Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "580112428",
    "label": "Foreign and Domestic Briefing Book, NAB Convention, March 19, 1974 [2 of 2]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/580112428"
}

{
    "id": "580112428",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/580112428",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Foreign and Domestic Briefing Book, NAB Convention, March 19, 1974 [2 of 2]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/580112428",
    "collections": [
        "White House Staff Member and Office Files (Nixon Administration)",
        "Patrick J. Buchanan's Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/3645456/Batch0001/007/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07-001.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/3645456/Batch0001/007/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07-001.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/3645456/Batch0001/007/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07-001.jpg",
    "imageCount": 76,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/580112428",
    "naId": 580112428,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 76,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/3645456/Batch0001/007/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07.pdf",
    "mediaId": "6ca5e99acb133835",
    "ocrText": "THE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 17, 1974\nMEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nPJB/RZ\n1)\nThe President might get foreign policy questions from several\nareas. Most likely are:\na)\nA question to RN calling for clarification of some\nkind of the hard-nosed position taken in Chicago,\nre: European economic and political confrontation,\nbeing inconsistent with security cooperation. Should\nbe a major storm by Monday night.\nb)\nOil Embargo, possible price rises; and questions\nre: potential Arab blackmail if and when they attach\nconditions. RN dealt with issue in Chicago; we have\nno hard word from Arabs.\nc)\nBenefits of detente -- what are we getting for the\npolicy, perhaps keying off Soviets advice to Arabs\nto continue boycott.\n2)\nEnergy questionand economic question almost certain - - could\ncome in any form.\n3)\nAlmost certain some question or questions on A) President's\nrelations with and treatment by the press during Watergate and B)\nPresident's view on attacks on networks by White House aides and\nC) RN view on various issues of major concern to the broadcasters.\nPJB view is that if RN has criticism to make of press, he should lay\nit out unqualified, state it and move on; on matter of broadcasters,\nleave the door open as to what policy is or will be. Burch disagrees\nwith latter, and his position is reflected in Q and A. And Burch memo.\nAlso, by way of general advice, we feel the President shouldnot get\nbogged down into any complicated, esoteric issue about cable TV\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-2-\npaying for long-distance programming, etc. RN should indicate in\nPJB's view a basic support for more channels, more cable more\ncompetition, as the answer to monopoly and if they try to get into\nspecifics, say, that I would prefer not to get into any depth on that matter\nwhich is still under discussion with my assistants.\n4)\nOn the March 21 tape, the positive aspects are the great number\nof questions RN asked, the repeated ruling out of clemency, and the\nstatements by Dean to the effect that Dean realized he was telling RN\nthese things for the first time, and that RN was obviously unaware\nof them.\n5)\nOn laying the groundwork, RN can note that somewhere, sometime,\nthere must be a halt to demands, and final resolution. Where ever the\npoint may be, many will say White House did not go far enough, must\nbe hiding something. So be it. Because of a) confidentiality of papers\nb) weakening of office c) subordinating Presidency to another branch\nof Government and d) desire to this matter resolved and over with\nand behind us, e) perhaps we have reached a point which there can be\nin the interests of defending this office -- no more concessions,\na line drawn from which there will be no more retreat.\n6)\nAs a general rule, we favor a) more abbreviated responses\nthan in Chicago which will leave impression of decisions having been\nmade, and final lines drawn. b) no qualifiers if RN loses a fussilade\nagainst our firends in the networks or national press, c) certain sense\nof resignation and fatalism that there may be difficulties ahead and\npossibly there still will be those who say that RN is withholding the tapes\nto hide the truth -- so be it. Hell, 36% of the country in a poll six\nmonths ago thought I knew of the break-in before it occurred even\nthough no one even made the charge. So, some things you have to live\nwith.\n7)\nHaving made the point, \"I won't resign, 11 and the \"President\nis not a crook\" and \"I will be President, Jan. 77\" there is no need\nto iterate them at all. That, having been said and done, no repetition\nneeded or useful.\n8)\nMaybe a political question -- Does RN think GOP will take a\nbath; will RN handicap chances of GOP candidates in 1974, especially\nJBC. Suggested response: A) If GOP grovels in defeatism, will be\ndefeated no inevitable disaster in November. And B) JBC is\none of four or more candidates -- Rocky, Reagan, Ford, JBC -- who\nhave stature, standing and capacity to be Presiden and political\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-3-\nto be President and political ability to defeat any existing or potential\ncandidate of Democratic Party. GOP has other dark horses.\n9)\nOne question that could come out of the blue is: Why did RN\nappoint JDE, after Dean's comments, to conduct his post March 30\ninquiry?\"\n10)\nQuestions to come from news directors of the various TV\nstations. Thus, the nature of questioning should be sharper, more\n\"running news\" oriented, than the Chicago Executives' Club. Would\nbe somewhat like the Chicago Executives' in that they will have a\nbroader spectrum than the narrower viewpoint of WH press -- but\nunlike Chicago Executives' in that they may be attempting to show\nthemselves as aggressive as WH press corps. Kind of evening as\nin Orlando anticipated here.\nBuchanan\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n3/17/74\nINDEX\nA)\nIMPEACHMENT/WATERGATE\nB)\nFALSE ALLEGA' TIONS\nC)\nMARCH 21 TAPE AND HUSH MONEY\nD)\nDEAN'S PRE-MARCH 21 CHARGES\nE)\nAMBASSADORS\nF)\nTAXES\nG)\nRESEARCH/WATERGATE INVESTIGATION\nH)\nACTIONS TA KEN POST MARCH 21\nI)\nTELEVISION & PRESS\nJ)\nECONOMY\nK)\nENERGY\nL)\nRELATIONS WITH ALLIES/ADVERSARIES\nM)\nOIL EMBARGO-ARAB BLACKMAIL\nN)\nTRAVEL PLANS\nO)\nSALT\nP)\nBURCH MEMORANDUM\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nIMPEACHMENT\nQ:\nSir: Do you think you will be impeached by the House?\nA:\nNo, I do not. The Constitutional definition of an impeachable\noffense is treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.\nAs I am not remotely guilty of these, I do not expect to be impeached.\nQ:\nSir: If you are innocent of the charges against you, why don't\nyou simply turn over the tapes and documents to the Judiciary Committee,\nand prove your accusers to be liars?\nA:\nSeveral reasons. First, the Presidency is a co-equal, not a\nsubordinate branch of the U.S. Govem ment. For me to open White\nHouse files, and invite the Judiciary Committee to rummage at will\nthrough those files, would be a violation of my oath of office. That\nI shall never do.\nSecondly, it is next to impossible to prove a negative. Look\nback over this past year and consider the various false and malicious\ncharges made against me, which have now been dropped, but the\npublication and re-publication of which has so damaged this Presidency.\nThe national media has aired, and re-published charges that A) I had a\nsecret million dollar stock portfolio, B) that campaign contributions\nwere used to purchase San Clemente, C) that \"Hughes money\" was used\nfor my personal enrichment or for the purchase of San Clemente,\nD) that $10 million in Government money was used to spruce up my\nhomes at Key Biscayne and San Clemente, E) that my daughter, Tricia,\nevaded income taxes on the sale of our Florida properties,\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-2-\nF) that John Dean and I had discussion about the cover-up on September 15,\n1972, and February 28 and March 13th of 1973, G) that I ordered the\nEllsberg break-in, H) John Dean and I had met together, a lone or\nin small groups, more than 40 times to discuss the cover-up.\nNow, in each of these allegations, it has taken weeks and\nmonths for the truth to emerge, that the President was not guilty as\ncharged. Nevertheless, because of the vigilante spirit permeating\nthe national press, because of malicious leaks and equally malicious\npublicity -- these false allegations remain on the public record, and\nare partially responsible for the decline of this President in the national\npolls. Considering the range of offens e charges, and the volume of\nnewsprint and network time, I am surprised I have ten percent in the\npolls.\nThere is nothing in my files which could show most of these\ncharges false, though all of them were. And when I turned over my\ntax returns and financial records to show the falsehood of some of them\nwhat happens. One of the leading members of the partisan committees\nto whom they were given in confidence indicates, through backgrounders\nand leaks, that the President may be guilty of \"tax fraud. 11 I believe\nthis charge too will be proven false -- but in the meantime the damage\nhas been done.\nFor these reasons, I have to make a judgment as to whether it\nis in the interests of this Presidency, this Administration and this country\nwhether or not to simply call a halt to this debilitating process.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-3-\nTo bring an abrupt end to the endless demands for information and\nfiles and tapes. To have this matter decided, with finality, once\nand for all.\nQ:\nSir: Do you plan to deny any more tapes to Chairman Rodino\nand the Judiciary Committee?\nA:\nWe have not yet slammed the door to further requests. But\nwe have I believe provided more than enough information -- in the\nway of all the materials provided to the Special Prosecutor, the 19 tapes,\nand 700 documents, plus all the demands from some seven agencies --\nfor them to reach a conclusion. I have not yet made a final decision\nbut I think the White House has traveled more than half-way down the\nroad -- and with what we have provided, plus the promise of written\ninterrogatories, plus the discussion with the Chairman and\nMr. Hutchinson, I think the Committee should proceed to a rapid\ndecision.\nQ\nSir: Do you think that your refusal to provide more tapes to\nthe House Judiciary Committee would result in a contempt citation --\nand do you think that citation for contempt is an impeachable offense?\nA:\nIn the answer to the first part of that question, I cannot say.\nBut the President of the United States has an obligation to defend the\nrights and prerogatives of his branch of Government. Just as the\nmembers of Congress have fought to protect theirs. And I first do\nnot believe that such a citation would or should be issued; and secondly,\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-4-\nI certainly. do not think that such a collision is justification for the\nCongress to impeach a President, and thus assert supremacy over\na co-equal branch, when it refuses to bow to a Congressional\ninterpretation of the Constitution.\nQ:\nSir: Now that the indictments have been handed down, and\nthe prosecutions are moving forward, why do you continue to deny\nto the Special Prosecutor the tapes and documents from Watergate\nand other areas?\nA:\nWe have provided the Special Prosecution force all the\ntapes and documents they needed to -- in Mr. Jaworski's comment --\nknow the full story of Watergate. He subsequently has come in with\nhis indictments. Our decision I blieve may have speeded the process,\nwhich is good news for the country. And providing another new\nbatch of tapes and documents would in my view not expedite, but\ndelay the matter, when it should be concluded as rapidly as possible.\n&\nSir: Would you resist a subpoena from Mr. Jaworski or\nMr. Rodino?\nA:\nOur purpose is to cooperate to bring these investigations,\nprosecutions and proceedings to an end -- to get on with the business\nof the American people. And I don't believe that my indicating what\nI would or would not do, in the event such occurred, would advance\nthat cooperation. My hope is that Mr. St. Clair can work these\nmatters out with Mr. Doar, and Mr. Jaworski amicably and speedily.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-5-\nQ\nSir: Would you agree with Mr. Ford that defiance of\nCongress, a stonewalling of the Judiciary, could result in\nimpeachment?\nA:\nNo useful purpose is served by my making predictions or\nprojections about a hypothetical situation. My hope is that just as\nwe have cooperated with the Judiciary, just as we have provided materials\nand offers consistent with our responsibilities, that they will similarly\nrecognize that the Presidency is likewise a co-equal branch of\nGovernment with Congress. And that by sending a resolution of\nimpeachment by a simple majority vote from the floor of the House\nto the House Judiciary does not automatical 1y mean the President no\nlonger has any rights to defend the confidentiality of his office.\nLet me put it this way. The Hous e Judiciary would agree they\ndo not have the right to come down with a U-Haul trailor and clean\nout the files, and truck them back up to the Hill for review. We would\nagree that it might be constitutionally impossible to say that the House\nJudiciary is not entitled to a single sheet of paper, or the testimony\nof a single witness. Somewhere between those extremes, reasonable\nmen can find common ground there which will neither insult the House\nnor subordinate the Presidency. We think we have come far down\nthe road to the mid-way point; we are ready to compromise, we are\nonly unwilling to surrender the rights of the Presidency.