelligence operation over at the Re-Election Committee. ... That is when I came up with Gordon Liddy. They needed a lawyer. Gordon had an intelligence background from his FBI service. I was aware of the fact that he had done some extremely sensitive things for the White House while he had been at the White House and he had apparently done them well. Going out into Ellsberg's doctor's office —

P: Oh, yeah.

D: And things like this. He worked with leaks. He tracked these things down. So the report that I got ... was that he was a hell of a good man and not only that a good lawyer and could set up a proper operation. ... Magruder called me in January and said I would like to have you come over and see Liddy's plan.

P: January of '72?

D: January of '72.

D: ... So I came over and Liddy laid out a million dollar plan that was the most incredible thing I have ever laid my eyes on: all in codes, and involved black bag operations, kidnapping, providing prostitutes to weaken the opposition, bugging, mugging teams. It was just an incredible thing. ...

So there was a second meeting. ... I came into the tail end of the meeting. ... [T]hey were discussing again bugging, kidnapping and the like. At this point I said right in front of everybody, very clearly, I said, “These are not the sort of things (1) that are ever to be discussed in the office of the Attorney General of the United States — that was where he still was — and I am personally incensed.” And I am trying to get Mitchell off the hook. ... So I let it be known, I said, “You all pack that stuff up and get it the hell out of here. You just can't talk this way in this office and you should re-examine your whole thinking.”

P: Who all was present?

D: It was Magruder, Mitchell, Liddy and myself. I came back right after the meeting and told Bob, “Bob, we have a growing disaster on our hands if they are thinking this way,” and I said, “The White House has got to stay out of this and I, frankly, am not going to be involved in it.” He said, “I agree, John.” I thought at that point that the thing was turned off. That is the last I heard of it and I thought it was turned off because it was an absurd proposal. ... I think Bob was assuming that they had something that was proper over there, some intelligence gathering operation that Liddy was operating. ... They were going to infiltrate, and bug, and do this sort of thing to a lot of these targets. This is knowledge I have after the fact. Apparently after they had initially broken in and bugged the DNC [Democratic National Committee] they were getting information. ...

P: They had never bugged Muskie, though, did they?

D: No, they hadn't, but they had infiltrated it by a secretary.

P: By a secretary?

D: By a secretary and a chauffeur. There is nothing illegal about that. So the information was coming over here. ... The next point in time that I became aware of anything was on June 17th when I got the word that there had been this break-in at the DNC and somebody from our Committee had been caught in the DNC. And I said, “Oh, (expletive deleted).” You know, eventually putting the pieces together —

P: You knew what it was.

D: I knew who it was. ...

P: Why at that point in time I wonder? I am just trying to think. We had just finished the Moscow trip. The Democrats had just nominated [George] McGovern — I mean, (expletive deleted), what in the hell were these people doing? I can see their doing it earlier. I can see the pressures, but I don't see why all the pressure was on then.

D: I don't know, other than the fact that they might have been looking for information about the conventions.

P: That's right. ...

P: What did they say in the Grand Jury?

D: They said, as they said before the trial in the Grand Jury, that ... we knew [Liddy] had these capacities to do legitimate intelligence. We had no idea what he was doing. ... We had no knowledge that he was going to bug the DNC.

P: The point is, that is not true?

D: That's right.

P: Magruder did know it was going to take place?

D: Magruder gave the instructions to be back in the DNC.

P: He did?

D: Yes.

P: You know that?

D: Yes.

P: I see. OK.

D: I honestly believe that no one over here knew that. I know that as God is my maker, I had no knowledge that they were going to do this.

P: Bob didn't either, or wouldn't have known that either. You are not the issue involved. Had Bob known, he would be.

D: Bob — I don't believe specifically knew that they were going in there.

P: I don't think so.

D: I don't think he did. I think he knew that there was a capacity to do this but he was not given the specific direction. ...

D: So, those people are in trouble as a result of the Grand Jury and the trial. ... Now what has happened post June 17? I was under pretty clear instructions not to investigate this, but this could have been disastrous on the electorate if all hell had broken loose. I worked on a theory of containment —

P: Sure.

