YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → From the archives: Nixon tells reporters "I'm not a crook" at Disney World in 1973

From the archives: Nixon tells reporters "I'm not a crook" at Disney World in 1973 — Transcript

by CBS News · 12,355 words · 1,809 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00This is a CBS News special report. The
0:03president and the editors from New York.
0:07Here is correspondent Dan Rather.
0:10>> Good evening. For those of you who just
0:12watched the news, good evening again.
0:14President Nixon is appearing at Disney
0:16World, the East Coast version of
0:17Disneyland near Orlando, Florida, as
0:20part of a campaign to, as Mr. Nixon has
0:22put it, meet Watergate headon. The
0:25president has agreed to answer questions
0:27about Watergate or anything else before
0:29members of the Associated Press Managing
0:31Editors Association. Families of
0:34Association members also are in the
0:36audience, but only members will be
0:37allowed to ask questions. Also, in
0:40arranging this event for television, the
0:41White House has barred questioning by
0:43Washington newsmen traveling with Mr.
0:45Nixon on his current southern swing. So
0:47most of the people who will be asking
0:49questions tonight are expected to be
0:51publishers, editors, and middle level
0:53executives from newspapers outside of
0:55Washington and New York. My colleague
0:57CBS correspondent Robert Perpoint is at
1:00Disney World in Florida. Bob, could you
1:02tell us perhaps
1:03>> welcomes President Nixon to our 40th
1:05annual convention. I am John Quinn,
1:07president of APME and vice president
1:09news of Ganette Newspapers. This
1:11audience includes almost 400 editors
1:13from AP member newspapers in 43 states
1:16and their families and guests. The
1:18regular White House press corps is
1:19present. Our invitation last month to
1:21the president urged him to come here for
1:24some straight talk from the White House
1:26to the managing editors. The acceptance
1:28this week said the president would
1:29respond for one hour to any questions of
1:32managing editor present.
1:34No restrictions were requested by the
1:36White House nor set by APME except that
1:40questioners must be active editor
1:42members of APME. Ladies and gentlemen,
1:44the President of the United States
1:52[applause]
1:58[applause]
2:05Thank you very
2:07[applause]
2:11president Quinn and ladies and gentlemen
2:13when Jack her who has been a
2:16correspondent in Washington and other
2:18places around the world retired after 40
2:20years.
2:22He once told me that if I thought that
2:26the White House press corps answered
2:28tough questions, he should hear the kind
2:30of questions the managing editors ask
2:32him. Uh consequently, I welcome this
2:34opportunity tonight to meet with the
2:36managing editors from the nation's
2:37newspapers. Uh I will not have an
2:40opening statement because I know with
2:42400 of you it will be hard to get
2:43through all the questions you have and I
2:45understand the president has a
2:47prerogative of asking the first
2:48question. Mr. Quinn,
2:50>> Mr. President, this morning, Governor
2:51Ascu of Florida addressed this group and
2:54recalled the words of Benjamin Franklin.
2:56When leaving the constitutional
2:57convention, he was asked, "What have you
3:00given us, sir? A monarch or a republic?"
3:03Franklin answered, "A republic, sir, if
3:05you can keep it, Mr. President, in the
3:07prevailing pessimism of the lingering
3:09matter we call Watergate, can we keep
3:11that republic, sir, and how?"
3:15Well, Mr. Mr. Quinn, I would certainly
3:16not be standing here answering these
3:18questions unless I had a firm belief
3:21that we could keep the republic, that we
3:23must keep it, not only for ourselves but
3:25for the whole world. Uh I recognize that
3:28because of mistakes that were made and I
3:30must take responsibility for those
3:32mistakes uh whether in the campaign or
3:35during the course of an administration
3:37that there are those who wonder whether
3:39this republic can survive. But I also
3:42know that the hopes of the whole world
3:45for peace, not only now but in the years
3:47to come, rests in the United States of
3:49America. And I can assure you that as
3:52long as I am physically able to handle
3:55the position to which I was elected and
3:57then reelected last November, I am going
4:00to work for the cause of peace in the
4:02world, for the cause of prosperity
4:04without war and without inflation at
4:06home. and also to the best of my ability
4:10to restore confidence in the White House
4:13and in the president himself. It's a big
4:16job, but I think it can be done and I
4:17intend to do it.
4:19>> Mr. President, I'm George Gil of the
4:22Louisville Courier Journal. Would you
4:24please tell us, sir, when did you
4:27personally discover that two of the nine
4:29subpoenaed White House tapes did not
4:32exist? And why did you apparently delay
4:36for a matter of weeks disclosing this
4:39matter to the federal court and to the
4:40public?
4:42Well, the first time that the fact that
4:45there were no recordings of the two
4:46conversations to which you referred that
4:49they did not exist came to my attention
4:52on approximately September 29th or
4:54September the 30th. At that time, I was
4:58informed only that they might not exist
5:01because a search was not made because
5:03seven of the nine recordings request
5:06that did exist and my secretary
5:08listening to them for me and making
5:11notes for me proceeded to go through
5:13those seven tapes. I should point out
5:15incidentally that the two which did not
5:18exist in which there were no tape
5:20recordings of the conversations were not
5:23ones that were requested by the Senate
5:25committee and consequently we felt that
5:27we should go forward with the ones that
5:29were requested by both the Senate
5:30committee and the others. when we
5:33finally determined that they could not
5:36be in existence was on October the 26th
5:40uh of this year and we learned it then
5:43when I directed the White House counsel
5:45Mr. Bazard to question the Secret
5:48Service operatives as to what had
5:50happened to make sure that there might
5:53not be a possibility that due to the
5:55fact that the mechanism uh was not
5:57operating properly that we might find
6:00them in some other place. He questioned
6:02them for two days and reported on the
6:0527th that he could not find them. He
6:08then having had a date made and he asked
6:11for the date sooner with Judge Shereiki
6:13asked for a date on Thursday. You may
6:14recall I pointed that out in my press
6:16conference on the 26th. Judge Sarica saw
6:19him on Tuesday in camera.
6:21The White House council reported to
6:23Judge Sera that the two tapes did not
6:25exist and gave him the reasons for it.
6:27The judge decided, and I think quite
6:29properly, that the reasons for the tape
6:33not existing should be made public, and
6:35those involved with access to the tapes
6:38and those who operated the machines
6:40should be questioned so that there would
6:42be no question of the White House,
6:44somebody around the president or even
6:46the president himself having destroyed
6:48evidence that was important even though
6:51the Senate committee had not, as I have
6:53already pointed out, subpoenaed either
6:54of these two tapes. And since we're on
6:57this subject and I do not want to be
7:00taking all of the time on it except that
7:02I know there is going to be enormous
7:03interest in it not only among this
7:05audience here but among our television
7:07viewers. Let me point this out. I have
7:11done everything that I possibly can to
7:12provide the evidence that would have
7:16existed had we founded that had we found
7:18the tapes. First, with regard to the
7:21tape of June 20th, as you may recall, it
7:24was a five-minute telephone conversation
7:26with the former attorney general, John
7:28Mitchell, who had just left as campaign
7:30manager or was planning to leave as
7:32campaign manager at that time. I have a
7:35practice of keeping a personal diary. I
7:37can assure you, not every day. Sometimes
7:39you're too tired at the end of a day to
7:41either make notes or to dictate it into
7:43a dictabout. On that particular day, I
7:46happened to have dictated a dictabout.
7:48And on the dictabout for June 20th,
7:51which I found, I found that I had
7:53referred to the conversation to John
7:55Mitchell. And I think it's fair to
7:57disclose to this audience what was there
8:00because it will be disclosed to the
8:01court. It's already been offered to the
8:03court and eventually I assume would be
8:05made public. It said first that I called
8:08John Mitchell to cheer him up because I
8:09knew he was terribly disenart
8:12disheartened by what had happened in the
8:14so-called Watergate matter. Second, he
8:17expressed chagrin to me that the
8:19organization over which he had control
8:23could have gotten out of hand in this
8:24way. That was what was on that tape. Now
8:27turning to the one on April 15th. I
8:30thought that I might have a dictator
8:32belt of that conversation as well. Let
8:35me tell you first why the one the
8:39telephone conversation was not recorded.