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nQ:\nSir: Four of your closest advisers and colleagues have been\ncharged with the greatest corruption of any high officials in U.S.\nhistory. Can you tell us what are your feelings about this? Has\nyour confidence in these men declined; do you feel betrayed, or\nresponsible in any way for the wrong-doing that has been charged?\nA:\nThese men were and remain my friends. Though they have\nbeen convicted many times in the press, and the court of public opinion,\nthough they have already paid an enormous price in terms of reputations\nand loss of income and legal fees -- they still deserve a fair trial.\nThey still merit the presumption of innocence. Their mistakes and errors,\nwhatever they were, should be weighted in the balance with their\ncontributions to this Administration, and this country, in some very\ndifficult days for this Republic.\nSo also, Watergate and the attendant accusations against this\nAdministration will have to be weighed in the balance with the\naccomplishments of achievements of these years. Maybe history will\nprovide us with more balanced appraisal than the instant historians and\neditorial pages are now providing. When we took office in 1969, the\nnation was divided and embittered; our campuses, the greatest of them,\nwere paralyzed with demonstrations; our cities were victimized by\nracial violence and disorder, crime was rising dangerously; 300\nAmericans were coming home weekly in coffins from Southeast Asia.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-2-\nThis Administration -- in the face of systematic hostility from much\nof the intellectual and journalistic community -- changed much of that.\nWhat we ask is what I think history will provide, a judgment based\nupon our accomplishments as well as our shortcomings.\nQ:\nSir: You said at one of your press conferences that even if\nit means disaster for your party, you would not resign, because that\nwould be bad for the Presidency. Do you equate your personal\nsurvival and prosperity with the survival and prosperity of this office?\nA:\nIf the President of the United States, any President, were forced\nfrom office because of his standing in the polls, or because of\nunsubstantiated allegations, it would be gravely damaging to the Office\nitself. If that could be done to one President, you would have set a\nprecedent for the future which would place other Presidents at the mercy\nof a coalition of political and media elements -- which would, in my\njudgment, be detrimental to this country, and most assuredly, to this\nOffice.\n&\nSir: Is it your judgment that an Impeachment Lobby exists\nwhich is out to destroy your Presidency; and can you name the various\nelements of this Lobby?\nA:\nThe American people know what organizations have been putting\nmoney and manpower into this effort; they are aware of which institutions\nhave been beating the drums for impeachment for months. They don't\nneed my assistance in coming to a judgment on that.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nRapid Reading\nMarch 13, 1974\nTHE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT\nWhile the media has patted themselves on the backs for reporting\nthe Watergate story, they have also put forward outrageously false\nstories for which retractions have been eithe r non-existent or very\nlittle publicized. Here are some of the worst, and they are all false:\n-- In June, 1973 the New York Times floated reports that Dean\nhad met alone or in small groups with RN more than 40 times between\nJanuary and early April. Similar charges were made in other publications.\n-- In June, 1973 TIME magazine reported via John Dean that\nthe President ordered the Ellsberg break-in. This accusation lingered\nover several months.\n- - TIME magazine reported also in June, 1973 via Dean that\nRN knew about the cover-up as early as September 15, Everyone\nbelieved Dean on this point, yet no one has come forward to say how\ndemonstrably wrong this story was.\n-- ABC reported that RN had a secret million dollar portfolio.\nABC's source was hearsay, it turned out, but they played it up big.\n-- Countless reports went out that campaign funds were used\nto purchase San Clemente.\n- - Charges were made based on Dean's testimony that RN was\nt old the whole cover-up story on March 13, yet there have been no\nstories on how wrong Dean was or questioning his credibility since\nhe recanted this position before the prosecutors.\n-- Charges were made that \"Hughes money\" was used for RN's\npersonal enrichment or for the San Clemente purchase.\n-- Charges were made that the Government spent $10 million to\nimprove the President's personal property. Less than 12 percent of\nthat amount has actually been spent on the President's homes and on\nthe grounds surrounding the homes. The so-called improvements\nwere requested for security purposes. But most importantly the\n$10 million figure was off by nearly $9 million.\n-- It was charged that the President's daughter Tricia, avoided\ntaxes on the sale of Florida properties. The profits were duly reported\nas taxable income on both the President's and Tricia's returns.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-2- -\nThough these major stories have been outrageously false,\nno hue and cry has gone up about the media's credibility. There\nhave been no apologies for dragging the President, his family,\nand his friends through the mud of lies. Maybe it's time for some\npeople to understand the smear game being played by RN's\nopposition.\n####\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 17, 1974\nHUSH MONEY QUESTION\nMEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nPAT BUCHANAN\nEssentially, the March 6 response raises two questions.\nA) March 6 appears to contradict exactly with what RN said on August 15th\nand B) According to March 6, RN was told that hush money had been\npadi; i. e., allegedly knew that a crime had been committed; ergo, RN\nshould have reported that crime at once to proper authorities, etc.\nHow to handle?\nPJB's suggestion is this:\nAs for the \"contradiction\" between the 15th of August and the 6th of March,\nthis was quite frankly an error, hardly a grievous one in view of the\nfact that (1) on August 15 RN had not reviewed the March 21st tape,\na conversation six months before in which there were an inordinate\namount of revelations and (2) President discussed the whole question of\nfuture \"hush money\" on August 22, only a week after August 15.\nAs for the alleged \"misprision of felony, 11 RN indicated that hearing\nthese horror stories for the first time, from an individual who admitted\nhe had not brought them to RN's attention, had hid them from him for up\nto nine months -- does not constitute proof of a felony. President may\nbe criticized for not moving rapidly enough, but it would have been\nwrong in his judgment to have immediately accepted the truth of Dean's\ncharges, without knowing whether or not Dean was exaggerated or\nimplicating innocent individuals.\nPresident reacted the way any Chief Executive would have reacted if\na junior executive walked in to his office to announce that widespread\nmisconduct, possibly criminal, was taking place on the part of half a\ndozen senior company executives. Your first reaction is not to call in\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-2-\nthe police; it is to find out what in God's name has been going on.\nAnd that is exactly what I did. It can be argued in hindsight that I\nshould have concluded then and there that what Mr. Dean said was\ntrue, should have called in the Attorney General -- but I saw my\nduty as more than simply a legal responsibility. I had an obligation\nnot to jump to rash conclusions, not to make a rash and foolish\ndecision which could not only injure the Government I lead, but also\ndestroy names and reputations unfairly -- of men who had served\nme loyally and well for five years. What executive among you would --\nfaced with sweeping, grave allegations against your closest friends --\nwould wipe his hands of all responsibility, pick up the phone and simply\ncall in the police or the District Attorney.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTHE MARCH 21st TAPE\nPresidential Statements\nAugust 15, 1973 Written Statement\n\"It was on that day also that I learned of some of the activities\nupon which charges of coverup are now based. I was told\nthen that funds had been raised for payments to the defendants\nwith the knowledge and approval of persons both on the White\nHouse Staff and at the Re-election Committee. But I was only\ntold that the money had been used for attorneys' fees and\nfamily support, not that it had been paid to procure silence\nfrom the recipients. I was also told that a member of my\nstaff had talked to one of the defendants about clemency, but\nnot that offers of clemency had been made. 11\nAugust 22, 1973, Press Conference - San Clemente\n\"Certainly. Mr. Haldeman has testified to that, and his\nstatement is accurate. Basically, what Mr. Dean was\nconcerned about on March 21 was not SO much the raising of\nmoney for the defendants, but the raising of money for the\ndefendants for the purpose of keeping them still -- in other\nwords, so-called hush money. The one would be legal -- in\nother words, raising a defense fund for any group, any\nindividual, as you know, is perfectly legal and it is done all\nthe time. But if you raise funds for the purpose of keeping\nan individual from talking, that is obstruction of justice. 11\nMarch 6, 1974, Press Conference\n\"On that occasion (March 21) Mr. Dean asked to see me, and\nwhen he came into the office, soon after his arrival he said\nthat he wanted to tell me some things that he had not told me\nabout the Watergate matter. And for the first time on March 21,\nhe told me that payments had been made to defendants for the\npurpose of keeping them quiet, not simply for their defense.\nIf it had been simply for their defense, that would have been\nproper, I understand. But if it was for the purpose of keeping\nthem quiet -- you describe it as hush money -- that, of course,\nwould have been an obstruction of justice.\"\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-2-\nMarch 15, 1974, Press Conference -- Chicago\n\"The President learned for the first time on March 21st\nof 1973 that.a blackmail attempt was being made on the\nWhite House, not on March 13th. The President learned for\nthe first time at that time that payments had been made to the\ndefedants, and let me point out that payments had been made,\nbut correcting what may have been a misapprehension when\nI spoke to the press on March 6th in Washington, it was alleged\nthat the payments that had been made to defendants were made\nfor the purpose of keeping themstill.\nHowever, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Mitchell\nhave all denied that that was the case and they certainly should\nbe allowed the right in court to establish their innocence or\nguilt without our concluding that that was the case. 11\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 17, 1974\nMEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nBUCHANAN\nRN has been criticized for using public money to defend himself.\nPoints made by Loren Smith of St. Clair's staff:\n1)\nVast bulk of time of RN legal staff is spent complying with\nand aiding investigative process of Senate and House committees,\nSpecial Prosecutor, FBI, etc.\n2)\nIt is not a \"defense team, 11 since RN has not been charged\nwith anyting.\n3)\nPublic is paying cost of the scores, indeed, hundreds of lawyers\nand investigators working for the Ervin Committee, Judiciary Committee,\nand Watergate Special Prosecution Force -- as well as the handful\nof lawyers on RN's staff. Ratio of lawyers investigating White House\nand President to lawyers providing the requested information is\nsomething like 20-1 or 10-1.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nRapid Reading\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 17, 1974\nMEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nPAT BUCHANAN\n1.\nJohn Dean testified that on the 15th of September, 1972, the\nPresident congratulated him (Dean) on having \"contained\" Watergate\nand kept it out of the White House. That is not substantiated by\nthe tape of September 15.\n2.\nOn the 28th of February, John Dean testified, the cover-up\nwas discussed with the President, along with Dean's own involvement\nand \"legal problems. 11 That is not substantiated by the tapes.\n3.\nOn the 13th of March, 1973, Dean said he and the President\ntalked of $1 million being raised, and the President referred to the\nfact that Hunt had been promised clemency. There is no discussion of\nany payments or payoffs to defendants, and no mention of clemency\nin that conversation.\nBuchanan\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nDEAN TESTIMONY/PRE-MARCH 21\nSeptember 15th\nOn the 15th of September, Mr. Dean stated, he was (1)\ncongratulated by the President, personally, on having \"contained\"\nWatergate, having \"kept it out of the White House;\" (2) that the\nPresident expressed pleasure, \"the case had stopped with Liddy. 11\nHe testified further that (3) he told the President, \"others had done\nmore than I had done, \" that (4) he, Mr. Dean, could not guarantee that\nthe cover-up would not \"unravel, 11 at some future date.\nNot one of these assertions is substantiated by the recording of\nthe discussion on September 15.\nFebruary 28th\nOn February 28, 1973, testified Mr. Dean, he (1) again discussed\nthe cover-up with the President, (2) confessed his own involvement,\n(3) described to the President his \"legal problems, 11 concerning a\npossible \"obstruction of justice. 11\nNot one of these assertions is substantiated in the recording\nof the discussion of February 28.