YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → John Ehrlichman: The 60 Minutes Watergate Interview (1973)

John Ehrlichman: The 60 Minutes Watergate Interview (1973) — Transcript

by 60 Minutes · 5,531 words · 1,044 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:0260 Minutes Rewind
0:05Before he resigned his post as chief
0:07domestic affairs adviser to the
0:09president, John Ehrlichman was closer to
0:11the Oval Office and a more powerful man
0:13in the White House hierarchy than
0:15anybody but Bob Haldeman. John Dean, the
0:17former counsel to the president, says
0:19that no one got in to see Mr. Nixon
0:21without clearing it through Haldeman or
0:22Ehrlichman.
0:24John Ehrlichman has a well-deserved
0:25reputation in Washington for savvy,
0:27shrewdness, hard work,
0:29and devotion to the president. And he
0:31was said to know just about everything
0:33that went on in the White House.
0:35Not so, said Mr. Ehrlichman when he sat
0:37down with us in Washington last night.
0:39At least, he claims, he was in the dark
0:41about certain aspects of the information
0:43being developed at the Senate Watergate
0:45hearings.
0:48John Dean put on the record a list of
0:52the administration's enemies,
0:54compiled by various White House people.
0:57Enemies in various categories. Some
1:00hardcore enemies, for lack of a more
1:02precise term, and some enemies less
1:04reprehensible.
1:06Could you tell me how you arrived at
1:07categorizing these various lists?
1:10Now, this may surprise you, but I didn't
1:12know there was such a list.
1:14That's something that um was developed
1:17totally out of my sight and hearing.
1:19He put on the record his memorandum to
1:22you and Bob Haldeman.
1:23no, sir.
1:23Well, let me just
1:24Okay.
1:25read what he says.
1:26All right.
1:26To you and to Bob Haldeman, among
1:28others, a memo entitled dealing with
1:30political enemies.
1:31To me?
1:32Yes, sir.
1:33He was White House counsel, and he
1:35explores the means of, to use his words,
1:38"How can we use the federal machinery to
1:40screw our political enemies through
1:42withholding federal contracts or
1:43litigation or income tax audits and so
1:46forth?"
1:47Well, uh I must say uh that surprises
1:49me. I don't recall seeing that memo, and
1:52I particularly don't recall seeing a
1:54list of enemies.
1:55Now,
1:57uh
1:57You don't know about Colson's list or
1:58Caulfield's list?
1:59sorry, I didn't. And, um,
2:02Didn't you read the papers this morning
2:03about all of this?
2:03Oh, I read it. I watched it on
2:05television yesterday.
2:06And?
2:06But, uh, it was news to me.
2:09How can we use, I repeat his words, how
2:11can we use the federal machinery to
2:12screw our political enemies through
2:14withholding federal contracts or
2:16litigation or income tax audits as for
2:18instance,
2:20Colson's suggestion, uh, with regard to
2:22Harold Gibbons of the teamsters?
2:23Yeah, I think that's
2:24Come on.
2:25I think that is, uh, impossible
2:28Uh, What's impossible?
2:29to to approve of.
2:32You never saw that memo.
2:33I don't recall seeing it, no.
2:36Pretty important memo.
2:37Well,
2:38uh, I'm sorry.
2:40Uh, the the, um,
2:42uh,
2:43income tax thing is something that I do
2:45know a little about.
2:47Um,
2:48A couple of guys thrower
2:51left cuz he wouldn't among other reasons
2:53because he wouldn't succumb to pressure
2:55to
2:56to audit income taxes with a political
2:58view. Johnny Walters, didn't he do the
3:00same?
3:00I think you overdraw that a bit.
3:02Do I?
3:02Yeah,
3:03uh,
3:04I think that, um,
3:06uh, it is a matter of record that the
3:09IRS is almost, uh, immune
3:12from pressure of that kind.
3:15And, um,
3:16uh, I don't I don't think that, uh, any
3:19of us have very much to worry about. I
3:20know that that it was a source of of uh,
3:24uh,
3:25great unhappiness to the president that
3:26during the Kennedy years he was subject
3:28to audit every year. He was a former
3:30vice president, he was out in private
3:31practice and he was he was audited every
3:34year and and I think he had a had a sort
3:36of a visceral feeling that, uh, this
3:38was, uh, that he was being overreached
3:40for political reasons. But,
3:43Do you always tape your phone calls?