D: To try to hold it right where it was.

P: Right.

D: There is no doubt that I was totally aware of what the Bureau was doing at all times. I was totally aware of what the Grand Jury was doing. I knew what witnesses were going to be called. I knew what they were asked, and I had to. ... Now post June 17th: These guys ... started making demands. “We have to have attorneys fees. We don't have any money ourselves, and you are asking us to take this through the election.” Alright, so arrangements were made through Mitchell, initiating it. And I was present in discussions where these guys had to be taken care of. Their attorneys fees had to be done. Kalmbach was brought in. Kalmbach raised some cash.

P: They put that under the cover of a Cuban Committee, I suppose?

D: Well, they had a Cuban Committee and ... some of it was given to Hunt's lawyer, who in turn passed it out. ...

P: (unintelligible) — but I would certainly keep that cover for whatever it is worth. ...

D: ... Here is what is happening right now. ... One, this is going to be a continual blackmail operation by Hunt and Liddy and the Cubans. No doubt about it. And McCord, ... Hunt has now made a direct threat against Ehrlichman, ... He says, “I will bring John Ehrlichman down to his knees and put him in jail. I have done enough seamy things for he and Krogh, they'll never survive it.”

P: Was he talking about Ellsberg?

D: Ellsberg, and apparently some other things. I don't know the full extent of it.

P: I don't know about anything else.

D: I don't know either, and I hate to learn some of these things. So that is that situation. Now, where are we at the soft points? How many people know about this? Well, let me go one step further in this whole thing. The Cubans that were used in the Watergate were also the same Cubans that Hunt and Liddy used for this California Ellsberg thing, for the break-in out there. So they are aware of that. How high their knowledge is, is something else. Hunt and Liddy, of course, are totally aware of it, of the fact that it is right out of the White House.

P: I don't know what the hell we did that for!

D: I don't know either. ... So that is it. That is the extent of the knowledge. So where are the soft spots on this? Well, first of all, there is the problem of the continued blackmail which will not only go on now, but it will go on while these people are in prison, and it will compound the obstruction of justice situation. It will cost money. It is dangerous. People around here are not pros at this sort of thing. This is the sort of thing Mafia people can do: washing money, getting clean money, and things like that. We just don't know about those things, because we are not criminals and not used to dealing in that business.

P: That's right.

D: It is a tough thing to know how to do.

P: Maybe it takes a gang to do that.

D: That's right. There is a real problem as to whether we could even do it. Plus there is a real problem in raising money. Mitchell has been working on raising some money. He is one of the ones with the most to lose. But there is no denying the fact that the White House, in Ehrlichman, Haldeman and Dean are involved in some of the early money decisions.

P: How much money do you need?

D: I would say these people are going to cost a million dollars over the next two years.

P: We could get that. On the money, if you need the money you could get that. You could get a million dollars. You could get it in cash. I know where it could be gotten. It is not easy, but it could be done. But the question is who the hell would handle it? Any ideas on that? ...

D: Now we've got Kalmbach. Kalmbach received, at the close of the '68 campaign in January of 1969, he got a million $700,000 to be custodian for. That came, down from New York, and was placed in safe deposit boxes here. Some other people were on the boxes. And ultimately, the money was taken out to California. Alright, there is knowledge of the fact that he did start with a million seven. Several people know this. Now since 1969, he has spent a good deal of this money and accounting for it is going to be very difficult for Herb [Kalmbach]. For example, he has spent close to $500,000 on private polling. That opens up a whole new thing. It is not illegal, but more of the same thing.

P: Everybody does polling.

D: That's right. There is nothing criminal about it. It's private polling. ... I don't know of anything that Herb has done that is illegal. ... What really bothers me is this growing situation. As I say, it is growing because of the continued need to provide support for the Watergate people who are going to hold us up for everything we've got, and the need for some people to perjure themselves as they go down the road here. If this thing ever blows, then we are in a cover up situation. I think it would be extremely damaging to you and the —

P: Sure. The whole concept of Administration justice. Which we cannot have! ...