\nMarch 13th\nOn March 13, 1973, testified Mr. Dean, toward the end of his\nmeeting with the President, he (1) raised the question of \"money demand 11\nfrom the Watergate defendants; (2) the President indicated that $1 million\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-2-\ncould be easily raised; (3) the President was informed the blackmail\ndemand was coming principally from Mr. Hunt; (4) the President referred\nto the \"fact that Hunt had been promised clemency;\" (5) \"the President\nsaid he had discussed the matter of clemency with John Ehrlichman\nwho had foolishly raised it with Charles Colson; (6) the President was\ntold payoffs had been made. This is what Mr. Dean testified to - -\nabout that conversation on March 13.\nFrom the recording, however, not a single one of these assertions\nis corroborated. Not an ounce of solid proof exists from these three\ndiscussions, that the President was involved in or aware of a criminal\ncover-up of the Watergate affair.\nAlmost without exception, the words, phrases and revelations\nthat Mr. Dean claims to have made to the President on September 15,\nFebruary 28 and March 13 were actually made on the 21st day of March,\n1973, just as the President indicated on the 17th of April in his public\nstatement:\n\"On March 21, as a result of serious charges which came\nto my attention, some of which were publicly reported, I\nbegan intensive new inquiries into this whole matter. 11\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nAMBASSADORSHIPS\nQ\nSir: Can you respond to charges, aired again this weekend\nthat your Administration may have sold ambassadorships to\ncampaign contributors?\nA:\nThis Administration is not and has not been in the position\nof selling Government offices. We have done nothing that has not been\nstandard political practice since FDR, i. e., naming as Ambassadors\nprominent men in the national community, who are also prominent\ngivers to our political party. That has been an on-going practice\nin both parties for forty years -- and the suggestion that this\nAdministration should be condemned for a practice begun and perfected\nin Democratic Administrations in the last forty years is a mark of\nthe double standard which has been one of the characteristics of\nnational discussion of the entire Watergate affair.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTAXES\n&\nSir: Did you ask to see the tax returns of othe r Presidents?\nA:\nI have no recollection of having made such a request; in any\nevent I have not seen the returns of any other Presidents.\n&\nSir: Wilbur Mills has said that when the public knows the\nstory of your tax return, you will resign. Can you tell us anything\nabout that?\nA:\nWell, I have a high regard for Mr. Mills; and I deeply regret\nthe statement he made. As you know, it was my own voluntary decision\nto turn my tax returns over to the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue\nTaxation for their review. That decision - - to give those personal\nreturns to a partisan committee was taken with the knowledge that there\nhas been nothing wrong in the preparation of my return; it was taken\nas well in the anticipation that the members of the Committee would\ntreat the matter in confidence. I regret that trust has been badly\nmisplaced; and this Congressional Committee has the same difficulty\nwith leaks of confidential information as has the Ervin Committee.\nIn any event, so long as the matter is not a technical one, I have\nindicated I will abide by the Committee decision, rather than have the\nquestion adjudicated in court. On the central issue, however, the\nVice Presidential papers, the question is A) Was there an intent\nto make a gift. The hard fact that the pa pers were turned over to the\nArchives four months before the deadline seems to be adequate proof\nfor most reasonable men that indeed the intent was there, no matter the\nquality of the paperwork.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-2-\nQ:\nis\nSir: The New York Time S Sunday indicated that you took a\ndeduction for gasoline taxes, etc.\nA:\nI do not intend to use this forum to discuss the allowability\nof deductions in my tax returns which had the affect on my tax liability\nof less than $100. My suggestion is that you write with your concerns\nto Mr. Mills. That matter is before the Committee; and this nation\nand President have more important things to discuss than some of\nthese picayune matters which fascinate some of my friends in the\nEastern press.\nQ:\nSir: Will you take the papers deduction in the coming year?\nA:\nAny decision on this year's taxes will have to await the outcome\nof the Joint Committee's study.\nQ:\nSir: Are you concerned that the IRS is reportedly looking into\nyour tax returns for possible civil fraud?\nA:\nThere was no fraud whatsoever on my part -- I think that\nthe investigating bodies will rule that to be the fact.\nQ:\nSir: Is it true that the White House cannot locate, the deed\nto the Vice Presidential papers?\nA:\nThat is a matter which the tax lawyers and the Committee have\ntaken up -- deed or no deed, the papers were there in the physical\npossession of the Archives four months before the deadline.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nRapid Reading\nTHE SCOPE OF WATERGATE INVESTIGATIONS AND RN COOPERATION\n-- April 17, 1973: RN announced that he would allow present\nand former White House Staff members to appear before the Ervin\nCommittee and testify under oath -- while expressly reserving the\nright to assert Executive Privilege.\n-- May 22, 1973: RN asserted that members of his staff may\nnot invoke Executive Privilege when it comes to testimony regarding\ncriminal conduct. RN also waived attorney-client privilege with regard\nto his communications with John Dean.\nWATERGATE HEARING STATISTICS\n-- 53 days of hearings before the Ervin Committee\n-- 265 hours of testimony\n-- 61 witnesses\n-- Over 2 million words spoken\n-- 10, 203 pages of transcript\n-- Cost $1. 5 million taxpayers' funds\n-- 118 hours of testimony were given by present and former\nWH aides for whom Executive Privilege was not asserted\n-- Dozens of WH aides went for countless hours of interviews,\nmany more than once, in a full effort at cooperation\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-2-\nSCOPE\n-- Watergate matters have been heard before no fewer than\nseven Congressional Committees.\n-- Total cost of the investigations have exceeded $8 million\nand probably much more.\n-- Three grand juries in Washington, one in Florida, one in\nHouston, one in New York, and one in Los Angeles have all poured\nthousands of man-hours into the Watergate investigation.\n-- Over 50 field offices of the FBI have been used.\n-- Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Service and the\nGeneral Accounting Office have devoted their services into months\nof investigation.\nCATALOG OF MATERIAL ALREADY DISCLOSED TO SPECIAL PROSECUTOR\nTAPES:\nSubpoenaed by Cox\n8 Watergate\nVoluntarily disclosed\n7 Watergate\n4 ITT\n1 Plumbers\n2 Milk Fund\n2 Stans/Mitchell Trial\n1 Tape hearings (June 4)\nTOTAL\n25\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n- -3- -\nDOCUMENTS:\nSubpoeaned by Cox\n6\ndocuments Watergate\n1\ndictabelt\n1\ncassette\nVoluntarily disclosed\n129\nRelating to Court hearings on the tapes\n300\nPlumbers\n120\nITT\n100\nMilk\n(note: these are\n25\nPolitical matters memos\nestimates only)\n18\nLogs of meetings with RN\n13\nMiscellaneous\nESTIMATED TOTAL\n713\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nRapid Reading\nMARCH 21\nMorning meeting with Dean and then Haldeman\nAfternoon meeting with Dean, Haldeman, Ehrlichman\nMARCH 22\nLuncheon meeting with Dean, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell\nDuring this session the President instructed\nMr. Dean to go to Camp David and prepare a\nwritten report.\n[FYI: Dean has testified that he remained at\nCamp David from March 23 - March 28. Though\nthere are somewhat differing versions of when it\nwas certain that he could not complete a report,\nthe consensus is that it was aroung the end of the month. ]\nOn March 23, while the President was in Key Biscayne, the McCord\nletter was made public, alleging pressure on the defendants to keep\nquiet. On March 26, the L.A. Times published a story in which\nsources quoted McCord as saying that Dean and Magruder both had\nprior knowledge of the break-in. Dean denied this and his lawyer\nthreatened libel. Magruder denied it.\nMARCH 28\nTelephone call between John Ehrlichmanand Attorney General Kleindienst\nJohn Ehrlichman testified that he called the A. G.\nand asked him questions that the President wanted\nasked, specifically questions about whether he had\nany new information on Mitchell's possible involvement,\nor that of any White House staff or other officials of\nthe Committee to Re-Elect. Ehrlichman said the\nPresident wanted the Attorney General to communicate\nit directly to the President, should he acquire this\ninformation.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-2-\n[FYI: Ehrlichman also testified that Kleindienst\nindicated that he did not have information along\nthose lines.\n]\nMARCH 30\nZiegler indicates in public briefings that WH staff will appear before\nGrand Jury, if called.\nAs part of a statement on the White House position on\nexecutive privilege, and our intention to cooperate on\nsupplying information, Ziegler made two new points:\n-- Grand Jury -- \"If the Grand Jury calls any\nmember of the White House staff, that person, by\ndirection of the President, will appear to testify\nregarding that individual's alleged knowledge of\npossible involvement in the Watergate matter. 11\n-- Watergate Committee -- \"We feel procedures\ncan be established that would allow the members of\nthe White House staff to provide information to the\nSenate committee in an orderly and judicial fashion.\nWe have suggested in the briefings here that written\nresponses to questions might be one way, There are,\nof course other informal procedures\n11\nAlthough Ziegler indicated that the Grand Jury position\nwas not a new one within the White House, this was the\nfirst time it was formally, officially stated.\nMARCH 30\nJohn Ehrlichman takes over the sorting out of the facts.\nEhrlichman has testified that he did this at the\ndirection of the President. He has testified that\nhe asked questions of O'Brien, Strachan, Kalmbach,\nDean, Colson, Mitchell, Magruder, Krogh.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-3-\nAPRIL 9\nLen Garment, also at the President's request, involved himself in the\ninvestigation.\nAPRIL 14\nJohn Ehrlichman reported his findings to the President. Later that day\nEhrlichman called A. G. Kleindienst and informed him that he had\nmade this inquiry.\nAPRIL 15\nThe President met with Kleindienst, and Petersen.\nSubsequent to that meeting, the President maintained\nfrequent contact with Petersen during the month of April.\nAPRIL 17\nThe President announced publicly that there had been major new developments.\nAs part of this announcement, the President said\nthat any member of the government indicted, in the\nmatter would be suspended, and, if convicted, he\nwould be discharged.\nThe President also announced that an agreement had\nbeen reached with the Watergate Committee, and all\nmembers of the White House staff will appear\nvoluntarily when requested. As part of the agreement,\nwitnesses might appear privately, if appropriate\nand invoke executive privilege.\nThroughout the remaining weeks inApril, the President met and\ncounselled with a number of advisers, both in his Administration and\noutside (i. e., Secretary Rogers, Chappie Rose.)\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n- -4-\nAPRIL 27\nThe President went to Camp David, and during that weekend met with\nthen Secretary Richardson, and Attorney General Kleindienst. The\ndecision was made to accept the resignations of A.G. Kleindienst,\nBob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. The decision was also made\nto request the resignation of John Dean.\nAPRIL 30\nThese actions were publicly announced in the afternoon, and in the evening,\nthe President made a televised address on the Watergate matter.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTELEVISION & PRESS\nQ:\nSir: Do you share the belief of some of your aides that the\ntelevision networks should be broken up -- through use of the anti-\ntrust weapon?\nA:\nWell, my staff has had more journalists on it than any other\npresidential staff in history; and their views differ. My view is this:\nAny concentration of power is inhereently dangerous, especially when\nit is power over communications. We should correct that kind of\nimbalance by moving to guarantee more outlets for expression, not\nonly in entertainment, but also in news and public affairs. Since\nconventional broadcast technology does not permit any read expansion\nin the number of television channels, cable television, can, I believe,\nprovide that opportunity for a vastly increased number of channels.\nI am in favor of that. Not replacing existing channels, but adding to\nthem.\nOTP is currently preparing legislation to implement the first\nphase of the policy blueprint I commissioned two years ago. Our goal\nis not to subsidize or underwrite cable, but for it to develop freely\nin response to viewer demand, And we want it free of unncessary\ngovernment regula tion.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nNAB ESOTERIC ISSUES\nWhitehead has prepared and Dean Burch has cleared a number of\nanswers to questions that can come up -- dealing with matters esoteric\nto the broadcasters. PJB: S view is not to get the President bogged\ndown in discussion details of legislation, etc., on the Hill but to\nindicate a general quick response to each, and get off it. No one\nin the country will know what RN is talking about, except his immediate\naudience. Suggested response:\nQ:\nSir: If the license renewal bill recently voted out of the House\nInterstate and Foreign Commerce Committee reaches your desk,\nwill you sign it?\nA:\nWe consider that bill a step in the right direction; however, we\nthink it can be improved along the lines of our own bill introduced\nlast year to stablize the license renewal process. And we will be\nworking with the Congress to see if some happy medium cannot be reached.