3:45No.
3:46Why did you tape your conversation with
3:48the Attorney General of the United
3:49States?
3:50Many times when I was in a conversation
3:53where I thought there would be
3:56uh
3:57information or facts
4:00that I would have to impart accurately
4:02and faithfully
4:03to the president or to somebody else,
4:06I would turn on the recorder.
4:09Do you
4:11By law,
4:12do you have to let the fellow at the
4:13other side know that he's being taped?
4:15Not if you don't intend to publish or
4:18use it
4:19in any way publicly. And I never did.
4:23Did you
4:25ever direct or okay the wiretapping of
4:27the phones of any newsmen?
4:30Uh I didn't either direct or okay it. I
4:34was familiar with one that was
4:36attempted.
4:36Joe Craft?
4:37Yeah, but it never happened as the best
4:39of my recollection.
4:41When you say you were familiar with it.
4:43Yeah, it was I knew it was I knew it was
4:45going on. I knew there was there was an
4:47attempt to do it. Jack Caulfield was
4:49asked to determine whether it'd be
4:50feasible. Asked by
4:52By
4:55I'm sorry, I can't recall. I don't I
4:57don't remember.
4:58Not by John Ehrlichman?
4:59I don't think so. I don't think it's
5:01conceivable, but I don't that isn't that
5:02isn't my recollection.
5:03He has suggested that it was you.
5:05I I know he did and I just draw a blank
5:08on it.
5:08Did you order any others? Or were you
5:11familiar with any others?
5:12I didn't order any of those at that time
5:14to the best of my recollection while I
5:15was while I was counsel.
5:17To the best of your recollection,
5:20were you familiar with any others?
5:22Not during the time it was going on.
5:25You got hold of the logs afterwards.
5:27In in wholesale lot.
5:29And put them in your safe.
5:30Just that.
5:31How did you get them?
5:32I got them from Mr. Mardian.
5:34His job at the time was
5:35Assistant Attorney General, Internal
5:37Security.
5:38He said I'd I'd like to talk to you.
5:41Fine. So I went over to his house. I was
5:44home at the time.
5:46He said I have all these logs
5:49and they're from this '69
5:52uh
5:53national security tap effort that the
5:55that the Bureau did."
5:56Of newsmen and White House staffers?
5:58They were primarily
6:00uh
6:02National Security Council staff, as I
6:04recall.
6:05Mhm.
6:06And um
6:07he said "I have these files and uh
6:11I have no way
6:13of keeping them secure."
6:15Uh
6:16In the Justice Department?
6:17In in his Internal Security Division,
6:19which I gather was not in the main
6:21building of the Justice Department. This
6:22was his story.
6:24He said, "I think the only safe place
6:28for these to be held are in the White
6:31House."
6:32And I said and he said
6:35"The president knows about these
6:37because I said I'm you know, this is not
6:39something that I was I I was in on."
6:42He said "The president knows about
6:43these." And I said "Okay. Um why don't
6:46you stand by and I'll find out what the
6:48president's desires are in this."
6:50So that was on the weekend and I think
6:53it was the following day on the Monday
6:55uh I got a chance to ask the president
6:57about it.
6:58And recounted this conversation.
7:00President said "Well, why don't you have
7:02Bob deliver them over here and you just
7:03hang on to them."
7:04So that's what he did.
7:05Did you look them over?
7:06I looked at enough to see what they were
7:09and I read one of them clear through.
7:11Which one was that?
7:12Well,
7:13um I'm not in a position to say which
7:15one that was.
7:16Uh
7:16Was that the Ellsberg
7:17No, it wasn't.
7:18Halperin
7:19No, it wasn't. And as a matter of fact,
7:21I didn't know that one was in there.
7:22Mhm. You didn't know about the Ellsberg
7:24Halperin tape.
7:25I didn't it
7:27let me put it another way. Um I didn't
7:29know it was in that group of documents.
7:32You received it in '71.
7:34I believe so. I think at the Pentagon
7:35Papers time is when it it came over to
7:38me and we're aware of its existence.
7:40I I have evidently
7:41was although I'd totally forgotten it at
7:43the time and until I ran across it going
7:45through the files about, I don't know
7:47what, 2 weeks ago. Well, I'll tell you
7:48what it was. It was the 13th of June.