8:41Not because of any uh deliberate attempt
8:45to keep the recording from the public,
8:48but because the only telephones in the
8:50residence of the White House which are
8:53recorded, the only telephone, there is
8:55only one is the one that is in the
8:56office, the little Lincoln sitting room,
8:58you know, right off of the Lincoln
8:59bedroom. The call I made to John
9:01Mitchell was made at the end of the day
9:05at about 6:30 just being before going
9:07into dinner from the family quarters and
9:09no telephones in the family quarters
9:11ever were recorded. That's why recording
9:14did not exist. Turning to April 15, the
9:17conversation referred to there was at
9:20the end of the process in which Mr. Dean
9:22came in to tell me what he had told US
9:24attorneys that day. He saw me at 9:00 at
9:28night Sunday night. There should have
9:30been a recording. Everybody thought
9:32there probably was a recording. The
9:35reason there wasn't a recording is that
9:38the tape machines over the weekend only
9:42can carry six hours of conversation. And
9:45usually that's more than enough because
9:47I do not use the EOB office. That's the
9:49little that's the executive office
9:51building office rather than the oval
9:52office over the weekend to that extent.
9:55But that weekend I was in the EOB for a
9:58long conversation with Dr. Kissinger on
10:00foreign policy matters. I was there for
10:03two other hours or two or three other
10:04hours and the tape ran out in the middle
10:08of a conversation with Mr. Kleindist in
10:11the middle of the afternoon Sunday
10:12afternoon and a later conversation I had
10:15the rest of Kle's conversation a later
10:17conversation I had also with Mr.
10:20Peterson and the conversation at 9:00 at
10:23night with Mr. Dean was not there. So I
10:26tried to find whatever recording,
10:28whatever record that would help the
10:30prosecutor in this instance to
10:32reconstruct the evidence because it was
10:34the evidence that he was after and not
10:36just the tape. What I found was not
10:38addictive. What I found was my
10:41handwritten notes made at the time of
10:44the conversation. I have turned those
10:47over to or have authorized my counsel to
10:49turn those notes over to the judge so
10:52that he can have them checked for
10:54authenticity and I understand there ways
10:56that he can tell that they were written
10:58at that time. Those handwritten notes
11:01are available. And then I did one other
11:03thing which I think will also be
11:05helpful. The next day I had a
11:08conversation with Mr. Dean in the
11:09morning at 10:00.
11:11That conversation was recorded and in
11:15that conversation there are repeated
11:17references to what was said the night
11:19before and when compared with my
11:22handwritten notes it is clear that we
11:24are discussing the same subjects. That
11:27entire tape as well as the conversation
11:30I had in the afternoon with Mr. Dean for
11:33about 20 minutes will be made available
11:35to the court even though the court has
11:37not subpoenaed them. And I would just
11:39simply say in conclusion, you can be
11:41very sure that this kind of a subject is
11:43one that uh is a difficult one to
11:47explain. It appears that it's impossible
11:50that when we have an Apollo system that
11:53we could have two missing tapes when the
11:55White House is concerned. Let me explain
11:57for one moment what the system was. This
11:59is no Apollo system. I found that it
12:01cost I just learned this $2500.
12:05I found that instead of having the kind
12:07of equipment that was there when
12:08President Johnson was there, which was
12:10incidentally much better equipment, but
12:12I found that as far,
12:15and I'm not saying that critically,
12:17[laughter]
12:19but I found that in this instance, it
12:21was a Sony, a little Sony that they had
12:26and that what they had are these little
12:29lapel mics in my desks. And as a result,
12:33the conversations in the Oval Office,
12:35the conversations in the cabinet room,
12:37and particularly those in the EOB, those
12:39are the three rooms, only those three
12:41rooms were they recorded. For example,
12:44the Western White House had no recording
12:46equipment. The S and my house and in
12:48Kiscane had none. But as far as those
12:51particular recordings are concerned, the
12:54reason that you have heard that there
12:56are difficulties in hearing them is that
12:59the system itself was not a
13:02sophisticated system. I don't mean to
13:04suggest by that that the judge by
13:07listening to them will not be able to
13:08get the facts. And I would simply
13:10conclude by saying this. I think I know
13:13what is on these tapes from having
13:16listened to some those before March 21st
13:19and also from having seen from my
13:22secretar's notes the highlights of
13:24others. And I can assure you that those
13:27tapes when they are presented to the
13:31judge and I hope eventually to the grand
13:33jury and I trust in some way we can find
13:36a way at least to get the substance to
13:38the American people. They will prove
13:41these things without question. One, that
13:44I had no knowledge whatever of the
13:47Watergate breakin before it occurred.
13:50Two, that I never authorized the offer
13:53of clemency to anybody and as a matter
13:55of fact turned it down whenever it was
13:58suggested. It was not recommended by any
14:00member of my staff, but it was on
14:02occasion suggested as a result of news
14:05reports that clemency might become a
14:07factor. And third, that as far as any
14:10knowledge with regard to the payment of
14:12blackmail money, which as you recall was
14:15the charge that was made that Mr. Hunt's
14:17attorney had asked for $120,000 in money
14:20to be paid to him, or he would tell
14:23things about members of the White House
14:25staff, not about Watergate. That might
14:27be embarrassing. Testimony had been
14:29given before the Senate committee that I
14:31was told that before the 25th 1st of
14:34March. Actually told it on the 13th of
14:36March. I know I heard it for the first
14:39time on the 21st of March and I will
14:41reveal this much of the conversation.
14:43I'm sure the judge wouldn't mind. I
14:45recall very well, Mr. Dean, after the
14:48conversation began telling me, "Mr.
14:50President, there are some things about
14:52this I haven't told you. I think you
14:54should know them." And then he proceeded
14:56then for the first time to tell me about
14:59that money. Now, I realize that some
15:01will wonder about the truth of these
15:04particular statements that I made. I'm
15:07going to hand out later. I won't hand
15:08them out, but I'll have one of your
15:10executives hand out my May 22nd
15:12statement, my August 15th statement, and
15:14one with regard to these two tapes. You
15:17can believe them if you want. I can tell
15:20you it is the truth because I have
15:22listened to or have had knowledge of
15:24from someone I have confidence in as to
15:27what is in the tapes.
15:28>> Mr. President. Yes, sir.
15:31>> Mr. President, uh Richard Tuttle, a
15:33Democrat in Chronicle Rochester, New
15:36York. Could you tell us your uh personal
15:41reaction
15:43and your political reaction and within
15:46that word I mean your credibility with
15:49the American people? Your reaction to
15:53uh the discovery that the Dean and
15:56Mitchell tapes did not exist.
16:00Well, my personal reaction was one of
16:02very great disappointment because I
16:05wanted the evidence out and I knew that
16:08when there was any indication that
16:10something didn't exist immediately there
16:13would be the impression that some way
16:16either the president or more likely
16:18perhaps somebody on the president's
16:19staff knew there was something on those
16:21tapes that it wouldn't be wise to get
16:23out. But let me point out again, while I
16:26was disappointed, let me say I would
16:29have been a lot more disappointed if the
16:32tapes that had been considered important
16:34by both Mr. Cox, the special prosecutor,
16:37and the Iran committee, if any one of
16:39those have been missing, because I
16:41should point out the tape of September
16:4315th when, as you recall, has been
16:45testified that I was first informed that
16:48there was a cover up. That of course is
16:50there. the tape of March 13 where it has
16:53been testified as I pointed out in the
16:55answer to the Louisville Courier Journal
16:57where it has been testified that I was
16:58informed then of the demands for money
17:02for purposes of blackmail that is
17:04available and the tape of March 21st
17:07where we discussed this in great detail
17:09as well as three other tapes in which
17:11Mr. Dean participated. Three other
17:13conversations are all available. But as
17:15far as these two tapes are concerned,
17:17even though they were not considered by
17:19the urban committee to be an
17:22indispensable part of their
17:23investigation, the fact that they were
17:25not there was a great disappointment.
17:28And I just wish we' had a better system.
17:30I frankly wish we hadn't had a system at
17:32all. Then I wouldn't have to answer this
17:33question.
17:35>> President, uh, you're I'll take the one
17:37on the left and I'll come to you back.
17:42to
17:44to stay out of the Ellburg case and if
17:46you did why? And do you think that the
17:48new special prosecutor should be kept
17:50from investigating the Ellburg case?
17:54I have never spoken to Mr. Cox at all.
17:57As a matter of fact, however, I did talk
17:59to Mr. Peterson about it before Mr. Cox
18:02took over. And I told Mr. Peterson that
18:05the job that he had, and I would have
18:08said the same thing to Mr. Cox was to
18:10investigate the Watergate matter. That
18:13national security matters were not
18:15matters that should be investigated
18:17because there were some very highly
18:19sensitive matters involved not only in
18:22Ellsworth, but also another matter so
18:26sensitive that even Senator Iran and
18:29Senator Bacon Baker have decided that
18:32they should not delve further into them.
18:34I don't mean by that that we're going to
18:36throw the cloak of national security
18:38over something because we're guilty of
18:39something. I'm simply saying that where
18:42the national security would be disserved
18:45by having an investigation, the
18:47president has the responsibility to
18:49protect it and I'm going to do so.