D: That's right. I am coming down to what I really think, is that Bob and John and John Mitchell and I can sit down and spend a day, or however long, to figure out one, how this can be carved away from you, so that it does not damage you or the Presidency. It just can't! You are not involved in it and it is something you shouldn't —

P: That is true! ...

D: What really troubles me is one, will this thing not break some day and the whole thing — domino situation — everything starts crumbling, fingers will be pointing. Bob will be accused of things he has never heard of and deny and try to disprove it. It will get real nasty and just be a real bad situation. And the person who will be hurt by it most will be you and the Presidency, and I just don't think —

P: First, because I am an executive I am supposed to check these things.

D: That's right.

P: Let's come back to this problem. What are your feelings yourself, John? You know what they are all saying. What are your feelings about the chances?

D: I am not confident that we can ride through this. I think there are soft spots. ...

P: ... But just looking at it from a cold legal standpoint: you are a lawyer, you were a counsel — doing what you did as counsel. You were not — What would you go to jail for?

D: The obstruction of justice.

P: The obstruction of justice?

D: That is the only one that bothers me.

P: Well, I don't know. I think that one. I feel it could be cut off at the pass, maybe, the obstruction of justice. ... Talking about your obstruction of justice, though, I don't see it.

D: Well, I have been a conduit for information on taking care of people out there who are guilty of crimes.

P: Oh, you mean like the blackmailers?

D: The blackmailers. Right.

P: Well, I wonder if that part of it can't be — I wonder if that doesn't — let me put it frankly: I wonder if that doesn't have to be continued? Let me put it this way: let us suppose that you get the million bucks, and you get the proper way to handle it. You could hold that side?

D: Uh, huh.

P: It would seem to me that would be worthwhile. ...

D: There are two routes. One is to figure out how to cut the losses and minimize the human impact and get you up and out and away from it in any way. In a way it would never come back to haunt you. That is one general alternative. The other is to go down the road, just hunker down, fight it at every corner, every turn, don't let people testify — cover it up is what we really are talking about. Just keep it buried, and just hope that we can do it, hope that we make good decisions at the right time, keep our heads cool, we make the right moves.

P: And just take the heat?

D: And just take the heat. ...

[H. R. Haldeman joins the meeting.]

P: ... You see, John is concerned, as you know, about the Ehrlichman situation. It worries him a great deal because, and this is why the Hunt problem is so serious, because it had nothing to do with the campaign. It has to do with the Ellsberg case. I don't know what the hell the — (unintelligible)

H[aldeman]: But what I was going to say —

P: What is the answer on this? How you keep it out, I don't know. You can't keep it out if Hunt talks. You see the point is irrelevant. It has gotten to this point —

D: You might put it on a national security basis.

H: It absolutely was.

D: And say that this was —

H: (unintelligible) — CIA —

D: Ah —

H: Seriously.

P: National Security. We had to get information [from Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office] for national security grounds.

D: Then the question is, why didn't the CIA do it or why didn't the FBI do it?

P: Because we had to do it on a confidential basis.

H: Because we were checking them.

P: Neither could be trusted.

H: It has basically never been proven. There was reason to question their position.

P: With the bombing thing coming out and everything coming out, the whole thing was national security.

D: I think we could get by on that.

P: On that one I think we should simply say this was a national security investigation that was conducted. And on that basis, I think ... Krogh could say he feels he did not perjure himself. He could say it was a national security matter. That is why — ... You really only have two ways to go. You either decide that the whole (expletive deleted) thing is so full of problems with potential criminal liabilities, which most concern me. I don't give a damn about the publicity. We could rock that through that if we had to let the whole damn thing hang out, and it would be a lousy story for a month. But I can take it. The point is, that I don't want any criminal liabilities. That is the thing that I am concerned about for members of the White House staff, and I would trust for members of the Committee. ...

H: Well, the thing we talked about yesterday. You have a question where you cut off on this. There is a possibility of cutting it at Liddy, where you are now.

P: Yeah.