\nQ:\nSir: A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that cable\ntelevision system operators do not have to pay copyright fees under\npresent law for television signals that carry from distant locations.\nWhat is the Administration position, on the issue of copyright and cable?\nA:\nOur position has been that cable should pay a reasonable\nfee for the television programming it carries. There is a bill pending\nin Congress which would insure that cable television pays reasonable\ncopyrightfees; and I would urge Congress to act upon the matter.\n&\nSir: Is the Administration about to introduce legislation for\nlong-term financing for public television. And has your view of public\nTV changed since your veto of that appropriation two years back?\nA:\nDuring my years in office support for public television has risen\nfrom $5 million to $60 million annually; we have a long-range\nfinancing bill ready for Congress this month, for a five-year appropriation\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n- -2-\nreaching $100 million in 1980 - - that bill would guarantee a substantial\nportion of the federal money went directly to local public\nbroadcasting stations.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nECONOMY\n1)\nMore people (seasonally adjusted) on payrolls last months\nthan any other time in our history.\n2)\nUnemployment while up 1/2% from October when oil embargo\nwas imposed is still lower -- on an annual basis -- than it\nhas been since late sixties.\n3)\nRate of unemployment did not rise in February.\n4)\nRecent announcement of airline recalls encouraging.\n5)\nIn transitioning out of a controls environment, we are going\nto experience some turbulence.\n6)\nFood and energy accounted for 60% of price increases\nwe anticipate slowdown in food price intreaces (47% of COL\nrise last year) in second half.\n7)\nFiscal and monetary policy are providing a cushion for\nthe economy, they are not wildly inflationary.\n8)\nIn latter part of year, inflation will slow down, economy\npick up, and unemploymnet will reverse itself and start\ndown (Stein, 3/15)\n9)\nBusinesses reported plans for a big increase of investment;\nmanufacturers new orders rose sharply in January.\n10)\nWe think slowdown will be brief.\n(From recent B. B. 's)\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nENERGY\n1)\nUltimate solution to the energy cirsis will come from\nthe same private enterprise that gave us 40 cent gasoline for the\nlast twenty years -- not from Congress.\n2)\nWhen you have a food shorage, you don't heap new taxes\non the farmer -- you give him an incentive to grow and produce,\nan incentive in the form of profits.\n3)\nThere are a dozen major measures on Capitol Hill which\nwould have helped alleviate the energy shortage -- Congress passed\nthe one measure best designed to prolong it.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nMAJOR ADMINISTRATION ENERGY LEGISLATION\nAWAITING CONGRESSIONAL ACTION\n(As of March 6, 1974)\n1.\nNatural Gas. Supply Act - to deregulate the price of new natural\ngas. Hearings held in Senate Commerce Committee; outlook\nnot good. No action in the House.\n2.\nMined Area Protection (includes surfact mining). Allow mining\nto proceed with reasonable environmental protection. Senate\npassed surface mining bill unacceptable. House Interior now\nmarking up a bill which should be more acceptable.\n3.\nNaval Petroleum Reserves - Allow one year production from Elk\nHills Naval Petroleum Reserve and provide funds for\nexploration on reserves. Senate action complete. Congressman\nHebert and House Armed Services refusing to act on the resolution.\n4.\nDeepwater Ports - Senate hearings complete but little motion.\nTwo House Committees have reported competing bills to Rules.\n5.\nCreate a Federal Energy Administration. Senate action complete.\nHouse floor action on 3/6/74\n6.\nEnergy R&D Administration and Nuclear Energy Commission.\nHouse action complete. Senate hearings held but status is\nunclear. Senate may fold ERDA into a modified DENR bill,\nunlikely to be acceptable to House.\n7.\nDepartment of Energy and Natural Resources. Hearing in both\nHouse and Senate last August, and again in Senate on February 26,\n1974. Senate Government Operations Committee may act on a\nmodified DENR proposal.\n8.\nDrilling Investment Credit to encourage exploratory drilling for\noil and natural gas. No action.\n9.\nMineral Leasing - Modernize laws covering mineral leasing on\nFederal lands. Submitted in 1971 and resubmitted in 1973. No action.\n10.\nElectric Facilities Siting. Submitted in 1971 and resubmitted in 1973.\nOutlook is very poor. January 23, 1974 energy message indicated\nthat a revised energy facilities siting proposal would be submitted.\nWork is underway on that now. Should be ready in 3 weeks.\n11.\nProject Independence.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nRELATIONS WITH ALLIES & ADVERSARIES\n&\nSir: Can you comment on the phenomenon that the United\nStates today now seems at odds with its friends and allies and\ngetting on better than ever with our potential enemies?\nA:\nSince 1969, we have attempted to build a lasting peace in the\nworld by moving from confrontation to negotiation and cooperation.\nPart of this effort has been the opening of communication with the\nPeople's Republic of China as well as an expanded dialogue and\ncooperation with the Soviet Union.\nThe progress made with our adversaries over the past five\nyears correctly appears dramatic against the years of hostility and\ntension that existed previously. But against this perspective, we should\nnot see current problems with our European allies as a fundamental\nthreat to the Western Alliance.\nI would remind you that from the first days of this Administration,\ntrans-Atlantic cooperation has been the cornerstone of our foreign\npolicy. But I also think it is natural that in any longstanding, extensive\nrelationship, there are going to develop certain stresses and pressures\nfor change as the international environment changes. Ther e is nothing\ninherently unhealthy in this fact.\nBecause we reocgnized that Atlantic unity would be even more\nimportant in the future as we moved from an era of confrontation to\nnegotiation with our former adversaries, we proposed last year an\neffort to renew and strengthen this relationship by framing new\nprinciples to guide these relations in mutually agreed documents.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-2-\nThe process of drafting of these declarations has revealed\ndifferences between ourselves and our European colleagues. Some\nprogress has been made but we believe more work is yet needed in\ndefining the relationship between the U.S. and the EC countries.\nBut the difficulties we are encountering at the present time should\nnot obscure the fundamental importance of our Atlantic relationships.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nU.S. FORCES IN EUROPE\nQ:\nSir: Do you anticipate any withdrawals of American forces\nfrom Europe in the near future, in view of our political and economic\nconfrontation with our former allies?\nA:\nNo.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nOIL EMBARGO - ARAB BLACKMAIL\nQ:\nSir: Do you view as blackmail or illicit leverage the publicly\nstated position* by the Arabs that in two months they will review\nour diplomatic performance to see if the embargo should again be\nimposed?\nA:\nWe do not believe that it is appropriate to link the embargo, or\nthe threat of an embargo, to diplomatic efforts to achieve peace. We\nwant a permanent and just peace in the Middle East and we will not\nbe diverted from this course or pressured into doing something before\nwe are able to do it. I would suggest instead that implications of pressure\non the United States could be ounterproductive in that they could serve\nto hinder and slow down our real and earnest efforts to achieve\ndisengagement negotiations and movement toward a permanent settlement.\n(*FYI: There has NOT BEEN an offical announcement suggesting this\ncourse of action.)\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nSOVIET PROPAGANDA TO ARABS\nQ\nSir: Do you think the Soviet propaganda campaign to the Arabs\nand Mr. Gromyko's recommendation that they not lift the oil\nembargo against the United States is consistent with the spirit of detente?\nA:\nWe believe that all parites with interests in the Middle East\nshould follow a course which lessens tensions and assists the\nbuilding of a just and lasting peace in that area.\nI have frequently stated our belief that a continuation of the\nembargo could slow efforts toward disengagement negotiations\nand a peaceful settlement. Therefore, it can be no country's real\ninterest to encourage discrimination against the United States by\nprolonging the embargo.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTRAVEL PLANS\nQ:\nSir: is the Moscow Summit still on, and the European Summit\nnow off - - what foreign travel plans have you in mind; and will you\ngo with this impeachment question still hanging fire?\nA:\nGeneral Secretary Brezhnev and I agreed at last year's summit\nmeeting in Washington that we would meet again in 1974. Planning is\ngoing àhead for my next meeting with Mr. Brezhnev. As you know,\nSecretary Kissinger will be visiting Moscow next week for preparatory\ndiscussions with the Soviet leadership. I am looking forward to this\nyear's summit talks which I expect will further the prospects for\npeace and stability throughout the world.\nWith regard to Europe, I pointed out in Chicago last week that\ndifferences between ourselves and the European Community have slowed\nthe progress we had hoped for in developing a declaration covering the\neconomic and political aspects of our relationship. We believe that\nmore work is needed and, therefore, a trip to Europe in the immediate\nfuture is not appropriate.\nNevertheless, we attach great importance to strengthened relations\nwithin the Atlantic alliance and we shall continue to work for greater\ncooperation on both the economic and political areas as well as the\nsecurity area.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nSALT\nQ:\nSir: Can you tell us when we can expect agreement on SALT II,\nand what will be the nature of that agreement?\nA:\nAt our summit meeting in Washington last year, General\nSecretary Brezhnev and I agreed on some Basic Principles to guide\nthe SALT negotiations this year. Most importantly, we agreed to\nattempt to achieve a permanent agreement in 1974. We also agreed that\nthe permanent agreement should incorporate qualitative limits in\naddition to quantitative limits and, in addition, make provision for\nsubsequent reductions in our strategic forces.\nOur SALT negotiators have been meeting in Geneva since last\nNovember. Next week Secretary Kissinger will hold discussions in\nMoscow seeking further progress. And I am looking forward to talking\ndirectly with General Secretary Brezhnev in Moscow later this year\non a new agreement.\nIt would be premature and inappropriate to go into details on\nthese negotiations. We are, of course, hopeful that working together\nwith the Soviet leadership we can reach a meaningful SALT agreement\nwhich will further enhance stability and forestall another round in the\narms race.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nMISCELLANEOUS\n&\nSir: Do you not think that the nation would be better off with\nMr. Ford in the Office of President -- since he cal ld put Watergate\nbehind us and better unite the country?\nA:\nFirst, if I resigned, in the absence of any wrong-doing, and\nin the face of the attacks upon me, it would weaken the Presidency\nand set a precedent injurious to this country and this government,\nfor years into the future. Secondly, despite my admiration and respect\nfor my colleague Gerald Ford, I happen to believe that I am fitted\nby knowledge, experience and capacity to deal -- at this point in\nhistory -- as well as any American with the building of peace.\nAMNESTY\nQ:\nSir: In light of the change in view of Secratary Laird and\nFroelke, don't you think America could be brought together better\nif amnesty were granted?\nA:\nNo, I do not. The men who served in that unpopular war\npaid a price, some of them with their lives, to do their duty by their\ncountry. And the runaways are going to have to pay a price as well.\nThere will be no blanket, unconditional amnesty so long as I am\nPresident of the United States.\nQ:\nSir: Do you have a replacement yet for Secretary Shultz? Is\nBill Simon the front-runner?\nA:\n--\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-2-\n&\nSir: Can you tell us your sentiments on how to deal with the\nkind of kidnapings and terror tactics which political extremists have\nutilized of late?\nA:\nFor the future, we must have the maximum deterrent to the\nkind of terror tactics we have seen visited upon innocent citizens in\nrecent years. For the present, since the Hearst girl is still being\nheld, I would make no specific comment.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 15, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FROM DEAN BURCH\nBACKGROUND:\n(1)\nI am here addressing the President's opening remarks and such\nmatters as may come up in the a & A that relate to broadcasting\n(2)\nInsofar as the Presdient feels hostility on the part of the\nelectronic press, the Convention delegates are not necessarily\nrepresentative of this hostility: they are businessmen, not journalists,\nand they probably care more about interest rates than they do about\nWatergate. In other words, the President's audience on this occasion\nwill not be all that different than if he were addressing the NAM or\nthe U.S. Chamber, or the Newspaper Publishers (as distinct from\neditors and reporters.)\n(3)\nWhat NAB party line there is related to only a few principal\nissues, and even so there are considerable differences between small-\nmarket radio and major-market television. I have identified three\nprincipal issues:\n(a)\nRENEWAL LEGISLATION. This applies pretty much across the\nboard, and it's \"the\" big one. The NAB wants to extend the license\nperiod from three to five years (but would probably settle for four,\nas in the bill recently reported out by the House Commerce Committee.)