18:52>> President, now the gentleman in the
18:53back, Paul Perman from the Detroit News.
18:56Uh are you personally satisfied, sir,
18:58that the investigation of the uh the
19:01Watergate matter is complete to your
19:03satisfaction? And if so, could you tell
19:05us what your plans are to tell the
19:08American people uh about the facts of
19:11the case in uh with regard again to your
19:15credibility on this matter?
19:18Well, first with regard to whether the
19:19investigation is complete, as you know,
19:21there is now a new special prosecutor,
19:24Mr. Yahorski. He is a Democrat. He has
19:27always supported the Democratic ticket.
19:29He is a highly respected lawyer, a
19:30former president of the ABA in the year
19:321971.
19:34I may have met him. I have never talked
19:36to him personally and certainly have
19:37never talked to him about this matter. I
19:39refuse to because I want him to be
19:41completely independent. He cannot be
19:43removed unless there is a consensus of
19:46the top leadership of both the House and
19:47the Senate, Democrat and Republican, the
19:50speaker and the majority minority leader
19:52of the House and the President Prom, the
19:54majority and minority leader of the
19:56Senate and the ranking two members of
19:59the judiciary committees of both the
20:01House and the Senate which incidentally
20:03gives you uh as you can see a very
20:05substantial uh majority as far as the
20:08Democrats as far as the Democrats are
20:10concerned. The second point that I'm
20:13point I'm trying to make is one he is
20:15qualified two he is independent and will
20:18have cooperation and three he will not
20:21be removed unless the congress
20:23particularly the leaders of the congress
20:25and particularly the democratic leaders
20:27who have a strong majority on this group
20:29that I have named agree that he should
20:31remove and I do not expect that that
20:33time will come as to what I can tell the
20:36American people this is one forum and
20:39there may be others as to what the
20:41situation is, as to when it can be done.
20:43It is of course necessary to let the
20:47grand jury proceed as quickly as
20:50possible to a conclusion. And I should
20:52point out to you, as you may recall, Mr.
20:55Peterson testified before the urban
20:56committee that when he was removed from
20:59his position, you recall he was removed
21:01in April and a special prosecutor was
21:03put in that the case was 90% ready for 6
21:07months under the special prosecutor was
21:10then appointed. The case has not been
21:14brought to a conclusion. And I think
21:16that now after 6 months of delay, it's
21:20time that the case be brought to
21:22conclusion. If it was 90% finished in
21:24April, they ought to be able to finish
21:26it now. Those who are guilty or presumed
21:29to be guilty should be indicted. Those
21:31who are not guilty at least should get
21:34some evidence of being cleared because
21:36in the meantime, the reputations of men,
21:40some maybe who are not guilty, have been
21:42probably irreparably damaged by what has
21:45happened in the hearings that they've
21:46appeared before publicly. They've
21:48already been convicted and they may
21:49never recover. And that isn't our system
21:51of government. The place to try a man or
21:54a woman for a crime is in the courts and
21:57not to convict him either in the
21:58newspapers or on television before he
22:00has a fair trial in the courts.
22:02>> President, I'm Bob Heymon from the St.
22:04Petersburg Times in St. Petersburg,
22:06Florida. Mr. President, when Mr.
22:07Erlickman and Mr. Halddederman left your
22:09administration, you said they were
22:11guiltless in the Watergate affair and
22:12they were quote two of the finest public
22:14servants you'd ever known. End quote.
22:16After what's transpired and been
22:18revealed since then, do you still feel
22:20the same way about both men and both
22:22statements?
22:23>> First, I hold that both men and others
22:27who have been charged are guilty until I
22:30have evidence that they are not guilty.
22:32And I know that every newspaper man and
22:34newspaper woman in this whole audience
22:36would agree with that statement. That's
22:38our American system. Second, Mr.
22:40Halddederman and Mr. Erlickman have been
22:43and were dedicated fine public servants
22:47and I believe it is my belief based on
22:49what I know now that when these
22:51proceedings are completed that they will
22:54come out all right on the other hand
22:57they have appeared before the grand jury
22:58before they will be appearing again and
23:01as I pointed out in answer to an earlier
23:03question it probably doesn't make any
23:05difference unfortunately whether the
23:07grand jury indictes them or not whether
23:10they're tried or
23:11because unfortunately they've already
23:14been convicted in the minds of millions
23:16of Americans by what happened before a
23:18Senate committee.
23:19>> Mr. Mr. President.
23:20>> Yes, sir.
23:21>> Yes. At the time, this is Ed Hines from
23:23the De Mo Register and Tribune. At the
23:26time you gave Eagle Cro approval for the
23:29Dr. Ellburg project, was there any
23:31discussion of surreptitious entry at to
23:34any premises? And was there any
23:36discussion of legality or illegality in
23:39that situation?
23:42>> I think sir that you have made an
23:43assumption that Mr. Kro and others have
23:45not testified to and I I I'm not saying
23:47that critically, but I think I do
23:49remember what the evidence is. I don't
23:51think Mr. Kro has said or Mr. Erlick or
23:54anybody else that I specifically
23:56approved or ordered the entrance into
24:00Dr. Ellberg's psychiatrist's office. As
24:03a matter of fact, on the other hand, I
24:05learned of that for the first time on
24:07the 17th of 17th of March, which I have
24:11stated in my August 15th statement,
24:14which will be available to members of
24:15the press when they uh this meeting is
24:18concluded. Second, with regard to such
24:20activities, I personally thought it was
24:22a stupid thing to do apart from being an
24:25illegal thing to do. And third, I should
24:29also point out that in this particular
24:32matter, the reason that Mr. Crow and
24:35others were engaged in what we call the
24:37plumbers operation was because of our
24:41concern at that time about leaks out of
24:45our government. the Pentagon papers,
24:47which as you recall what Ellsburg was
24:49all about, as well as other leaks which
24:51were seriously damaging to the national
24:53security, including one that I have
24:55pointed out that was so serious that
24:58even Senator Urban and Senator Baker
25:00agree that it should not be disclosed.
25:02And that's what they were working on.
25:06>> I guess we go to the right this time.
25:07>> Joe and Garo, the Providence Evening
25:09Bulletin. The journal bulletin on
25:11October 3rd reported that you paid $792
25:14in federal income tax in 1970 and $878
25:19in 1971.
25:21Are these figures accurate? And would
25:23you tell us your views on whether
25:24elected officials should disclose their
25:27personal finances?
25:29Well, the answer to the second question
25:30is I have disclosed my personal finances
25:33and an audit of my personal finances
25:35will be made available at the end of
25:37this meeting because obviously you're
25:39all so busy that when these things come
25:41across your desk, uh maybe you don't see
25:43them. Uh I can simply point out that
25:45that audit was I paid for. I haven't got
25:48the bill yet, but I know that it's
25:49several thousands of dollars and I think
25:51that that audit is one that is a pretty
25:54good one. At audit, however, deals with
25:56the acquisition of my property and
25:58knocks down some of the ideas that have
26:00been around. But since this question has
26:02been raised, let me sir, try to respond
26:05to it as fully as I can. I paid $79,000
26:09in income tax in 1969.
26:13In the next two years, I paid nominal
26:16amounts. Whether those amounts are
26:18correct or not, I do not know because I
26:20haven't looked at my returns. And ob
26:21obviously the Providence Journal's got
26:23much better sources than I have to find
26:25such returns. And I congratulate you,
26:27sir, for having such a lively uh uh
26:30staff.