7:52You must have read it at the time and
7:53forgotten about it.
7:54I I think I did.
7:55Because it was vital that at that trial
7:59Evidently it was.
7:59that existed.
8:00Yeah, and
8:01It ruined the government's case.
8:02Sure did.
8:04In the button-down White House.
8:06Well, you know.
8:08demerits
8:11About that Ellsberg affair, you say you
8:13did not know ahead of time that Gordon
8:14Liddy and Howard Hunt were going to
8:16burglarize the files of Ellsberg's
8:17psychiatrist.
8:18Right.
8:19But you told a House Armed Services
8:20Subcommittee that you'd have to go back
8:21to your records to make sure that you
8:23hadn't known. Have you refreshed your
8:25memory?
8:25Yes, I did that.
8:27And
8:28I found um
8:31that
8:32on about the
8:34I want to get the date right. The 11th
8:36of August of that year. The break-in, I
8:39think, was Labor Day.
8:42The 11th of August, I had been given
8:45a so-called progress report or status
8:47report by Krogh and Young
8:49on the whole progress of the Pentagon
8:52Papers investigation. And it had, I
8:54don't know, seven or eight items in it,
8:55something of that kind.
8:57One of the items that they had
8:59was the psychiatric profile draft that
9:04the CIA had sent them. As I had told
9:06that committee and as I had testified
9:08previously, I couldn't recall whether I
9:11had seen that profile before or after
9:13the break-in. But anyway, if it was
9:15attached, as it seems like it was, I
9:17probably saw it somewhere
9:19between the
9:20the 11th and the 20th, something of that
9:23kind, along with a request
9:25that the investigation, which I believe
9:28I had previously talked to them about,
9:31the idea of sending investigators to the
9:33coast to investigate Ellsberg, include
9:36an attempt to find out what these
9:39records contain.
9:41I've never gotten it quite clear. What
9:42What You had a couple of conversations
9:44with the judge in the Ellsberg trial,
9:46Matt Byrne.
9:46Yeah.
9:48Uh it was at the time when the president
9:50had pretty well decided that the Gray
9:53nomination was
9:55uh
9:56no longer operative.
9:57Mhm.
9:58And um that he had to begin uh
10:01thinking about at least prospective
10:03alternatives.
10:04He'd had a meeting with the Attorney
10:05General um couple of days before who had
10:09was out there.
10:10Attorney General had very strongly
10:12recommended Matt Byrne as a as an
10:15alternative for FBI Director.
10:17Talked to the judge. I said I've no idea
10:20how your trial is coming up there, but
10:23at some point in time we'd like to have
10:26a discussion with you about a
10:27non-judicial appointment.
10:30And he said, "Well, uh
10:33all right, fine. Uh
10:35when would you like to do it?"
10:37That's
10:38what led up to it.
10:39Second conversation.
10:41You saw him a second time.
10:42Right.
10:42At your house?
10:43No.
10:44Where?
10:44Uh in a park in Santa Monica.
10:46In a park in Santa Monica.
10:47Right. He called me.
10:49He called you.
10:50Yes, sir.
10:51Said he would like to have further
10:53discussions about uh
10:55head of the FBI.
10:56uh being head of the FBI.
10:58Uh because we had had a we had had our
11:00first conversation there at the office.
11:01He came to San Clemente.
11:03What a strange place to to meet?
11:05Well, he did that to accommodate me. My
11:06mother lives in Santa Monica. I was
11:08going up from San Clemente to have
11:09dinner with my mother.
11:11But in a park?
11:13Uh compared to what? A bar?
11:16Uh on a nice sunny day?
11:17Compared to your mother's house?
11:19Compared to an office?
11:20Well, anyway.
11:21Anyway, um
11:23in our first conversation it began
11:26substantially by my saying, "Look, um
11:28uh
11:29again, I don't know what the situation
11:31of your trial is. This may not be
11:33appropriate in your opinion. If at any
11:35point in the conversation you think it
11:37in any way
11:39prejudices the conduct of this trial,
11:41let's stop right then.