\nThe NAB wants a virtual guarantee that any incumbent licensee who has\nserved his community in a \"satisfacotry\" or \"substantial\" way is home\nfree against potential challengers. (The words in quotes are, of course,\nterms of art and the standard of service is the sticking point. In\ngeneral, broa dcasters want to be held responsible for \"ascertaining\"\nthe interests, needs, and problems of their communities, and for\nprogramming\" responsive\" to thos e interests, needs and problems.\nIn general, they oppose any administratively-imposed quantitive\nstandards -- so much news, so much public affairs, etc. -- but they\nwould probably settle for \"reasonable\" ones.) And, finally, the NAB\nwants a legislative bar to restructuring the industry, e.g., patterns\nof ownership, concentration of media holdings, etc.) ) in the renewal\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-2-\nprocess itself. ( Broadcasters generally oppose restructuring period.\nBut if there's to be any, they want it through FCC rule making of\ngeneral application. Such a general rule making is now under way\nat the FCC, and has been for several years; and the best guess is\nthat it will continuè to be underway for several years more and will\nissue in rules of relatively mild impact retrospectively.)\n(b)\nRELAXATION OF PAY CABLE RULES. This is another big\none with a fair degree of unanimity among broadcasters (although\nweaker independent television stations have more enthusiasm about\ncarriage on cable systems than do the networks and major-market\naffiliates). But virtually all of them want to see no relaxation in the\nFCC' S present rules as to the programming that can be carried on cable\nchannels for which a per-program or per-channel charge is assessed.\nNinety-nine percent of such programming is either recent movies or live\nsports events. Broadcasters have long enjoyed a protected marketplace\nfor such programming, they want to preserve it against competition,\nand they foresee dire consequences to public access to \"free\" television\nshould the bars be lowered. On the other side, pay channels may be\ncritical to the overall development of cable television; and for many\nyears to come, it will be a gnat competing with an elephant. This is\na very highly-charged, very emotional issue, and it should be treated\ndelicately if at all.\n(c)\nEMPACT OF CAMPAIGN REFORM PROPOSALS. So far as I\nknow, there has been almost no public reaction among broadcasters\nto the President's campaign reform proposals. Ther e are three aspects\nof thes proposals, how ever, that should provoke a reaction -- two\nfavorable, one less so. Broa dcasters vigorously oppose present limitations\non spending for radio/television and, insofar as the President's package\nseems to take a different approach to spending controls, broadcasters\nwould be pleased. They also favor repeal of Section 315 (equal time for\nall candidates) and this is central to the President's proposals. One the\nquestion of redefining libel and slander as these laws relate to press\ncoverage of public officials (and easing the very strict burdens of\nproof laid down in Sullivan V. New York Times), broadcasters ght\npredictably line up with other journalists in opposition. Broadcast\njournalists per se would obviously be out in front on this issue, but the\nNAB Convention delegates would probably be nervous about any such\neffort to redefine.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n-3-\nTALKING POINTS:\n(1)\nBroadcasters need not be apologetic or defensive. By and large,\nyou serve the public well, and that is an understatement. You offer\nthe American people a rich and varied diet, you offer them what they\nwant in the way of information and entertainment -- and if you did not,\nyou would be the first to know it. Your audiences vote day by day and\nhour by hour. The on/off switch is their ballot box. Overwhelmingly,\nyour audiences vote their confidence, their pleasure, they very\nfundamental reliance on the most pervasive and most forceful medium\nof communication the world has ever known. The time to start worrying\nis when you do not hear from your critics, because that would mean\nyour public was tuning you out.\n(2)\nIn order to continue your high standards of service, your\nindustry needs and deserve stability. Not absolute guarantees, not\nfreedom from criticism, but reasonable stability. And that, of course,\nis the thrust of this Administration's broadcast license renewal proposals.\nWe will continue to press for early and favorable Congressional action.\n(3)\nI want you to know that I am deeply and firmly committed to\nboth the independence and the expertness of the agency that you must\nlook to for fair and reasonable regulation. Two nominations to the\nFederal Communications Commission are now before the Senate, a third\nwill be on its way in the very near future, and I urege confirmation of all\nthree at the earliest possible date.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nSaw Hile with\nBrifing Book)\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nMARCH 19, 1974\nOFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY\nGB\n(Houston, Texas)\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nREMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT\nAND QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION\nAT THE\nNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS\nJESSE JONES HALL\n7:00 P.M. CDT\nTHE PRESIDENT: Mr. President, and members and guests\nof the National Association of Broadcasters:\nBefore going to your questions, ladies and gentlemen,\nI have an announcement with regard to decisions I have made\nas a result of the lifting of the oil embargo.\nFirst, it will not be necessary for us to have\ncompulsory rationing in the United States.\nSecond, effective this Sunday, I have rescinded the\norder which closes all service stations on Sunday.\nThird, Director Simon is increasing allocations\nto industry and agriculture so that they can have the\nnecessary energy to operate at full capacity.\nFourth, with regard to those gasoline lines which\nhave troubled us in several places in the country, we will\nnow be able to allocate additional gasoline with the purpose\nof diminishing the lines, and we hope eventually eliminating\nthem.\nNow, it is necessary for us to keep this development,\nhowever, in perspective. We must recognize that as far as\nprice is concerned, the pressure on prices will continue because\nthe oil we import from abroad, from, for example, the Arab\noil-producing countries, costs approximately twice as much\nas the oil we produce in the United States.\nAlso, with regard to the shortage, it is not yet\nover. We still have an anticipated shortage of perhaps\n5 to 8 percent in the United States. Therefore, it will be\nnecessary to continue our voluntary program of car-pooling and\nalso of slower driving.\nThird, with regard to the energy shortage generally,\nI should point to the necessity for action in one area. When\nwe speak of an energy shortage, the greatest shortage of energy\nis the lack of energy on the part of Congress of the United\nStates in getting to work and passing the legislation that\nwill produce more energy in the United States of America.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 2\nNow as all you ladies and gentlemen of the press\nknow, and I am sure this audience knows, there are now 17\nbills before the Congress which have not been acted upon\nwhich would deal with the problem of increasing the\nsupply of energy.\nAmong those that come to mind that would have\nan immediate effect if they were enacted would be first,\nthe deregulation of natural gas, so that we can have\nadditional supplies of natural gas, which we have in great\nabundance and which is the cleanest fuel that we could\npossibly have.\nSecond, it is necessary to develop not only in\ntenms of production but also exploration, the sources\nof energy that the Federal Government has in various\ninstallations across the country, particularly in Elk\nHills.\nAnd third, it is essential in terms of energy\nthat the Congress act on the legislation that I have\nrequested which would relax environmental restrictions which\nat the present time do not allow the mining of coal and\nthe use of coal, and coal is, of course, as you know, our\nmajor source of energy. We have 63 percent of all the coal\nin the free world, and it should be used at this time\nwhen we do have an energy shortage.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 3\nSo much for the short-term activities. In addition\nto that, the Congress has before it a number of bills\nwhich would affect the long-term problem. For example,\nauthority to build deepwater ports; for example, authorities\nthat would speed up the construction of nuclear plants, which\nin the long-term, is going to be one of the major sources of\nenergy in the United States.\nI have said, and as you have heard me say on many\noccasions, the purpose of the United States is to develop\nour energy resources which we have in abundance so that by\nthe year 1980 the United States will be completely independent\nof any foreign source for our energy. We can accomplish\nthat goal.\nBut we can accomplish that goal only if the Congress\nquits dragging its feet on the proposals that they now have\nbefore them and have had before them for several months. I\ntrust, with the cooperation of the Congress and the support\nof the American people, we will be able to have action,\nand action soon, on these measures.\nThat is the only announcement I have, and I under-\nstand Mr. Johnson is entitled to the first question.\nQUESTION: You said repeatedly that you will not\nresign, and yet today, Senator James Buckley called for you\nto perform an extraordinary act of statesmanship and courage,\nvoluntary resignation, as he put it the only way by which the\nWatergate crisis can be resolved.\nWould you comment on the import of this statement\ncoming from a conservative United States Senator and whether\nit might cause you to reassess your position?\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 4\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well first, it does not cause me to\nreassess my position, although I, of course, do respect the\npoint of view expressed by the Senator and by others, perhaps\nsome sitting here, who share that view.\nThe point I wish to make, however, is that when we\nspeak of courage, if I could address that from: a personal\nstandpoint first of all, it perhaps would be an act of\ncourage to resign. I should also point out, however, that\nwhile it might be an act of courage to run away from a job\nthat you were elected to do, it also takes courage to stand\nand fight for what you believe is right, and that is what I\nintend to do.\nMr. Johnson, I would not want to leave your\nquestion simply with a personal judgment. I am thinking\nof the statesmanship which Senator Buckley also addressed.\nFrom the standpoint of statesmanship, for a President of the\nUnited States, any President, to resign because of charges\nmade against him which he knew were false, and because he had\nfallen in the polls, I think would be not statesmanship.\nIt might be good politics, but it would be bad statesmanship,\nand it would mean that our system of government would be\nchanged for all Presidents, and all generations in the\nfuture.\nWhat I mean by that, very simply, is this: the\nConstitution provides a method by which a President can be\nremoved from office, impeachment -- impeachment for treason,\nand other high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, if a President\nis not guilty of those crimes, if only charges have been\nmade which he knows are false, and if simply because as a\nresult of those false charges and as a result of his falling\nin the polls he decides to resign, it would mean then that every\nfuture President would be presiding over a very unstable\nGovernment in the United States of America.\nThe United States and the free world, the whole\nworld, needs a strong American President, not an American\nPresident who every time the polls go down, says, \"Well,\nmaybe I better resign.'\nLet me give you an example: I have often said\nto members of the Washington Press Corps that the most\ndifficult decision I made in my first term was the very\nlast in December, of 1972. You recall then that I found it\nnecessary because of the breakdown in negotiations in Paris\nwith the North Vietnamese, to order the bombing of military\ntargets in North Vietnam in the Hanoi and Haiphong region\nby B-52s.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 5\nThe bombing began, we lost planes, and at that time\nI can assure you that not only my friends but many others\nwho had supported the actions that I had taken to attempt\nto bring the war in Vietnam to an honorable conclusion,\ncriticized and criticized very strongly what I had done.\nGreat newspapers like the Chicago Tribune, the\nWashington Star, that had previously editorially supported\nme, for example, were among them, and many Senators as well\nas other public figures spoke out. As a matter of fact, one\nSenator said, \"The President has taken leave of his senses.\"\nNow I had no hard feelings about that, I made him an\nAttorney General. (Laughter)\nThe day after Christmas, some of my closest\nadvisers felt that because a poll that they had taken\nprivately indicated that I had dropped 20 points in the\npolls since the bombing began, that I should consider\nstopping it. I considered their advice. I did not take it.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 6\nI ordered the bombing to continue. I ordered,\nas a matter of fact, it to be increased on military targets.\nFive days later, the deadlock was broken and as a result of\nthat action, an unpopular action, but an action which I felt\nwas right, the longest war in America's history was brought\nto a conclusion and our prisoners of war were brought home,\nas I have often said, on their feet rather than on their\nknees.