26:34Now, why did I pay this amount? It
26:37wasn't because of the deductions for,
26:39shall we say, a cattle ranch or or
26:42interest or, you know, all these
26:44gimmicks that you got where you you can
26:46deduct from, which most of you know
26:47about, I'm sure. If you don't, your
26:49publishers do because
26:52But the reason was this. Lyndon Johnson
26:54came in to see me shortly after I became
26:57president. He told me that he had given
27:01his presidential papers or at least most
27:03of them to the government. He told me
27:06that under the law up until 1969,
27:10presidential or vice presidential papers
27:12given to the government were a deduction
27:15and should be taken and could be taken
27:17as a deduction from the tax. And he
27:21said, "You, Mr. President, ought to do
27:23the same thing." I said, "I don't have
27:24any presidential papers." He said,
27:25"You've got your vice presidential
27:27papers." And I thought of that a moment
27:29and I said, "All right, I'll turn them
27:31over to the tax people." I turned them
27:33over. They found they were they
27:35appraised them at $500,000. I suppose
27:38some wonder how could the vice
27:40president's papers be worth that? Well,
27:41I was, shall we say, a rather active
27:44vice president. All of my personal
27:46notes, including matters that have not
27:48been covered in my book, which I don't
27:53advise other people to write, but in any
27:54event, I wrote one and I will stand by
27:56it. all of my papers on the H case, on
27:59the famous fun controversy in 19 uh 52,
28:04uh on President Eisenhower's heart
28:06attack, on President Eisenhower's
28:08stroke, uh on my visit to Caracus when I
28:10had a few problems in 1968,
28:13and on my visit with Crushaw. All of
28:16those papers, all of my notes were
28:19valued, many believe, conservatively, at
28:21that amount. And so the tax people who
28:24prepared it, prepared the returns and
28:28took that as a deduction. Now, no
28:30question has been raised by the Internal
28:32Revenue about it, but if they do, let me
28:34tell you this. I'll be glad to have the
28:36papers back and I'll pay the tax because
28:38I think they're worth more than that. I
28:40can only say that we did what we were
28:43told was the right thing to do and of
28:46course what President Johnson had done
28:48before and that doesn't prove certainly
28:51that it was wrong because he had done
28:53exactly what the law required since
28:551969. Of course I should point out
28:58presidents can't do that. So, I'm struck
29:00with a lot of papers now that I've got
29:02to find a way to give away or otherwise
29:04my heirs will have a terrible time
29:06trying to pay the taxes on things that
29:08people aren't going to want to buy.
29:10>> President,
29:10>> Mr. President, may I suggest that you
29:13may have misspoke yourself when you said
29:14that you assumed Haldderman and Erlicman
29:17are considered guilty until proven not
29:19guilty.
29:21>> Yes, I certainly did if I said that.
29:25Thank you for correcting me.
29:28Smiser from the Oakridgeer in Oakidge,
29:30Tennessee. Senator Mark Hatfield said
29:32recently that we do demand so much of a
29:35president. We ask him to play so many
29:37roles that no man can hold that kind of
29:40responsibility without having to share
29:42that responsibility with all Americans.
29:45To what extent do you think that this
29:48explains possibly how something like
29:51Watergate can occur?
29:55Well, I could stand here before this
29:56audience and make all kinds of excuses.
29:59And uh most of you probably would
30:01understand because you're busy also. 72
30:04was a very busy year for me. Uh it was a
30:07year when we had the visit to China. It
30:10was a year when we had the visit to
30:11Moscow and the first limited test ban
30:15and the limited uh nuclear ban on
30:17defensive weapons, you recall, as well
30:18as some other very significant uh
30:21events. It was a year or two when we had
30:25the very difficult decisions on May 8th,
30:28the bombing and mining of Hyon and then
30:30the negotiations and then in December of
30:33course the very very difficult perhaps
30:36the most difficult decision I made of
30:38the December bombing which did lead to
30:40the breakthrough and the uneasy peace
30:42but it is peace with all the Americans
30:44home all of our PS home and peace at
30:47least for a while in that period. Now,
30:50during that period of time, frankly, I
30:52didn't manage the campaign. I didn't run
30:55the campaign. People around me didn't
30:57bring things to me that they probably
30:58should have because I was, frankly, just
31:01too busy trying to do the nation's
31:02business to run the politics. My advice
31:05to all new politicians, incidentally, is
31:07always run your own campaigns. I used to
31:09run mine and I was always criticized for
31:12it. Uh because, you know, whenever you
31:14lose, you're always criticized for
31:16running your own campaign. But my point
31:18is, Senator Hatfield is correct. Whether
31:21you're senator or congressman, you're
31:23sometimes very busy. You don't watch
31:24these things. When you're president, you
31:26don't watch them as closely as you
31:28might. And on that, I say if mistakes
31:31are made, however, I'm not blaming the
31:33people down below. The man at the top's
31:35got to take the heat for all of them.
31:38Let me just respond if I could, sir,
31:39before going to your question. I'll turn
31:41left and then come back to the right. I
31:43don't want to tilt either way at the
31:45moment, as you can be sure.
31:48Uh since the question was raised a
31:50moment ago about my uh tax uh tax
31:54payments,
31:56I noted in some editorials and uh
31:59perhaps in some commentaries on
32:01television
32:03a very reasonable question. They said,
32:05you know, how is it that President Nixon
32:08uh could have a very heavy investment in
32:12a fine piece of property in San Clementi
32:14and a big investment in a piece of
32:16property in Florida in which I have two
32:19houses, one which I primarily use as an
32:21office and the other is a residence and
32:23also an investment in what was my
32:25mother's home, not a very much of a
32:28place, but I do own it. Those three
32:30pieces of property, I'm going to say
32:32first that's all I have. I am the first
32:35president since Harry Truman who hasn't
32:37owned any stocks since ever I've been
32:39president. I am the first one who hasn't
32:41had a blind trust since Harry Truman.
32:43Now, that doesn't prove that those who
32:45own stocks or had blind trust did
32:47anything wrong. But I felt that in the
32:50presidency it was important
32:53to have no question about the
32:55president's personal finances. And I
32:57thought real estate was the best place
32:59to put it. But then the question was
33:00raised by good editorial writers and I
33:03want to respond to it because some of
33:05you might be too polite to ask such an
33:07embarrassing question. He said, "Now,
33:09Mr. President, you earned $800,000 when
33:11you were president. Obviously, you paid
33:13at least half that much or could have
33:15paid half that much in taxes or a great
33:18deal of it. How could you possibly have
33:20had the money? Where did you get it?"
33:21And then of course overriding all of
33:23that are the story to the effect that I
33:25have a million dollars in campaign funds
33:27which was broadly printed throughout
33:29this country with retractions not quite
33:32getting quite as much play as the
33:33printing of the first and particularly
33:35not on television. The newspapers did
33:37much better than television in that
33:39respect I should point out. And second,
33:42they said, "How is it uh that uh as far
33:46as this money is concerned, how is it
33:48possible for you to have this kind of
33:50investment when all you earn was
33:52$800,000 as president?"
33:54Well, I should point out I wasn't a
33:56popper when I became president. I wasn't
33:58very rich as presidents go. But you see,
34:00when the eight years that I was out of
34:03office, first just to put it all out and
34:05I'll give you a paper on this. We'll
34:07send around to you. These figures I'd
34:08like for you to have. Not today, but
34:10I'll have it in a few days. When I left
34:12office after four years as a
34:14congressman, two years as a senator and
34:17eight years at $45,000 a year as vice
34:19president,
34:21and after stories had been written,
34:23particularly in the Washington Post, to
34:25the effect that the president had
34:27purchased a mansion in Wesley Heights,
34:29and people wonder where the money came.
34:31You know what my net worth was? $47,000
34:36total after 14 years of government
34:38service and a 1958 OSMO bill that needed
34:42an overhaul. Now,
34:46I have no complaints. In the next eight
34:48years,
34:50I made a lot of money. I made $250,000
34:55from a book and the serial rights, which
34:57many of you were good enough to purchase
34:58also in the practice of law. And I'm not
35:02claiming I was worth it, but apparently
35:03former vice presidents or presidents are
35:05worth a great deal to law firms. And I
35:06did work pretty hard. But in also in
35:09that period, I earned between a hundred
35:12and $250,000 every year. So that when I
35:16in 1968 decided to become a candidate
35:19for president, I decided to clean the
35:22decks and to put everything in real
35:23estate. I sold all my stock for
35:26$300,000. That's all I own. I sold my
35:28apartment in New York for $300,000. I'm
35:31using rough figures here. And I had
35:33$100,000 coming to me from the law firm.
35:36And so that's where the money came from.
35:38Let me just say this, and I want to say
35:41this to the television audience. I made
35:42my mistakes, but in all of my years of
35:45public life, I have never profited,
35:49never profited from public service. I've
35:52earned every cent. And in all of my
35:54years of public life, I have never
35:57obstructed justice. And I think too that
36:00I can say that in my years of public
36:02life that I welcome this kind of
36:05examination because people have got to
36:07know whether or not their president is a
36:09crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I earned
36:12everything I've got.
36:15>> President Harry Rosenfeld of the
36:18Washington Post.
36:22Sir, there have been reports that the
36:24Secret Service was asked at your
36:26direction or authorization to tap the
36:28telephone of your brother, Donald Nixon.
36:31Is this true, sir? And if so, why?
36:36That, of course, is a question that has
36:38been commented upon before. It will not
36:40take long to respond to it. The Secret
36:43Service did maintain a surveillance.
36:45They did so for security reasons, and I
36:48will not go beyond that. They were very
36:50good reasons and my brother was aware of
36:52it. And may I say too to my friend from
36:55the Washington Post, I like your sport
36:57page.