11:42And matter of fact, I think I said,
11:45"Let's Let's walk out here toward the
11:46bluff. And if at any point in this
11:48conversation you think I'm getting
11:50anywhere close
11:51to
11:52dangerous ground in terms of the conduct
11:54of the trial, you just turn around and
11:56walk away." There were no commitments
11:57asked or given, no offers, no
11:59acceptances. But I took the invitation
12:03as for the to the second meeting as sort
12:05of a a symbol of of heightened interest.
12:09Now then,
12:10the men who broke in at Ellsberg's
12:12psychiatrist were Gordon Liddy and
12:14Howard Hunt.
12:15You reprimanded them,
12:17told them not to do it again.
12:20When Gordon Liddy, a burglar,
12:22Can I Can I disagree with you?
12:24Well, you're quoted. I think you've said
12:25so yourself.
12:26No.
12:26No.
12:27No.
12:27I think you've been reading FBI
12:29summaries again.
12:30Mhm.
12:31FBI summaries of their interview with
12:33you.
12:34Yeah, which are not correct.
12:36The FBI?
12:37Yes, sir.
12:38See,
12:39it was kind of an interesting
12:39experience.
12:41I'm not
12:42that before, have you? I mean, that's
12:43news.
12:44Well, I you know, I'm trying to
12:46accommodate you here.
12:47Well, I know that you're trying to
12:48accommodate me, but anything as
12:49important as that, I would think that
12:50you would have corrected it long before.
12:52corrected it. I told the US attorney
12:53about it. And as a matter of fact,
12:56after the FBI people left my office, I
12:58immediately dictated a rather long,
13:01detailed, comprehensive memo of
13:03precisely what the conversation was,
13:05turned it over to my attorney.
13:07And it was kind of interesting for Mr.
13:09Wilson, my attorney, to sit with the US
13:10attorney and compare notes.
13:13Um the summary that Judge Byrne got of
13:17my interview with the FBI was a highly
13:20um
13:21selective and glossed over version.
13:25For instance, it says at the end
13:27something to the effect that I said,
13:29"Now fellows, don't ever do that again."
13:32Well, I didn't tell that to the FBI, and
13:34I certainly didn't tell that to the to
13:36the to Bud Krogh. As a matter of fact,
13:38never talked to Hunt Liddy. Talked to
13:40Krogh.
13:40What did you What did you tell Krogh?
13:41Well, I expressed my disapproval in the
13:43strongest kind of terms, as he said.
13:46Uh and as a matter of fact,
13:48made clear that I thought that this
13:50whole this whole investigation
13:53ought to be terminated with these
13:54people. That they didn't evidence good
13:56judgment, and that ought to be the end
13:57of it.
13:57When Gordon Liddy, a burglar,
14:00apparently a burglar out of control, if
14:02he did the job if he botched the job and
14:04did a job that you thought shouldn't
14:06have been done, in the final analysis,
14:07they reported to you.
14:09When Gordon Liddy was named counsel to
14:12the Committee to Re-elect the President,
14:14were you surprised? Did you disapprove?
14:17Did you let anybody know that you
14:18disapproved?
14:19I don't think I even knew he was.
14:24Counsel to the Committee to Re-elect the
14:26President, and John Ehrlichman doesn't
14:27know
14:27Never came to my attention.
14:28that a fellow that he has doesn't think
14:31much of for for for botching the job at
14:34Ellsberg's psychiatrist.
14:37And you don't you
14:39I
14:39First I knew that Liddy was at at the
14:42Committee to Re-elect, I think, was when
14:44I read about the Watergate break-in.
14:47Gordon Liddy was a
14:48was just
14:50out of my consciousness, as was Howard
14:52Hunt.
14:53Well, no, wait.
14:54After Watergate,
14:56after June the 17th,
14:58but before Hunt's involvement in it
15:01had been made public,
15:04you called Charles Colson
15:07to ask where Howard Hunt was, right?
15:08Right.
15:10Why would you want to know about Howard
15:11Hunt? His name had not been yet
15:13mentioned publicly in connection with
15:15the Watergate.
15:16Been mentioned to me.
15:17Mentioned to you by whom?
15:19By by call I got
15:21from the Secret Service on um um
15:26the afternoon following the break-in and
15:29and the arrest of the people who were in
15:30there.
15:31On the
15:3218th.
15:33Uh whatever the date was.
15:35Why would you uh why would the Secret
15:38Service learn about it? Why would they
15:40know about Hunt?