\nNow, I want future Presidents to be able to make\nhard decisions even though they think they may be unpopular,\neven though they think they may bring them down in the polls,\neven though they may think they may bring upon them\ncriticism from the Congress which could result in demands\nthat he resign or be impeached.\nI want future Presidents to be able to take the\nstrong, right decisions that he believes are right. That is\nwhat I did then, and that is what I intend to do in the\nfuture.\nAfter that answer, it is only right for me to\nturn to the left. (Laughter)\nQUESTION: Mr. President, Tony DeHaro, KRIS-TV,\nCorpus Christi, Texas. While the Vietnam war was on and we\nas a Nation had to supply a military force, a couple of\nnations plus our own with food, fuel and just basic\ncommodities, well, in short, all of the things that we now\nfind expensive and scarce, why is it with the drain now\nover and even before the oil embargo began we, instead of\nhaving surpluses, find ourselves with high price shortages\nand what can be done to bring things back a little closer to\nnormal?\nTHE PRESIDENT: The reason why we have the shortages\nnot only in terms of food, which, of course, as you know,\ncame before the energy crisis, and resulted in an upsurge\nin food prices, but also in energy, is that it is not just\na U.S. crisis but a world crisis.\nIn a sense, that is good because all over the world\npeople are eating a little better, people are using more\nenergy and the result is that we need to produce more energy\nand produce more food in order to deal with these shortages.\nHere in the United States we are moving on the energy\ncrisis as it was -- it is now, I think, reduced to a problem -\nand we are also trying to move in the food area.\nThe way to move is to see to it that we increase production.\nLet me also suggest that I know many wonder why\nnot just control the prices? Well, the way to get prices\ndown is not to control prices at a level where the farmer\nquits producing and the producer of energy will not sell.\nThe way to get prices down is to produce more. That is why\nI am against controls in these areas. We must produce more,\nand we will get the prices down, and I think that we shall.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 7\nQUESTION: Mr. President, Jay Solomon, WCOL News,\nColumbus, Ohio. Our Middle East policy has seemed to point\nthree ways -- support for Israel, keeping access to Arab oil\nand containing the Soviet influence. It seems to be touchy\nat best. But now with the Arab oil embargo lifted and\nwith Egypt seeming to lead the way in that regard, what\ndoes that do to U.S.-Middle East policy, especially should\npush come to shove as regarding to Israel?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I realize that many of those who\nsupport Israel and its independence, as I have since that\nState came into existence, wonder about the policy of the\nUnited States, which is now one designed not only to be a\nfriend of Israel but to be a friend of Israel's neighbors,\nand I would only suggest that in terms of the future of\nIsrael, it is much better to have the United States a friend\nof Israel's neighbors and thereby able to influence and perhaps\nrestrain their policies rather than an enemy or with no\ncommunication.\nAnd so, therefore, our policy is designed to\naccomplish these things:\nOne, we will continue to support the independence\nand the integrity of the State of Israel.\nTwo, we will continue to try to seek not only\nrenewed relations with Egypt but with other countries, with\nwhich those relations have been broken, as you know, in the past\ngrowing out of the June 1967 war.\nLet me make one thing very clear. Being a friend\nof one of Israel's neighbors does not make us an enemy\nof Israel. In the long-term interests of Israel, and in\nthe long-term interests of all of the countries in the\nMideast, it is vital that the United States play a constructive\nand positive role.\nFor example, the progress on the Syrian disengagement,\nwhich will be even more difficult than the disengagement on\nthe Isracli-Egyptian front, is a news item which I think\n'came over the ticker just a few moments ago. This is a\npositive move.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 8\nWe have a long way to go. But in the long-term,\nwe have to realize that a U.S. role in the Mideast must\nbe one that works with all the countries in the area\nthat are willing to work with us.\nThe other point that I should make that I know is\nperhaps not included in your question, but is implicit\nin many questions that are asked in this field, why is it\nthat we follow this attitude in the Mideast at a time\nwhen the Soviet Union seems to be following, some claim or\nallege, an obstructionist attitude in the Mideast.\nLet me say, there cannot be permanent peace in\nthe Mideast unless the United States is for it and plays\na role to get it. But also, there cannot be permanent\npeace in the Mideast if the Soviet Union is against it.\nAs far as the Soviet Union and the United States are\nconcerned, our interests are not always the same in the\nMideast, but in my meetings with Mr. Brezhnev two years ago, also\nthis year (last year), and I trust also later in the year,\nthe problem of peace in the Mideast will be high on the\nagenda.\nWe will not always agree. But it is to the\ninterest not only of the countries in the Mideast, but\nof the Soviet Union and the United States, to work out\na permanent settlement, because it is one of those flash-\npoints in the world far more important to the interest\nofthe U.S. and the Soviet Union than a place like Vietnam,\nand we cannot again, if we can avoid it, run the risk\nof a confrontation between the two superpowers in that\narea of the world.\nSo, I believe our policy of working toward\npermanent peace with Israel, with her neighbors, and\nworking with the Soviet Union, where the Soviet Union\nis willing to work with us, is in the best interest of\neverybody concerned.\nQUESTION: Mr. President.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Mr. Jarriel of ABC.\nQUESTION: Thank you. I would like to follow up\nthat question, Mr. President. In your Chicago meeting\nwith reporters upon the Middle East, you said that if\nthe oil embargo lifting had indications that it might\nbe conditional and they might reimpose it, the United\nStates would not be pressured and any implications of\npressure would have a countereffect on the peace\nnegotiations. My question goes to the fact that according\nto the news record, the embargo is lifted on a conditional\nbasis of a review in June.\nBecause of this, will you recommend that Dr.\nKissinger break off his efforts in the negotiations between\nSyria and Israel until there is a firm and final lifting\nof the embargo?\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 9\nTHE PRESIDENT: No, I will not. And I will not for this\nreason: That what the decision was, as I understand, Mr.\nJarriel, was that the Arab countries would meet again in\nJune to review the situation. It was not a decision\nwith a condition.\nNow, as far as our policy in the Mideast is\nconcerned, we seek a permanent peace as an end in itself.\nWhatever happens to the oil embargo, peace in the Mideast\nwould be in our interest and in the interest of the whole world.\nAs far as the oil embargo is concerned, it is in\nthe interest of those countries that imposed it, as well\nas the United States, that it be lifted. The two should go\nparallel. Inevitably, what happens in one area affects\nthe other, and I am confident that the progress we are\ngoing to continue to make on the peace front in the\nMideast will be very helpful in seeing to it that an\noil embargo is not reimposed.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 10\nQUESTION: Mr. President, I am Paul McGonigle,\nfrom KOY Radio in Phoenix. You have become so accessible\nof late, not only with Washington news conferences but with\nappearances such as these, a group of us were talking a\nwhile ago that it is difficult to think of something new\nto ask on a subject that hasn't been beaten to death like\nWatergate, for example, and (Laughter) --\nTHE PRESIDENT: Oh, ask that, I am used to it.\n(Laughter).\nQUESTION: What I would like to ask you, sir, is\nwhy this accessibility has not marked your Administration\nthroughout the entire tenure of your years in the White\nHouse?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, with forums like this I\nthink I should be more accessible, I agree.\nNo, seriously, the press conference is a very\nuseful medium through which a President can convey his views\nto the American people. There are times, however, when a\npress conference, a President determines, would not be\nuseful, because of very sensitive negotiations that are going\non where even a \"no comment\" could be very unhelpful.\nI would suggest that in the future, as I see the\nfuture, it is likely that I will continue to have a considerable\nnumber of meetings with the press, and I would welcome the\nopportunity to take the questions that people from Phoenix\nand the Washington Press Corps ask. I will try to answer\nthem as responsibly as possible.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, Chris Betsaris, WLAC-TV,\nNashville, Tennessee,\nMr. President, it appears likely that the House\nJudiciary Committee might subpoena the tapes and records which\nyou have refused to give to them. My question is this. Will\nyou honor such a subpoena and turn over such records if that\nbecomes the case?\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 11\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, I think in response to that\nquestion, I should put it in perspective by pointing out\nwhat we have already provided to the committee and what our\ngeneral policy is and what the status appears to be at the\npresent time with regard to possible future furnishing of\ninformation. I have already directed that all of the\ninformation that we turned over to the Special Prosecutor\nwhich includes 19 tapes and over 700 documents to be turned\nover to the House Judiciary Committee. In addition, I\nhave directed that seven Government agencies turn over\nseveral boxloads of documents that they requested be turned\nover so that they could conduct their investigation.\nIn addition to that, as you know, Judge Sirica\nyesterday directed that the records of the Grand Jury, any\nrecords that might be pertinent to this investigation be\nturned over to them. That was done not only without our\nopposition but with our acquiescence because we want them\nto have all the facts they need to conduct a thorough inquiry.\nBefore, however, they have examined any of this material,\nthey demanded 42 more tapes, several hundred documents, and\naccess to every document and/or tape, in effect, which is\nin the White House.\nNow, on that point we are still discussing the\nmatter with Mr. Doar, counsel for the committee, and\nof course he is discussing it with the committee members.\nThe reason that we do not say, \"Come in and bring your\nU-Haul trailer and haul it all out\" very simply is this:\nIt is not because of a lack of desire to cooperate. It is,\nfirst, because we believe that the committee has enough\ninformation to conduct its investigation and to see whether\nany charges it may have against the President are true or\nfalse.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 12\nSecond, insofar as additional documents are\nconcerned, in other words, virtually a hunting license\nor fishing license or whatever you :want to call it\nwithin the White House is concerned, I am following the\nprecedent that every President, Democratic and Republican,\nsince the time of Washington has followed, and that is of\ndefending the confidentiality of Presidential conversations\nand communications.\nI realize that many think, and I understand that,\nthat this is simply a way of hiding information that\nthey should be entitled to, but that isn't the real reason.\nThe reason goes far deeper than that.\nIn order to make the decisions that a President\nmust make, he must have free, unhibited conversations with\nhis advisers and with others and if the time comes when\nthose who come to advise the President assume that anything\nthey say, even though it is very unpopular at the moment,\nis going to be turned over later and made public, all he\nis going to find is a bunch of \"Yes\" men around him or\nones that are going to play it so safe that he isn't going\nto get the variety of views he needs to make the right\nkind of decision.\nSo, as far as the House Committee is concerned,\nwe will cooperate. I have agreed, also, as you know, to answer\nany questions that are submitted in writing. I have agreed\nto meet with the chairman of the committee and the ranking\nmember of the committee to answer orally any other questions\nthat they have, and Mr. St. Clair, White House Counsel, is\ndiscussing with Mr. Doar what other methods might be found\nwhereby we can cooperate.\nBut of one thing I am sure: To provide this\nhuge amount of documents and all of the tapes would only\nhave the effect of prolonging an investigation that has\nalready gone on too long because, believe me, dragging out\nWatergate drags down America, and I want to bring it to\na conclusion as quickly as we can.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, Carl Connerton, KWBA Radio\nat Baytown.\nIn the early portion of 1960, you made a state-\nment at what you called your last press conference, stating\nthat the press wouldn't have Nixon to kick around anymore.\nHere it is mid-1970, do you feel that the press is kicking\nNixon around again?\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 13\nTHE PRESIDENT: Before this audience I answer\nthat? (Laughter) No, I realize that perhaps - incidentally,\nthe year was 1962 (laughter) -- after I lost for President I\nprobably didn't feel I should have any difficulties with the press,\nI had had enough already. So, after 1962, with no\npolitical future, : said that I didn't intend to be\nparticipating in politics and thoroughly expected that\nwould be the case. And that therefore, the press would\nenjoy kicking somebody else around other than me.