37:01And also
37:03[applause]
37:05be sure Povich isn't paid too much for I
37:07just said.
37:09>> Go ahead.
37:10>> Sir, Edward Miller, Allentown,
37:12Pennsylvania. Was your brother aware
37:14before or after the fact of the
37:16surveillance?
37:17>> Before or after the fact? Yes,
37:19>> he was aware during the fact because uh
37:22he asked about it and he was told about
37:24it and he approved of it. He knew why it
37:26was done.
37:29>> Uh uh excuse me. Does it make any sense
37:31to conduct surveillance when somebody
37:33knows about it?
37:34>> Does it make any sense? Certainly. The
37:37surveillance involved not what he was
37:40doing. The surveillance involved what
37:42others who were trying to get him
37:46perhaps to use improper influence and so
37:48forth might be doing and particularly
37:50anybody who might be in a foreign
37:54country.
37:55>> Is is some of this uh full story that
37:57you say you can't say now because of
37:59national security. Will have you told
38:00that to congressman or anyone else? Will
38:03this story come out in the next few
38:04weeks as you present more of the facts?
38:07>> Yes. Uh, as a matter of fact, I should
38:09tell all of the editors that that uh and
38:11I don't I don't want to leave any
38:13implication that you have not tried to
38:15publish as much as you could. You've
38:17just got so much room in your
38:18newspapers. And uh I but I do want you
38:21to know that well that you haven't
38:23raised some of these subjects. I'll
38:25raise them myself. ITT, how do we raise
38:28the price of milk? I wish somebody had
38:30asked me that one. Uh and who else
38:32wanted it raised? Uh what about the
38:35situation with regard to uh uh the uh uh
38:39the the $1 million secret stock
38:42portfolio that you have? A few of those
38:44things. I think all of those things need
38:46to be answered and answered effectively.
38:47And I think the best way to answer them
38:50twofold. One, obviously through the
38:52medium of a televised conference like
38:54this, but two, through sending to the
38:57editors of the nation's newspapers, all
38:5910,000 of them, the facts. And I trust
39:02that you will use them. And if you don't
39:04believe them, I don't mean what I mean.
39:06I'm not suggesting that you wouldn't
39:07believe them, but if you feel you need
39:09more information, write to me and I'll
39:11give it to you. I want the facts out
39:13because the facts will prove that the
39:15president is telling the truth.
39:18>> Now we go to the I think we go to the
39:21back this time.
39:22>> Um, Mr. President, John Finnean, St.
39:24Paul Dispatch, Pioneer Press. Uh I know
39:27the Watergate situation has raised
39:29questions of executive privilege and a
39:31recent Gallup poll indicated that 62% of
39:35the American people uh will favor a
39:38confidential uh news source law if uh if
39:42adopted by Congress. There is a
39:44two-tiered law now before the judiciary
39:46committee which would provide an
39:49absolute privilege in case of uh
39:51investigative or grand jury hearings uh
39:53and a qualified shield in in case of a
39:56civil or criminal case. Uh if such a law
40:00were passed, would you sign it or veto
40:03it?
40:04>> Well, you're talking about Shield laws
40:05in general, are you not?
40:07>> Yes.
40:07>> Yeah. Well, my attitude toward the
40:09Shield laws briefly is this. First, I
40:13share the objective. I believe that
40:16reporters, if you're going to have a
40:18free press, ought to have some kind of a
40:20shield. Second, except of course, if
40:23they're involved in criminal activities,
40:24and then I don't think the shield law
40:26that even you that any have suggested
40:28would cover those. As I understand, if
40:30they are criminal activities involved in
40:31by a reporter, obviously a shield law
40:33can't protect it. The second point,
40:35however, has to do with the particular
40:38legislation and how it reaches my desk,
40:39and I'll have to take a look at it when
40:41it gets there to see if it's proper.
40:44If it's proper, I'll sign it. But I
40:47think that a shield law which would have
40:50the effect of providing to reporters
40:55what the general public felt after they
40:57had a chance to consider it all provide
41:00for them privileges that went beyond
41:03what the general public thought was in
41:05the national interest then I would have
41:07to take a second look. Now incidentally
41:08I should point out too that I followed
41:10your editorials not yours and just the
41:12St. Paul paper but others around the
41:13country and the newspapers in this
41:15country are not united on this. Uh so on
41:18the shield law I'm not trying to duck
41:19the question. It's an open question but
41:21I will answer one thing I think is
41:22important. The new attorney general Mr.
41:25Saxby under my directions will follow
41:29this practice.
41:31any federal case involving a reporter
41:35will not be brought unless it is comes
41:38expressly to the attorney general and he
41:40approves it because that way that's a
41:42pretty good shield I think.
41:43>> May I ask one other question sir?
41:45>> Sure.
41:46>> Uh do you feel that the uh executive
41:48privilege is absolute?
41:53>> I of course don't. Uh I have waved
41:55executive privilege with regard to all
41:57of the members of my staff uh who have
42:00any knowledge of or who have had any
42:01charges against have been made against
42:03in the Watergate matter. Uh I have uh of
42:06course voluntarily weigh privilege with
42:09regard to turning over the tapes and so
42:11forth. Uh let me point out it was
42:14voluntary on my part and deliberately so
42:18to avoid a president that might destroy
42:22the principle of confidentiality for
42:23future presidents which is terribly
42:25important. If it had gone to the Supreme
42:27Court, and I know many of my friends
42:28argued, why not carry it to the Supreme
42:30Court and let them decide it, that would
42:32first have had a confrontation with the
42:34Supreme Court between the Supreme Court
42:36and the president. And second, it would
42:39have established very possibly a
42:41precedent, a precedent breaking down
42:43constitutionality
42:45that would plague future presidencies,
42:47not just president. I could just say in
42:50that respect too that I I have referred
42:53to what I call the Jefferson rule and it
42:56is the rule I think that we should
42:57generally follow. A president should
42:59follow with the courts uh when they want
43:02information and a president should also
43:04follow with committees of Congress and
43:05they want information from his personal
43:07files. Jefferson as you know in that
43:10very very famous case had correspondence
43:14which it was felt might bear upon the
43:17guilder innocence of Aaron Burr.
43:20Chief Justice Marshall sitting as a
43:22trial judge
43:24said that Jess held that Jefferson as
43:27president had to turn over the
43:28correspondence. Jefferson refused.
43:32What he did was to turn over a summary
43:35of the correspondence. all that he
43:37considered was proper to be turned over
43:40for the purposes of the trial. And then
43:42Marshall as sitting as chief justice
43:45ruled for the president. Now why did
43:47Jefferson do that? Jefferson didn't do
43:50that to protect Jefferson. He did that
43:52to protect the presidency. And that's
43:54exactly what I will do in these cases.
43:57It isn't for the purpose of protecting
43:59the president. It is for the purpose of
44:01seeing that the presidency where great
44:04decisions have to be made and great
44:07decisions can't be made unless there is
44:09very free flow of conversation and that
44:12means confidentiality. I have a
44:14responsibility to protect that
44:15presidency. At the same time, I will do
44:18everything I can to cooperate where
44:21there is a need for presidential
44:23participation.
44:25I'll come to you next. Sorry, Mr.
44:27President. from Murray Light Buffalo
44:28Union News. The American people, sir,
44:31are very interested in one subject other
44:33than Watergate. Is gas rationing
44:36imminent?
44:39>> Well, I didn't hear the lash. I'm sorry.
44:43Is gas rationing imminent?
44:50I'll tell you a little about my career
44:52that I didn't put in my campaign folders
44:54when I ran for Congress in 1946. I was
44:57once in OPA
45:00and uh I was in tire rationing. I
45:04suppose they put me in tire rationing.
45:05This is just before I went into the
45:06service. I was waiting for my service
45:08call because I had worked in a service
45:09station. But I didn't know anything
45:11about tire rationing and neither did the
45:14man above me who I don't think had ever
45:16been in a service station. But we put
45:18out the rationing regulations on tires
45:21and we were as fair as we could be. But
45:24also I found that if you get a bunch of
45:27government bureaucrats and in order to
45:29have rationing, you'd have to have
45:30thousands of them making decisions with
45:34regard to who's going to get this much
45:36this much this much in rationing. If
45:39you're going to try to do that in peace
45:40time when you do not have what we had in
45:42wartime, you know, support for, you
45:44know, don't you don't use a C uh ration
45:48card when you're only entitled to an A.