15:41Apparently there was something in the
15:42possession of these fellows
15:44that had Hunt
15:46and White House.
15:49And so the police notified the Secret
15:51Service and the Secret Service couldn't
15:53find anybody else in town. Everybody was
15:54in Florida with the president, so they
15:56called me.
15:58And they found a check on one of the
15:59Cubans.
16:00Yes, and
16:01made out to a country club.
16:02Yeah.
16:03And it was signed by Howard Hunt.
16:04Yeah.
16:05But as and it's it's fuzzy in my
16:07recollection. I may not ever really have
16:09known, but it's my recollection that
16:11they found something about the White
16:14House and Hunt in their possession.
16:17And uh somehow or another the police
16:19linked that up and way with the White
16:20House and that's why the Secret Service
16:21got a call as they routinely do and uh
16:25then uh they looked around and I seemed
16:27to be the the senior fellow in town, so
16:29they gave me a call.
16:30Well, uh you told the Senate Committee
16:33in your interview with them. You said,
16:35"I learned of the Watergate arrest just
16:37after dark on Saturday night, June 17th.
16:39Received a call at home from Mr. Boggs
16:41of the Secret Service to advise me that
16:42he had been advised by the Metropolitan
16:43Police of the arrests."
16:44How do you get stuff from the Senate
16:46Committee staff?
16:48Um
16:51We have sources.
16:55You have better sources than I do.
16:56Hunt had something in his possession
16:58with the designation White House.
17:00McCord's name did not come up in that
17:02conversation that I recall.
17:03No.
17:04I learned of his involvement in the
17:05paper the next day. I had never met or
17:06known him.
17:08I then called Ron Ziegler who was in
17:09Florida with the president
17:11and I called Charles Colson to ask him
17:13where Howard Hunt was these days since
17:15they were friends.
17:18Right.
17:20So in spite of the fact that his name
17:22hadn't been mentioned publicly, Hunt,
17:27the Secret Ser- the Secret Service
17:29called you. They had been alerted by the
17:31Metropolitan Police.
17:32I believe and I they didn't tell me who
17:34had alerted them. I don't think. But I
17:36had the impression that they had been
17:38told by the police.
17:38Well, how else would the Secret Service
17:40know? Why would they have gotten
17:41involved?
17:41I As that's why I say, I think that
17:43that's that's their source.
17:46But nobody in the press learned.
17:50Maybe they didn't have a source.
17:54John Dean says that you told him to call
17:56Gordon Liddy
17:58and tell Liddy
17:59to tell Hunt
18:01to get out of the country.
18:05True or false?
18:07Tune in next week.
18:08I don't know. Well, I mean, you're
18:09you're being very forthcoming and
18:10everything.
18:11I'm trying to be. At the same time,
18:13there are a number of uh allegations
18:15that uh Mr. Dean's made. It's a big long
18:18record. It's a big long statement.
18:21And I think before I
18:23uh respond to those allegations where
18:26I'm concerned,
18:27I'm going to want to take this this week
18:29of recess
18:31to get out all of the logs and all of
18:33the records and all of the memos of
18:35meetings and lay down what Mr. Dean said
18:38and what the evidence is and then be
18:40prepared to testify on this.
18:42In other words, you don't remember
18:43whether you called
18:44I just said.
18:45Well, no, I'm I'm just asking. You do
18:47remember, but you don't want to say.
18:48I prefer not to get into specific
18:51allegations right now.
18:52Okay. Look, you were involved to some
18:55degree with Hunt and Liddy. When I say
18:57you were involved, I don't mean that you
18:58were looking over their shoulder.
19:00them once.
19:02Well, you knew what they were doing out
19:03in the Ellsberg business and you told
19:04you and you said it was a it was a
19:06pretty poor idea.
19:08Wouldn't it be logical then
19:11to believe that when you learned of
19:12their involvement in the Watergate
19:14business
19:15and you knew
19:17immediately after it happened, even
19:18before it hit the press,
19:20that Liddy and Hunt were involved.
19:22Wouldn't it be logical to believe that
19:24you'd want to cover up your own prior
19:26dealings with them?
19:28I can't think why.
19:30Um
19:31Well, you didn't Well,
19:32My own prior dealings with them didn't
19:34give me any trouble at all.
19:35Well, you knew that they had broken in
19:37No, well, I knew after the fact.