D: But to accomplish that requires a continued perjury by Magruder and requires —

P: And requires total commitment and control over all of the defendants which — in other words when they are let down — ... Another way to do it then Bob, and John realizes this, is to continue to try to cut our losses. Now we have to take a look at that course of action. First it is going to require approximately a million dollars to take care of the jackasses who are in jail. That can be arranged. That could be arranged. But you realize that after we are gone, and assuming we can expend this money, then they are going to crack and it would be an unseemly story. Frankly, all the people aren't going to care that much.

D: That's right.

P: People won't care, but people are going to be talking about it, there is no question. ... And my point is that I think it is good, frankly, to consider these various options. And then, once you decide on the right plan, you say, “John,” you say, “No doubts about the right plan before the election. You handled it just right. You contained it. And now after the election we have to have another plan. Because we can't for four years have this thing eating away.” We can't do it.

H: We should change that a little bit. John's point is exactly right. The erosion here now is going to you, and that is the thing that we have to turn off at whatever cost. We have to turn it off at the lowest cost we can, but at whatever cost it takes.

D: That's what we have to do.

P: Well, the erosion is inevitably going to come here, apart from anything and all the people saying well the Watergate isn't a major issue. It isn't. But it will be. It's bound to. (Unintelligible) has to go out. Delaying is the great danger to the White House area. We don't, I say that the White House can't do it. Right?

D: Yes, Sir.

From Submission of Recorded Presidential Conversations to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives by President Richard M. Nixon, April 1974.

Questions for Reading and Discussion

Question

G33zelpdPhpxAqzVGK6oxnvPvpxXfRCVUWPNSdoSI7P4BV1DDynrLKtJmjoUIdaHoMzkkftiuvYotOLluh/dR1fAEudVKmMgvbeNjhdtIqmsjJI4YBUTugAwO30WYDLAJ0a6mTlZS1JNeLfybnd9brTa8ziCST68i3e9/8vnKUCP21u1KgIJmcQYTOHdqgLqvePge1SxUU59kf5qdB1xpY3fY1i7f3IGu75Gr8b/gnk9zJZSqrVWEbajts1BqQCeVZy19Nnre/s=

Question

h1w5y+1kDVFdEK57jgvjUHGHeYYIuupLBo34xSVAYmlN8G7bULPwNKmJ8ChxCbqw2nrs9JKQcOiWJfJlHpLWAM3fi9L8jGEke8nu6qUNdsMvZCRhOyJar3xuvek=

Question

8Srq11zoQ5PY4IpQIgJHmXRwi+NnR3YduonDvS/K00AsAljidumN0uIz/Xur519IgQIJ+M2INkiGdl4hGqY01DkcHdGdj4sqWClGsJl5dxmZ98oSXYb9BhkmK0WyICKgjP1BvjtyfvRH/FUtrKlTQ2BE+tswR/XJHhdbHyRj0zuwQNr5Ip5Ywp+2N8gfDGkV

Question

Fr+p8tYfpdmKcQEGZrRILtekfL06I+D3OICD6K0hDFfJfq2uAH7rm586+XvBLhNvLF3E0iTorIYQj0FcGDk3N+tnWcsg3TVjQFH1cFlYHEnsIWDPiPWIt3fpv86tlbNl+MqLSVogHNpwV5uNlhS70ghVqg6Azd7aA0pjFp8fejCpQ7s9kfvyjuGjaJzT23qs5s9G6WTObzI=

Question

1pjQodmRzjgtbk8VffPp2XAL6IzsEjFkcqDjdv4QHnQ2BI8xtV7/U6ihWg0vd46fawDYZcaqvsudcFO+a9kBYUDMRQo7S3uMXn39LfnY93mcjKCKdmohJvj3V/mDX6UFqyaF0HzFv3vDCe6Ctl03O3Ek9sdAMm1Y2TJnBlsq/OyLqc17Aryl0HJ0f8DxdBacMte1+5tSYHedgFJRabxydnz2gKURxTvb01kX+/I9b42/QdN5342efHEjK1KXkENLg3d2YFDuMu6X26D+E2Si8eR0ukStoMsbm0IZ3w==