45:51then you were sort of disloyal or
45:53something or unpatriotic. If you do not
45:55have that behind it, I can assure you
45:58that a rationing system in peace time
46:00run by a group of well-intentioned but
46:03being bureaucrats that they are gaining
46:05and feeling their power would be
46:07something that the American people would
46:10resent very very much. Now what we have
46:13asked the Congress for is for a
46:15contingency plan in the event that
46:18rationing becomes necessary. But in the
46:20meantime, let me tell you, our goal is
46:23to make it not necessary. I'm not going
46:25to pledge to this audience, and I'm not
46:27going to pledge to the television
46:28audience that rationing may never come.
46:31If you have another war in the Middle
46:32East, if you have a complete cut off and
46:34not a resumption of the flow of oil from
46:36the M East or some other disaster
46:38occurs, rationing may come. But if on
46:42the other hand, the things that I
46:44recommended in my message of a week ago
46:46for immediate action, if the voluntary
46:49cooperation of keeping the speed down to
46:5150 miles an hour, and I'm going to talk
46:52to the governors about that on Tuesday
46:54in Memphis, urging that every state do
46:56exactly the same thing. If we cut back
46:58on the aircraft flights, and we've done
47:00that, and for example, I came down here
47:02in a plane here today, Air Force One. I
47:04asked them if I couldn't take the Jet
47:05Star. They said, "No, it doesn't have
47:07communications." So, I had to take the
47:09big plane. But we did one thing that
47:11saved half the cost. We didn't have the
47:13backup plane. Secret Service didn't like
47:15it. Communications didn't like it. But I
47:16don't need a backup plane. This one goes
47:18down and goes down. And then they don't
47:21have to impeach. So
47:26Mr. President,
47:29>> Mr. President, Larry Allison from the
47:31Long Beach, California Independent Press
47:33Telegram. Back to Watergate.
47:36uh former Attorney General John Mitchell
47:39has testified that the reason he did not
47:40give you details on the Watergate
47:43problems was that you did not ask him.
47:46Now I realize that you were very busy at
47:48that time as you said, but there were
47:50reports in newspapers that linked uh
47:53people very high on your staff with the
47:55Watergate problems. Could you tell us
47:57sir why you did not ask Mr. Mitchell
48:00what he knew?
48:02>> For the very simple reason that when I
48:03talked to Mr. Mitchell and I saw him
48:05often in that period that I had every
48:08reason to believe that if he were
48:10involved, if he had any information to
48:12convey, he would tell me. I thought that
48:15he would. As a matter of fact, when I
48:16called him on the telephone, what did he
48:18say? He expressed chagrin that anything
48:20like that could have happened in his
48:21organization. Looking back, maybe I
48:24should have cross-examined and say,
48:25"John, did you do it?"
48:29I probably should have asked him, but
48:31the reason I didn't is that I expected
48:34him to tell me and he had every
48:36opportunity to and decided that he
48:38wouldn't apparently at least. Now, that
48:40doesn't mean to tell me that he was
48:42involved because you understand that's
48:44still a matter that's open. The question
48:46is whether he could have told me about
48:48other people that might be involved
48:50where he had information where members
48:52of my staff did not have information.
48:55>> Yes, sir.
48:56>> Uh, I'm Joe Shawquist, Milwaukee
48:57Journal. Why didn't the administration
49:00anticipate the uh energy crisis several
49:03years ago, formulate a positive action
49:06plan to do something about it?
49:09>> You walked into one there and that's a
49:12great paper, incidentally, as is the uh
49:14Milwaukee Sentinel. But uh anyway,
49:19seriously, you see what happened was
49:21that I sent the first energy message
49:25ever sent to the Congress. I sent it to
49:29the Congress over two years ago. I saw
49:32this thing coming. And you know why I
49:34saw it coming? Not because of the M East
49:37or the Alaska pipeline and the rest, but
49:40because this world with all of its
49:44problems is getting richer. Oh, I don't
49:46mean there aren't a lot of hungry people
49:48in not only in America, too many here,
49:51but if you want to see hungry people, go
49:53to India or go to some of the countries
49:56in Latin America or upper Brazil, etc.,
49:59etc. But generally as the world gets
50:02richer there's more air conditioning
50:05there's more need for power and there's
50:08more need for energy and that's why he
50:10sent the message two years ago and asked
50:13at that time that the Congress consider
50:15a program so that the United States
50:17should become self-sufficient in energy.
50:20All right. I followed that up this year
50:22in April before we even knew there might
50:25be or any idea the M East crisis which
50:27made a serious problem a serious crisis.
50:30I asked them for seven pieces of
50:32legislation to deal with energy. One has
50:35reached my desk. The Alaska pipeline. I
50:38signed it. The other six I hope they act
50:40before they go home for Christmas.
50:43Now I'm not saying here the Congress is
50:46to blame. The president should have done
50:48something. What I do say is that the
50:51president warned about it and the
50:53Congress did not act even though he
50:54warned two years ago. The the president
50:57warned April, the Congress did not act.
50:59And now it's time for the Congress to
51:03get away from some of these other
51:04diversions if they have time and get
51:06onto this energy crisis. Let me just
51:08since that question has come up, I would
51:10like to point out though how we should
51:13react because the question about
51:14rationing is one that the that your
51:17average reader is going to be interested
51:19in. I mean I I'm interested in it too
51:21cuz I remember how we all went through
51:22it. The car pools and all that sort of
51:25thing. There are a few of you here old
51:26enough to remember a car pool. I'm sure
51:28taxi cabs in Washington, you couldn't
51:30get one unless five of you rode in one.
51:32You remember? We don't want that. But if
51:35we look at this energy crisis as simply
51:38the crisis of this year, we could not
51:40make a greater mistake. If there had
51:42never been a M East war, there would
51:44have been an energy crisis eventually.
51:47That is why I have set as a goal for the
51:50American people and I trust all of you
51:51will subscribe to it what I call project
51:54independence 1980. Why 1980? Why not
51:581976? Because in checking with the
52:00experts, I find that it will not be
52:03possible doing everything that we can do
52:05to become self-sufficient in energy
52:08until 1980. But if the Congress
52:10cooperates, if the nation cooperates,
52:13this nation in 1980 can have all the
52:16energy we need. Let me just briefly tell
52:19you what areas of cooperation are
52:21needed. One, coal. We have half the coal
52:24in the world and yet we have conversions
52:27from coal to oil. Why? Because coal is
52:29not a clean fuel. Coal can be made a
52:32clean fuel. Coal can be mined in a way
52:35that does not despoil the landscape. Oh,
52:37it'll be our humanity. I'm sure that the
52:40some of the environmentalists and I am
52:41an environmentalist along with anybody
52:43who cares about the future for our
52:44children will object. But we've got to
52:46get that coal out of the ground. And we
52:49have to develop the shale oil, for
52:51example, that exists in Colorado and
52:53some of our western states. That'll
52:54solve part of the problem. And second,
52:57you have to deregulate natural gas. Some
52:59protection for the consumer. Yes, but
53:01you've got whales in Louisiana and other
53:04places that are shut down and many that
53:06are not being explored because the price
53:09is held at a price too low to make the
53:13explorer have a profit and therefore
53:15isn't going to do it. And natural gas,
53:18as you know, is one of the cleanest
53:19fuels we can possibly have. And then
53:21third, the most exciting of all, nuclear
53:24power. Now, don't write an editorial on
53:27this. You're really going to catch it
53:28from your readers if you do because it
53:29scares people. Nuclear power. They think
53:32of the bomb. They think of the
53:34possibility that one of them's going to
53:35blow up. My house in San Clement is just
53:3812 miles from the Southern California
53:40Edison Company's nuclear power plant.
53:44It's safe. It produces good power. It's
53:47clean power. And the United States,
53:49which first found the secret of the
53:52atom, is behind where it ought to be in
53:55the development of nuclear power. If we
53:57go all out in developing our coal
53:59resources, our natural gas resources, as
54:02well as, of course, our oil from Alaska,
54:05which will provide onethird, I said
54:07incorrectly the other day in talking to
54:09a group, not one-third of all of our oil
54:11needs, but one-third of all of our oil
54:13imports. And if we add to that nuclear
54:16power, the United States in 1980 can be
54:20self-sufficient. Just closing that off.
54:22Let me tell you why that's so terribly
54:24important. People Arabs, they say,
54:27"Well, the Arabs, maybe they're
54:29irrational and and we shouldn't depend
54:31on them anyway." Let me tell you, when
54:33you're in trouble, don't depend on
54:35anybody but yourself.
54:37Venezuela,
54:39what's going to happen in Venezuela?
54:40They send us a lot of oil, but they
54:41could change their minds under a radical
54:43government and they could get one one
54:44day. I don't think so, but they could.
54:47What about Canada? Our great friends to
54:49the north. A lot of Canadians are
54:51listening here. But I can tell you, your
54:53present minister of the interior or
54:55whatever is in charge of oil. He's a
54:57tough guy and they drive hard bargains.