19:39I know, but you knew by this time. That
19:41was back in 1971 that they broke in in
19:43September
19:43I I didn't
19:44to Ellsberg's uh psychiatrist's office.
19:48That didn't um
19:49uh seem to come home to me.
19:51Uh
19:52uh I didn't send them out there to do an
19:53illegal act.
19:54but you knew. I I'm not saying that you
19:56did or didn't. I don't know. You knew
19:58that they had broken in. And when you
20:00heard that the same two guys who had
20:02broken in to to Ellsberg's
20:04psychiatrist's office, and the public
20:06didn't know about this, had no idea
20:08about it. It wasn't on the record. And
20:10suddenly the same two fellows are
20:12involved in Watergate.
20:14It was
20:16becomes apparent that that people who
20:17hear about that are going to say, "Well,
20:19they'll put two and two together."
20:21That crowd worked on Ellsberg. That
20:22crowd worked on Watergate. They did it
20:25on the at the suggestion of the uh of
20:27the White House.
20:29And the cover-up began. It becomes quite
20:31apparent that there seems to be a
20:33strange coincidence. Hunt and Liddy,
20:35Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Hunt and Liddy,
20:38Watergate. And John Ehrlichman says,
20:42"Get Hunt out of the country."
20:45And he knows about it, knows about
20:47Liddy's part participation, knows about
20:49Hunt's participation before anybody else
20:51and before it's in the press.
20:52Well,
20:53two very separate transactions.
20:56Very separate.
20:58Uh the Ellsberg business, a national
21:01security undertaking of the highest
21:03priority.
21:05Uh hedged about by the most stringent
21:08kinds of national security, uh, uh,
21:11secrecy.
21:12Um, uh, the whole chain of of Plumbers
21:16activity, as a matter of fact, to ferret
21:18out these people who were,
21:20um, uh,
21:21exposing,
21:23uh, national security secrets of all
21:25kinds, national defense secrets, um,
21:28uh, foreign affairs dealings, uh, the
21:30internal workings of the Defense
21:31Department, all disarmament conference
21:33secrets, all kinds of stuff.
21:35Uh,
21:37the President impressed that whole
21:39course of of investigation with the
21:41highest kind of national security
21:43stricture.
21:44You sent some pretty sloppy guys to do
21:46that high security work.
21:47Well,
21:48Agreed.
21:48Uh, I certainly, uh,
21:50can't disagree with that in terms of
21:52that that break-in business. There's no
21:54way to to condone that.
21:56The story will continue after this.
22:02John Dean testifies that you directed
22:04him to take custody of the potentially
22:06explosive contents of Howard Hunt's
22:09White House safe.
22:12And to report what was inside, right?
22:15Well, here again, now you're you're
22:17getting me into this John Dean alleges
22:19business, and I I think we'll save time
22:21if if we don't have to say I'm not going
22:23to answer each one of these.
22:25Uh, I just would rather not get into
22:27that until I have a chance to review the
22:30entire record
22:31and and spread it all out.
22:34For instance,
22:35there are some 40 or 50 documents in
22:38evidence, which I've not yet had a
22:40chance to read up at the, at the
22:42committee.
22:43Mhm.
22:43I think to do a proper job of answering
22:45questions, for instance, if you get into
22:46this business of was there a Dean
22:48report,
22:49until I've had a chance to review the
22:51documentation in evidence up there, I
22:53couldn't make a very intelligent answer
22:55to you on that.
22:55You mean that now we're talking about
22:57the Dean report that was the basis of
22:59the President's statement on August
23:0129th, that Dean had made an
23:02investigation and John Dean says that he
23:04had not made any investigation.
23:07And you don't know whether the Dean
23:08report exists or not?
23:09but in order to make a conclusive answer
23:11to a question like that, I would like to
23:13be able to direct you to some of Dean's
23:15own writing that's in evidence up there,
23:17which I understand corroborates the fact
23:19that he did in fact make an
23:20investigation.
23:22Well, then that's all you got to say?
23:23Yeah, but see I haven't had a chance to
23:25check that document and I wouldn't want
23:26you to go ahead on unreliable
23:28information.
23:31Well,
23:34Dean says that you told him to shred the
23:35documents inside
23:37and deep-six
23:39dramatic phrase, Mr. Ehrlichman, the
23:42briefcase, to throw it in the Potomac
23:43River.