\nBut to come to the heart of your question, there\nis always, as my friend, now retired, of the Washington\nStar, Jack Horner, senior White House correspondent for\nmany years, said, \"There is always an adversary relationship\nbetween the President and the press, 11 -- that is healthy,\nthat is good.\nI think the press has a right to criticize the\nPresident and I think the President has the right of\nself-defense. I would suggest, also, that we should\nfollow this rule: The President should treat the\npress just as fairly as the press treats him.\nQUESTION: Henry Keys, United Press International in\nWashington, Mr. President. I wonder if you would explain the dif-\nference between a statement you made last August regarding_ payments\nto the Watergate defendants and what you said at your\npress conference this month.\nYou will recall that in August, you said you were\ntold that the funds were being raised for attorneys' fees\nand this month that Mr. Dean had told you the money was to\nbe used for keeping the defendants quiet, not simply\nfor their defense. Could you explain the difference\nbetween this?\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 14\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, as I stated in Chicago,\nmy statement on March the 6th was incorrect insofar as\nit said that I learned that payments had been made prior\nto the time that the demand for blackmail by Mr. Hunt --\nalleged demand for blackmail, I should say, since it has\nnot yet been tried -- that payments had been made for the\npurpose of keeping defendants still.\nI should have said they were alleged to have\nbeen made, because as a matter of fact, those who were\nalleged to have made payments to defendants for their\ndefense fees and for their support Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr.\nHaldeman, Mr. Mitchell all have denied that that was the\ncase. They have said it was only for the support of the\ndefendants and only for their attorney's fees, which would\nbe completely proper.\nUnder the circumstances, therefore, it would not\nbe appropriate for me to say anything further on this\npoint, because these men have a right, now, in a court of\nlaw, to establish their innocence or to have established the\nguilt, if they are guilty, of whether or not the payments\nwere made for one purpose or the other.\nQUESTION: Curtis Beckmann, News Director, WCCO Radio,\nMinneapolis.\nThis is a follow-up to your comment about\nincreasing production and decontrolling prices. Some\ncattlemen's groups are now predicting another round of beef\nshortages this fall because of the current low price of\nthe farm level of cattle. The prices are way down, and\nwith the experience of controls on food that we have had,\nespecially beef, what steps would you anticipate in handling\nanother beef shortage which they are expecting in the fall?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I am sorry that I have to tell the\naudience there is an echo in the room.\nDid you say food or fuel?\nQUESTION: Food and beef.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Beef, that is sure food. Okay. (Laughter)\nThe situation with regard to pressure on prices\nI would summarize in this way: It is not over. For example,\nthe inflationary effects of the energy problem will continue\nto push prices up until we get more production.\nInsofar as food is concerned, the prospect is\nbetter. We expect a very big harvest of grain foods, par-\nticularly. But as far as beef prices, which is your point,\nthe problem is still going to be a very difficult one because\nof the fact that those who -- and I am not an expert on how\nbeef is raised. Here in Texas you can find a lot of them,\nI am sure, and also how to write it off. (Laughter) But\nnevertheless, the problem is that in the case of beef, that\nthe beef production by the fall will not catch up to the point\nthat it will have a downward pressure on prices.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 15\nHowever, looking at prices generally, I can say\nthis, across the board: While we will continue to have\na difficult time as far as the Consumer Price Index is\nconcerned through the balance of the second quarter, and\npossibly into the third quarter we believe that the upward\npressure on prices will then begin to subside, and in the\nlatter half of the third quarter and in the last quarter,\nthat the food -- not only the price level generally,\nbut the food price level, even including beef, will be\non a downward trend.\nI do not mean by that that we are going to see\nthe prices come down in the way that we would like it,\nbecause prices are always too high if you can't make it with\nthe family budget. But I do mean to say that our projections\nare that in the latter part of this year that the rise in the\nCPI, which has plagued us primarily -- 60 percent of the\ncause of the rise of the CPI, for example, in the last\nquarter, has been due to energy and food -- that the rise\nin the CPI would begin to abate and we hope to continue\npolicies that will assist that.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n- 16 -\nQUESTION: Mr. President, I am David Day with the\nTexas State Network in Fort Worth. You and Members of your\nAdministration have said that you do not expect the country to\ngo into a serious recession. Yet a newly released Harris poll\nindicates that a big majority of Americans believe that we\nare in a recession now. What do you think is causing this\nillusion of an economic recession in the minds of 68 percent\nof the people?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Because 80 percent of the people\nlisten to television and radio. (Laughter)\nSeriously, I think Mr. Harris's poll would probably\nhave been the same last year in 1972 when we had one of the\nbest years of our history. But let us look at the situation\nwith regard to recession -- what it is now, what will it be\nat the end of the year and what it will be in the next year.\nAt the present time unemployment is at 5.2 percent.\nThat is higher than we would like, but that is the lowest\npeace-time unemployment we have had in 11 years. In 1961, in\n1962, in 1963, the only peace-time years of the 60's, un-\nemployment averaged 5.7 percent. So on the unemployment\nfront, we certainly are better off than we were before.\nSecond, with regard to recession, the economy, we\nwould have to be very candid in admitting, has in the\npast few months and will for the next few months, be in a\ndifficult period due primarily to the energy crisis which we\nhave been passing through and to other factors.\nHowever, the projections are that as we enter the\nlatter part of the year, unemployment will go down, the\nprice level will abate and by that time I think that the\nAmerican people will become convinced, I trust they will,\nthat they are not in a recession.\nI can only say that in terms of recession, there is\nno greater goal of course of any President or of any adminis-\ntration than to adopt policies that will see that every\nAmerican has a job who is able and willing to work, and\nthat he is able to balance his family budget at prices he\ncan afford to pay.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, I am Albert E. Voecks,\nof WSM, in Nashville, Tennessee. I would like to follow up\nthe question which the gentleman from Phoenix, Arizona,\nasked, on the accessibility of the Presidency to the people.\nYou answered affirmatively regarding news conferences.\nLast Saturday night there was a side of President Nixon re-\nvealed to the American public which hasn't been seen too\noften in thepast few years. Do you plan to bring this side\nof President Nixon out and get to the people more often?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I left my Yo-yo in Nashville.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n17\nQUESTION: Mr. President, I am Don Owen\nof KSLA-TV in Shreveport, Louisiana. You made the\nstatement that to drag out Watergate is to drag down\nthis country. Do you feel that this country would be\nbetter off tonight and in the immediate years ahead if\nthe Watergate break-in had gone undetected and that the\nactions of that group of people had never been reported\nto the American people?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Certainly not. The action was\nwrong, the action was stupid. It should never have\nhappened. It should not have been covered up, and I\nhave done the very best that I can over the past year\nto see that it is uncovered.\nI have cooperated completely with not only the\nGrand Jury, but also with other investigative agencies\nand have waived executive privilege perhaps further than\nI should in terms of the office of the Presidency in\norder to cooperate.\nWhen something happens like this, to say \"Cover\nit up, forget it\", when it is wrong, this of course is\ncompletely against our American system of values and\nI would very, very seriously deplore it.\nI would also suggest, not by way of defense,\nbut I was often criticized after the '60 campaign that\nI always ran my own campaigns. In the year 1972, I am\nafraid I was too busy with the trip to China, the\ndecision on May 8 with regard to the bombing and mining\nin the Haiphong area, the trip to the Soviet Union,\nthe negotiations in Vietnam which brought that war to a\nconclusion, that I frankly paid too little attention to\nthe campaign.\nNow, I don't intend to be in another campaign,\nneedless to say, but I also want to say that if I had any\nadvice for candidates in the future, \"Run your own\ncampaign, regardless of what the press says.\"\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 18\nQUESTION: Mr. President, Russ Thornton, WBAP in\nFort Worth.\nConcerning those men still listed as missing in\naction in Southeast Asia, could you tell us what is being\ndone to determine their fate and do you think a complete\naccountability is possible?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well to those who are listening --\nand there are perhaps, 1, 500 is the number, I think,\npresently MIA's who have not been accounted for -- I can\nsay that we have been working on this problem continually\nsince the peace agreement was signed.\nWe have had some success, but not enough. We are\ncontinuing to discuss it with the North Vietnamese. I\ndo not want to Ihold out false hopes, but I can say that as\nlong as I am in this office I am going to do everything that\nI can that they are all accounted for, because I know the\npain and suffering that those wives and mothers and fathers\ngo through. I have met them often in the White House.\nMy heart goes out to them, as I know the hearts of all\nAmericans do, and you can be sure that your Administration\nand your President is going to do everything he can to see\nthat we get an accounting.\nQUESTION: Ralph Renick, WIVJ, in Miami, Florida.\nMr. President, at your news conference last October 26,\nyou were particularly critical of broadcast reporting. You\nmentioned the network TV reporting, calling it vicious,\ndistorted, outrageóus. The National News Council subsequently\ntried to obtain from the White House specifics on those\ncharges, but those were not provided. Do you still feel tonight\nthat you are being victimized by television reporting,\nnetwork reporting, and could you be more specific?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, as far as network reporting and\ntelevision reporting is concerned, I realize that bad news\nis news, and good news is not news. I realize, too, that\npeople don't win Pulitzer prizes by being for, they usually win\nthem by being against. I don't mean to say that in criticism\nof those who award the prizes because that is part of the job\nof a good investigative reporter.\nBut I don't think that -- speaking to my long-time\nfriend from Miami -- I don't think any useful purpose would be\nserved by me in talking to many of the Washington press, the\nregional press, and our friends from the NAB to discuss the\nPresident's problems with the press.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 19\nLet me just say this: I am not obsessed by how\nthe press reports me. I am going to do my job and I am\nnot going to be diverted by any criticism from the press,\nfair or unfair, from doing what I think I was elected\nto do, and that is to bring peace abroad, and I trust\nprosperity without war and without inflation at home.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 20\nQUESTION: Mr. President, Norman Wagy, Storer Broad-\ncasting, Washington. Since your rather forceful comments last\nFriday about our relations with our European allies, both the\nFrench Foreign Minister and the French Ambassador to the\nUnited States have responded apparently in a friendly manner.\nWhat is your reaction to their response and\nhave you had a reaction from any other European nations?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I was, of course, happy to see the\nresponse, very, I thought, proper response on the\nthe part of our French friends. As you know, when I came\ninto office our relations with France were very poor. I\nmet with General DeGaulle on two occasions, and I have since\nmet with President Pompidou on two occasions. In addition\nto that, we have developed a much better relationship with\nthe French in the sixties, and I won't go into why\nthat happened, but I think that much of the fault was ours\nrather than theirs at that time, although both must\nbear some of the blame.\nBut coming to the heart of your question, which\nis with regard to the whole reaction of Europe, let me\nrestate the policy of the United States with regard to\nEurope.\nThis Administration is well known for having\nstarted negotiations with those that we weren't talking\nto for twenty years -- the People's Republic of China. Why?