55:00And I guess we would too if we were
55:01Canadians. My point is the United States
55:04of America as the greatest industrial
55:05power of the world with 7% of the
55:07world's people and using 30% of the
55:10world's energy shouldn't have to depend
55:12on any other country for energy that
55:15provides our jobs and our
55:16transportations and our light and our
55:18heat. We can become self-sufficient.
55:20This is a great project and I'm going to
55:22push it.
55:23>> Mr. President, I'm John Chanley of
55:26Kansas City Times.
55:28Uh, not being a member of the Washington
55:31press corps, I'm not going to ask you
55:32when you're going to retire, but I'm
55:35going to ask you when you do re leave
55:38the White House, what do you plan to do?
55:43I think it depends on when I leave.
55:51No, seriously. I uh I know that uh this
55:53this group has asked very good questions
55:55and very appropriate ones. I was hoping
55:58you'd ask me about the milk. Would you
55:59mind asking me about the milk?
56:02>> I don't fine. I'll I'll answer this and
56:05then I'll go to the milk in the back. Uh
56:07as far as retirement, uh at that time I
56:10understand I will be 63 years of age and
56:13uh I'm relatively healthy at the present
56:15time. I don't know how healthy I'll be
56:17then. Uh among the things I will not do,
56:20I will not practice law. I won't go on
56:22any board of directors. I'll tell you,
56:25after being president, you never want to
56:26sit at any other end of the table. And
56:29and being a board of directors of the
56:30board of directors, it pays well. Uh but
56:33it's rather boring. That's what at least
56:34I found when I was vice president. Not
56:36out of any conceit or anything. It's
56:38just the fact board of directors are
56:40fine. But I don't think for former
56:41presidents. What I probably will do is
56:44to do a little writing. I will not do
56:46any speaking. I've made enough speeches
56:49in a year to last most people for a
56:51lifetime, particularly my audiences. And
56:53so what are the circumstances what I
56:56probably will do will be do some writing
56:58and uh perhaps contribute to bettering
57:01the political process. Let's just let me
57:03say this.
57:06Neither party is without fault in the
57:08campaign of 1972.
57:11Quite a bit of violence on the other
57:12side. I never spoke any place without
57:14getting a pretty good working over.
57:16Neither party was without fault with
57:18regard to the financing. They raised $36
57:20million and some of that like some of
57:23ours came from corporate sources and was
57:25illegal because the law had been changed
57:26and apparently people didn't know it.
57:28And as far as congressmen or senators
57:30are concerned, they'll all tell you that
57:32with the new laws and so forth, there
57:34ought to be some changes. I think that
57:36if we can't get the Congress to act on
57:38the proposal I gave to them six months
57:40ago to provide a commission to set up
57:43new rules for campaign contributions,
57:46limiting them, new rules for campaign
57:48procedures, then after I leave office,
57:50I'm going to work for that because I
57:52don't want to be remembered as the man
57:54who maybe brought peace for the first
57:57time in 12 years, who opened to China,
58:00who opened to Russia, maybe avoided a
58:02war in the Middle East. Maybe if we can
58:05continue it, cut unemployment down for
58:07the first time in 18 years. For the
58:09first time in peace time, it's down at 4
58:11and a.5%. It was never at that low
58:14level. Never below 5% in the 60s any
58:18time in the 60s. Neither the Kennedy nor
58:20the Johnson administration except during
58:22the war years. I want to be remembered,
58:24I would trust, as a president that did
58:27his best to bring peace and also did his
58:30best to bring a degree of prosperity,
58:35perhaps a contribution in the energy
58:37field, in the environmental field, but
58:39also one who did his best when his own
58:42campaign got out of hand to do
58:45everything possible to see that other
58:46campaigns didn't get out of hand in the
58:48future. Now, we'll go to the milk case.
58:50>> Mr. President APME would like to ask you
58:53about the milk case, but our 60-minute
58:55commitment of time has run out. APME,
58:58appreciate your appearance before us
58:59this evening, and
59:00>> I'll I'll take the time. Television's
59:02keeping me on just a minute. Yeah. Yeah.
59:04Yeah.
59:06[applause]
59:09>> Thank you. Thank you.
59:11>> It's a lousy movie anyway tonight.
59:17The reason the milk case question and
59:18this will be the one that I'll take
59:20ought to be as it is that just some
59:23awful nice people are getting a bad rap
59:24about it and I'm not referring about
59:26myself. I'm referring about people
59:28administration. They've had John Connley
59:30down. They run him around the track and
59:33they've had I guess they're going to
59:34have Cliff Harden down and and uh and
59:37Pete Peterson and all the rest. The
59:40whole charge is basically this. That
59:42this administration in 1971
59:46raised the support price for milk as a
59:49quid proquo for a promise by the milk
59:53producers that they would contribute
59:54substantial amounts anywhere from a h
59:56100,000 to 2 million to 10 million to
59:59our campaign. Now that is just not true.
1:00:02I'll tell you how it happened. I was
1:00:04there. Cliff Harden
1:00:07in the spring of that year came in and
1:00:09said, "The milk support prices are high
1:00:11enough." I said, "All right, Cliff,
1:00:13that's your recommendation. Department
1:00:15of Agriculture." He said, "Yes."
1:00:17Within 3 weeks after he made that
1:00:20announcement, Congress put a gun to our
1:00:22head. Let me tell you what it was.
1:00:25Republicans. Uh-uh.
1:00:27102 members of Congress signed a
1:00:29petition demanding not 85% of parody but
1:00:33a 90% support price and 28 members of
1:00:37the Senate most of them Democrats
1:00:38including Senator McGovern signed a
1:00:41petition demanding a petition or signed
1:00:44a bill which would have made the milk
1:00:46support price between 85 and 90%.
1:00:50So, I talked to my legislative leaders
1:00:52and I said, "Look here. What I'm
1:00:54concerned about, what I'm concerned
1:00:56about is what people pay for that milk
1:00:59and I don't want to have that price
1:01:00jigged up here. If we can keep it and
1:01:03get the supply with the present support
1:01:06price, you know what I was told? They
1:01:08said, "With the kind of heat that we're
1:01:10getting from the Congress, there is no
1:01:12way that you're not going to get on your
1:01:15desk a bill and they'll be able to
1:01:17override your veto that will raise the
1:01:19support price probably to 90%." So, we
1:01:23said 85%. And that's why it was done and
1:01:26that's the truth. Well, thank you very
1:01:28much, gentlemen. I guess that's the end.
1:01:31[applause]
1:01:38>> [applause]
1:01:53>> President Richard Nixon leaving the hall
1:01:56at Disney World, Florida, where he has
1:01:58just completed a question and answer
1:02:00session with members of the Associated
1:02:02Press managing editors association. The
1:02:05president answering um by our count and
1:02:08it may not be absolutely accurate, but
1:02:10about 17 questions, including at least
1:02:13one question that he insisted upon
1:02:14asking himself, the question about the
1:02:16the milk deal, the so-called milk deal.
1:02:19Most of those questions, not all of
1:02:20them, but most of them concerning
1:02:21Watergate and related matters. With me
1:02:25uh this evening on this broadcast, I'm
1:02:26Dan Rather, CBS News in New York. In
1:02:29Washington are my colleagues Daniel
1:02:31Shore and Fred Graham.
1:02:34Gentlemen, uh given our charge and this
1:02:37the analysis section of tonight's
1:02:38broadcast to among other things point
1:02:40out, if any contradictions with the
1:02:42known record, let me ask you first, Dan.
1:02:44Shore, were there any obvious to you
1:02:46contradictions with the known record and
1:02:47what the president said?
1:02:48>> Well, there were um three things, two of
1:02:52which you might call contradictions, one
1:02:53of which you might call just incomplete.
1:02:56With regard to the so-called
1:02:58non-existent tapes, the president said
1:03:00that he first got the idea that those
1:03:02tapes might not be there on September
1:03:0429th or 30th and that while he had a
1:03:08search made for them, he I'm
1:03:10paraphrasing was not overly concerned
1:03:12because they were not among the tapes
1:03:13that had been requested by the Iran
1:03:15committee. But let's look at the dates
1:03:17in that sequence.
1:03:20They were requested by special
1:03:21prosecutor Archer Bal Cox. Judge Surika
1:03:24had ordered that they be yielded. On
1:03:26October the 12th, the appeals court
1:03:29supported that. On October the 23rd, the
1:03:33White House went into Judge Sera and
1:03:35promised full compliance. On October
1:03:3830th, a week after that, was the first
1:03:41time that it was announced to the court
1:03:42or in the court at least that those
1:03:44tapes were non-existent. Charles Allen
1:03:47Wright, who was the White House special
1:03:49counsel, retired to Texas reportedly
1:03:51because he thought that the president
1:03:53should not have put him in the position
1:03:55of promising full compliance when the
1:03:58president knew by that time that full
1:03:59compliance was not possible. So that uh
1:04:02those are some facts there. Secondly,
1:04:04the president said correctly that uh Mr.
1:04:07Peterson the assistant attorney general
1:04:09had said six months ago that the
1:04:11investigation of the Watergate case was
1:04:1390% ready and why should it take six
1:04:16months longer to complete the case that
1:04:18is interestingly enough same question
1:04:20that I put to Archer Cox and his answer
1:04:22to that was yes when Mr. Peterson talked
1:04:24to the Watergate case. It was a very
1:04:26limited Watergate case. Since that time,
1:04:28a great many other cases have been
1:04:30opened, including the ITT, including the
1:04:33um milk uh fund about which the
1:04:35president has spoken. Thirdly, the
1:04:37president on his taxes when he said that
1:04:40he had done only as President Johnson
1:04:43had advised him to do, which was to turn
1:04:45over his vice presidential papers and
1:04:47take a deduction. What the president
1:04:49failed to say was that the law under
1:04:51which that was uh permissible was in the
1:04:54meantime changed and the issue involved
1:04:56with regard to the papers was whether
1:04:58the papers were actually officially
1:05:00turned over to the General Services
1:05:02Administration before the expiration of
1:05:05that particular provision. Then uh
1:05:08perhaps we should point out for those
1:05:10who may have joined us late or were out
1:05:12of the room for some reason when this
1:05:13happened that one of the highlights of
1:05:15the president's press question and
1:05:17answer session uh may prove to have been
1:05:19when he talked about uh how much income
1:05:22tax he paid in the years 1970 and 71.
1:05:24And the president seemed to confirm,
1:05:26although he didn't say so outright, he
1:05:28didn't deny it when asked specifically
1:05:29seemed to confirm that in the years 1970
1:05:31and 71 that on incomes of uh $200,000 a
1:05:36year that he paid uh income no more than
1:05:39$900 a year. Uh one should emphasize
1:05:42that uh nothing illegal about that. It
1:05:44is the kind of uh tax arrangement that
1:05:47uh is frequently carried out by
1:05:49businessmen. At least this is the
1:05:51president's explanation. Fred Graham in
1:05:53our Washington studios. any
1:05:54contradictions uh that you were able to
1:05:57catch?
1:05:58>> Well, Dan, the striking thing to me
1:06:00about the president's recitation here
1:06:02was how very firm a grasp he has of his
1:06:07litigation there before Judge Sera's
1:06:09court. As you know, I've spent much of
1:06:11the last three weeks in this series of
1:06:14hearings to determine why there are two
1:06:16tapes that uh were not produced pursuant
1:06:19to the subpoena. And uh the president
1:06:21even uses the exact words his lawyers
1:06:24use uh in the courtroom and either uh he
1:06:27has discussed it with them very much uh
1:06:30he's grilled them very well much in
1:06:31advance or he's reading the record very
1:06:34carefully because I I see the same uh
1:06:37phrases come out in his discussion when
1:06:39he talked about uh this is not astronaut
1:06:42gear that we have had in the White
1:06:44House. It only cost $2,500. Those are
1:06:46exact words that his attorney Sam Powers
1:06:49used last week. Uh it seemed to me that
1:06:52there were two points that he could have
1:06:54gone on to discuss. Uh, one of the eerie
1:06:58uh or inexplicable or inexplained
1:07:02questions about the April 15 missing
1:07:05tape was that uh you'll recall that uh
1:07:09the president discussed that uh 3 days
1:07:12later with Henry Peterson uh discussed
1:07:15the conversation with John Dean and when
1:07:17there was uh some disagreement between
1:07:19the two of them as to what was said, the
1:07:21president said, "Well, I have that on
1:07:22tape." Archal Cox heard of that and in
1:07:25June he wrote a letter to the president
1:07:28or to his attorney Fred Bazard and said
1:07:30uh of course that was before the the
1:07:32world at large knew that White House
1:07:34conversations were uh taped. He said I
1:07:37would like to have that taped for
1:07:39evidence and Fred Bazar writing for the
1:07:42president wrote back and said no uh what
1:07:45we have is a dictabel and as the
1:07:47president told us tonight he was
1:07:49mistaken there that there was no
1:07:50dictabel. That does raise the question
1:07:53as to why back in June. Uh the discovery
1:07:57wasn't made at that time uh that uh
1:08:01there was no April 15 tape and the
1:08:03president didn't get around to answering
1:08:05that question. He did make one other
1:08:07slip. Uh he uh he said that uh these
1:08:11illegal corporate contributions that
1:08:13were made last year to both parties,
1:08:14although the lion share to his
1:08:16re-election campaign, uh he implied that
1:08:19these businessmen and the people who
1:08:20accepted the money didn't know that they
1:08:22were illegal because the law had just
1:08:25been changed. Uh the fact is that that
1:08:27statute was passed in 1927,
1:08:30the Corrupt Practices Act, which makes
1:08:32corporate contributions illegal. And
1:08:34although other parts of the law were
1:08:37changed, not that part.
1:08:38>> Could we Dan go into the uh the one
1:08:41issue that the president seemed so
1:08:43anxious to talk about that u when the
1:08:45question didn't come he asked for the
1:08:46question and that was the question of
1:08:48the milk fund. His
1:08:49>> we could go into it if it's brief. His
1:08:51explanation was substantially the same
1:08:54explanation that was given by Governor
1:08:55Connelly at an executive session of the
1:08:57Iran committee, which was that they had
1:08:59to do it because Congress was going to
1:09:00do it anyway and that it had nothing to
1:09:02do with campaign contributions, which
1:09:04doesn't explain the visit of the milk
1:09:06people to the White House uh in the
1:09:08course of which campaign contributions
1:09:10were discussed. nor does it seem to
1:09:12explain that this would be an enormous
1:09:14departure from the president's policy of
1:09:16not taking the easy way and yielding to
1:09:18congressional pressure on a matter of
1:09:20principle among other things uh this
1:09:22evening I think you may agree gentlemen
1:09:24we have seen how easy it is for a
1:09:26president to control and manipulate news
1:09:29conferences to his own desires again uh
1:09:32that may or may not be necessary and
1:09:34worthwhile depending upon your point of
1:09:35view but at the end when the man in
1:09:37charge of the meeting uh Mr. Quinn, I
1:09:39think it was John Quinn, president of
1:09:41the Associated Press Managing Editors
1:09:42Association, uh said, "Mr. President,
1:09:44we'd like to give you more time, but uh
1:09:46we're going to break it off here." The
1:09:47president said, "No, uh leave the
1:09:49television on and I'm going to ask
1:09:50myself a question and answer that
1:09:52question." The question about the milk
1:09:53arrangement.
1:09:54>> Dan, I thought it put him off a little
1:09:55bit that the questions were so polite
1:09:57there. He he misspoke several times. He
1:09:59said uh uh regarding Halddederman
1:10:02Nerikman that they should be presumed
1:10:03guilty until proved not guilty. And of
1:10:05course, he was misspeaking. I thought
1:10:06their politeness threw him off for a
1:10:08bit. And Dan, I don't really think that
1:10:09we should discuss Watergate alone
1:10:11because what the president had to say
1:10:12about uh gasoline rationing was terribly
1:10:15important. As you know, there's been an
1:10:16enormous conflict within the
1:10:18administration about rationing or
1:10:20whether it should not should have or
1:10:22should not have rationing. And it now
1:10:23appears from the way the president spoke
1:10:25that short of another major foreign
1:10:27crisis, he is against rationing. Don't
1:10:29you think so, Dan?
1:10:30>> Uh it did uh see seem his remarks did
1:10:33seem to imply that. The president also
1:10:34said we should note uh that he has been
1:10:36well outfront on anticipating the energy
1:10:39crisis. This has been a CBS news
1:10:42broadcast. President Nixon's appearance
1:10:44at Disney World Florida. I'm Dan Rather
1:10:46for my colleagues Robert Perpoint who
1:10:48was in Florida, Daniel Shore, and Fred
1:10:50Graham in Washington. Thank you and good
1:10:52evening.
1:10:54This has been a CBS News special report.
1:10:57The president and the editors with
1:10:59correspondent Dan Rather in New York and
1:11:01Daniel Shore and Fred Graham in
1:11:03Washington.
1:11:05This is CBS.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of From the archives: Nixon tells reporters "I'm not a crook" at Disney World in 1973 by CBS News, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 12,355 words across 1,809 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.