\nBecause they are the leaders of one-fourth of all of the\npeople on this earth and it is far better to talk to them\nnow than it is to wait until later when they would be a very\nvery great superpower with, of course, the ability to\nuse that strength even against us or our allies.\nSecond, we have started negotiations, some of\nthem heavily criticized by members of the press and others,\nwith the Soviet Union. Those negotiations have resulted\nin finally beginning to limit nuclear arms, avoiding a crisis\nor at least avoiding a confrontation in the Mideast\ndeveloping into a crisis which could have been far worse\nand also a number of other areas that we think are quite\nhelpful.\nNow, at a time that we have begun to seek better\nrelations with those who are our adversaries, it was my\nthought that this year, 1974, should be a year in which\nwe should shore up and develop a better relationship and a\ncloser relationship and consultation with our friends.\nThat is what the year of Europe was about. We have\nmade considerable progress on it.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 21\nAs far as agreement with regard to security -\nin other words, the NATO Alliance, the declarations that\nwere being prepared for a possible meeting at the summit, by\nthe heads of government - have gone very well. Now,\nin the political and economic field, in the dealings between\n\"The Nine\", the European Community, and the United States those\ndiscussions have not gone well. They have not gone well\ndue to the fact that \"The Nine\" at times, have not consulted\nwith us, we think, fully or in time. And second, in some areas,\nhave actually taken a position which is hostile to the\nUnited States.\nNow, under the circumstances, therefore, the trip\nthat we had thought I would take to Brussels, and other European\nleaders would take to Brussels, to sign a communique with\nregard to the new relationship, not only with regard to\nsecurity, but also, in the economic and political field,\nI felt should be postponed. I felt it should be post-\nponed for this reason: You must never go to the summit\nunless you know what is on the other side. When you go\nto the summit, and summit leaders have broad differences\nand paper them over with diplomatic double-talk, that does\nnot serve the cause of good relations.\nThat is why some rather direct statement needed\nto be made from this side of the Atlantic with regard to\nour concern. I would say with regard to the nations of\nEurope, that we have had communications, with other\nEuropean leaders. I believe that we are going to work\nout the differences that we have in the economic and political\nfield.\nI do not mean by that that we are not going to\ncontinue to be competitors because the free Europe, European\nCommunity, will be a great economic unit. But I do\nmean that at a time that the United States furnishes the\nsecurity shield for Europe that we can at least expect from\nour European allies and friends that they will consult\nwith us and not work actively against us in the political\nfield or the economic field.\nIt is that point I was trying to make. The other\npoint that I made I would like to elaborate on, too. Some\nhave thought that as a result of my statement in Chicago\nthat I would go along with the Mansfield Amendment, or\nothers, to unilaterally reduce our forces, and I am\nsure that question was in your mind, as well.\nI will not go along with that regardless of\nwhat happens in terms of the economic and political arrange-\nments because it is in the vital interests of peace in the\nworld and in the interests of the security of America as\nwell as Europe that Alliance be continued, and that\nthere be no reduction of American forces in Europe unless\nit is mutually agreed with the Warsaw Pact, and of course,\nwith the Soviet Union.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 22\nThat, of course, will be one of the subjects we\nwill discuss when I go to meet with Mr. Brezhnev.\nSo, I will continue to work for a continuation\nof cooperation in that field. The point I was making\nin Chicago, and I must speak very bluntly, and everyone\nin this audience knows it, there is growing in America\na new sense of isolationism. After Korea, after\nVietnam, many Americans say, \"Let us bring everybody\nhome. We have carried the burden long enough. Bring\nthem home from Europe and bring them home from Korea,\nand other places in the world, and we will take care\nof ourselves. \"\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 23.\nThat is good short-range politics. It is disastrous\nlong-term statesmanship, because the United States must\nplay, as the major free world power, a positive role in\nEurope, and in Asia, if we are to be able to have a\ngeneration of peace and perhaps an even longer period\nof peace.\nAnd so we will continue to work with our European\nfriends even though we, at times, disagree. But they must\nunderstand that in the event that their policies in the\npolitical and economic fields appear to be hostile to us,\nit is going to be hard for any President, including this\nPresident, strong as I am for the alliance, to get through\nthe Congress the necessary appropriations to continue doing\nwhat I think we have to do for their security and ours.\nThat point needs to be made. I think they\nunderstand it. And as a result of their understanding it,\nI believe we are going to make progress in the economic\nand political fields.\nQUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Dan Rather, with\nCBS News. Mr. President, Mr. President --\nTHE PRESIDENT: Are you running for something? (Laughter)\nQUESTION: No, sir, Mr. President; are you? (Laughter)\nMr. President, I believe earlier that you said\nthat you had cooperated completely with the Grand Jury\ninvestigation. It was my impression, and I could be wrong\nabout this, but that the record shows that that is not quite\nthe fact; that number one, that the Grand Jury asked that\nyou come down and tell your side of some stories they had\nheard, and that you declined to do that; and number two,\nthat the Special Watergate Prosecutor, Mr. Jaworski,\nindicated in a letter to the Senate that he did not get all\nof the evidence that he thought he needed, and I would\nbe interested in hearing you. reconcile what I believe is\non the record of these previous statements.\nMy basic question is this: That in recent days\nyou have, in effect, attempted to define the limits of the House\nJudiciary Committee investigation, what evidence that they\nhave access to. Now since the Constitution, and I think\nwithout qualification, clearly assigns to the House of\nRepresentatives, impeachment investigations, how can the\nHouse meet its constitutional responsibilities while you,\nthe person under investigation, are allowed to limit their\naccess to potential evidence?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Which one of the questions do you\nwant me to answer? (Laughter)\nFirst, with regard to the first part of the\nquestion, Mr. Rather, what I was referring to with regard\nto cooperation was that Mr. Jaworski, at the time he handed\ndown the indictments, said that he had the full story on\nWatergate. You reported that on CBS, I think, as did other\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 24\nreporters, quite properly.\nNow as far as appearing before the Grand Jury\nwas concerned, I respectfully declined to do so, and\nincidentally, I would advise no President of the United\nStates to appear before any Grand Jury. That would be not\nin the interest of the Presidency of the United States.\nNow, if you would repeat your second question so\nthat we can keep our train of thought.\nQUESTION: Well, the second question had to do with\nthe House impeachment investigation. I pointed out that you\nhave sought to limit, to define the limits of that investi-\ngation, what evidence they have access to and what evidence\nthey should not have access to.\nNow, given the constitutional assignment to the\nHouse of Representatives of an impeachment investigation\nwithout qualification, how can the House committee do its\njob as long as you, the person under investigation, is\nallowed to limit their access to potential evidence?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Rather, referring to\nthe House of Representatives, just like the President, it\nis bound by the Constitution. The Constitution says\nspecifically that a President shall be impeached for\ntreason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors.\nIt is the Constitution that defines what the\nHouse should have access to and the limits of its investi-\ngation, and I am suggesting that the House follow the\nConstitution. If they do, I will.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 25\nQUESTION: Mr. President, Grant Price, KWWL,\nWaterloo, Iowa.\nI would like to go back to the question of food\nproduction, if I may. Your Administration has asked our far-\nmers to embark on all-out production, I believe, as one of\nyour as part of your program. In view of some of the\nUSDA miscalculations of the past, notably with respect\nto the impact of the feed grain exports last year on domestic\nreserves, what assurance do the farmers have that their\nsuper output will not lead to a disastrous break in farm\nprices as in fact has already occurred in the beef feeding\nindustry.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, first, let me say that\ndespite what is called a disastrous break in farm prices,\nthe farmers have never had it so good.\nSecond, we want them to have it good because the\nfarmers aren't going to produce unless he gets a good price,\nand I know Iowa well because, as you know, I was stationed\nthere during the war.\nThe second point I would like to make is this:\nWith regard to the USDA, I don't think we can be too\ncritical of their predictions because there is one thing that\nthe USDA, with all of their expertise, cannot control and\nthat is the weather.\nThe weather throws them off sometimes. This year,\nhowever, Secretary Butz, for whom I have very great respect,\nhas collected these facts, and I have gone over it with\nhim over and over again. He assures me that the feed\ngrains will continue, that we are going to have a bumper crop\nto begin with, but second, with regard to the demand, the\ndemand world-wide, is still going to be very big,\nI do not expect that the farmers of this country\nare going to have a bad year in 1974. But the prices that\nthey had, for example, $14 for soybeans, that was too high.\nNow perhaps it is $7. That is still about $3 more than it was\nwhen it was $4. And $7 is pretty good.\nI am simply suggesting that as far as the farmers\nare concerned, I think they are doing very well, and our policies\nour policies of opening new markets for them abroad --\nand that is one thing that our negotiations with the Europeans\nis all about.\nWe believe that Europe's markets should be open\nto our farmers rather than closed. We believe that Japan's\nmarkets should be open to our farmers rather than closed.\nSo, we will have plenty of markets abroad, but at the same\ntime, we want to see to it that in our export programs abroad\nwe don't create shortages here which forces prices that the\nhousewife pays to exorbitantheights because our first concern\niswhat the American housewife pays for things, and we are\nnot going to be exporting so much that we have shortages here\nat home to feed our cattle and to do the other things that\nare necessary to keep prices on a reasonable basis.\nMORE\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPage 26\nQUESTION: Mr. President, Tom Brokaw of NBC News.\nFollowing on my colleague, Mr. Rather's question, you. referred\nhere tonight as you have in the past, about what you call\nthe precedents of past Presidents in withholding White House\nmaterial from the House Judiciary Committee, but other\nPresidents protecting the confidentiality of their conversations\nwere not the subject of impeachment investigations, Mr.\nPresident, and in fact many of them wrote that the House\nJudiciary Committee, at least Congress, had the right to\ndemand White House materials in the course of impeachment\ninvestigations.\nAnd history shows that Andrew Johnson gave up\neverything that the Congress asked him for when he was the\nsubject of impeachment investigation.\nSo, Mr. President, my question is this: Aren't\nyour statements on that matter historically inaccurate or\nat least misleading?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Mr. Brokaw, it is true, as you SE/,\nthat the only other President who was exposed to an impeach-\nment investigation was Andrew Johnson; and in so far as thit\nparticular part of your question is concerned, you are\ncorrect.\nHowever, in so far as the principle of confidenti:lity\nis concerned, that principle still stands and it affects\nan impeachment investigation as well as any other investigation\nbecause in the future if all that a Congress under the con-\ntrol of an opposition party had to do in order to get a\nPresident out of office was to make an unreasonable demand\nto go through all of the files of the Presidency, a demand\nwhich a President would have to refuse, then it would mean\nthat no President would be strong enough to stay in office\nto resist that kind of demand and that kind of pressure. It\nwould lead to instability.\nIt would destroy, as I have indicated before, the\nprinciple of confidentiality.\nWith regard to the problem, I simply want to say\nthis: It is difficult to find a proper way to meet the\ndemands of the Congress. I am trying to do so and trying\nto be as forthcoming as possible. But I also have another\nresponsibility. I must think not of myself but I must think\nalso of future Presidents of this country and I am not\ngoing to do anything and I am not going to give up to any\ndemand that I believe would weaken the Presidency of the\nUnited States. I will not participate in the destruction\nof the office of the President of the United States while\nI am in this office.\nQUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President\nEND\n(At 8:00 PM CDT)\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum"
}