23:45Well,
23:46let me let me just make a general
23:47comment.
23:49That shredding is a is an activity that
23:52has been foreign to my nature.
23:54I don't think I've
23:56shredded or requested the shredding of a
23:58document since I came to Washington 5
24:00years ago.
24:02And
24:03it is it is just not in my lexicon.
24:07Um
24:08Okay.
24:09Now that ought to
24:10That give you some indication.
24:12Right.
24:12So, the bogus State Department cables
24:14inside that were forged by Hunt,
24:18you didn't want them shredded.
24:19I have I've testified that I was not
24:21aware
24:23of the contents of Hunt's safe.
24:26And to the best of my recollection, I
24:28have never known
24:30what it was that was in that safe except
24:32a general description that there was
24:34electronic equipment and a gun and some
24:36papers.
24:37And weren't you interested?
24:39Not particularly.
24:41The The Watergate business was not my
24:44responsibility, number one. It was the
24:45responsibility of the counsel. That
24:47distinguishes it from the from the
24:49Plumbers business in which I did have
24:52responsibility.
24:53The The Watergate business was the
24:56responsibility of the counsel.
24:57Yes. Counsel of the President, John
24:59Dean.
24:59Yes. Yes.
25:02You didn't know that Mitchell and Dean
25:04were allegedly involved in the cover-up
25:06at that time.
25:09Uh no.
25:10Didn't occur?
25:12The the so-called cover-up
25:16really did not become evident to me
25:20until
25:22I got into this thing full steam
25:26uh the end of March of this year.
25:31By the end of March you knew about the
25:33cover-up.
25:34That's when I began to know about the
25:37cover-up. I didn't understand the full
25:39dimensions of it until about the middle
25:41of April, something of that kind.
25:43The reason I ask is
25:45that
25:46I quote you
25:48on April 2nd
25:50interviewed in the Chicago Tribune
25:53April 2nd. Now you say that you began to
25:55know it in March and you knew the full
25:56stuff by the middle of April.
25:58Chicago Tribune, April 2nd. You told
26:01them how much you respected the
26:03veracity, integrity, and probity
26:06of John Dean.
26:08Well, I think as of that moment, that
26:09was a correct statement.
26:10April 2nd.
26:11Mhm.
26:12And your eyes were opened to the man's
26:14real character only 10 days later.
26:16I don't uh
26:19uh
26:19I don't claim to have been very uh
26:22prescient in this whole thing.
26:24Uh
26:25I was a late bloomer, I must confess,
26:27and it was not until
26:30very late
26:32in this uh
26:34inquiry that I made at the President's
26:36request
26:38that I finally put the last few pieces
26:40in the puzzle and began to see where
26:42Dean fit. Uh
26:44I don't know if you've ever had this
26:45experience, but
26:48uh
26:49I'd been talking to a lot of witnesses
26:50since the 30th of March when the
26:52president asked me to get into this.
26:55And
26:56I couldn't make things fit.
26:59And finally one night, in the middle of
27:00the night, I got up and I sat down and I
27:03began to try and write it out.
27:06And the more I wrote it out, the more I
27:08was able to see the interrelationship of
27:10some of the some of the facts and begin
27:12to see it.
27:13And it was the next morning I went to
27:15the president and said, "Well, I've got
27:16a hypothesis. I think I know now
27:19how this thing begins to fit together."
27:21And Dean's the guy.
27:22And no, I still wasn't quite that
27:25bright. I wish
27:27that I had been brighter about this.
27:31Explain something to me, will you, Mr.
27:32Ehrlichman? Why Why would anybody in the
27:36Nixon administration, in the official
27:38Nixon family, want to defend want to
27:40raise money to defend the guys who
27:43burglarized the Watergate?
27:44Certainly for no reason of self-interest
27:47other than perhaps Mr. Dean.
27:50Uh there may have been a a compassionate
27:52motive on somebody's part. I can't
27:53answer that.
27:54Compassionate?
27:55But the uh the um
27:57in in terms of self-interest, protecting
28:00one's own interest, and so on. That's
28:02That's the question that comes back to
28:03this whole cover-up thing. Cover up
28:05what? The White House had no interest as
28:08such in covering this thing up. It had
28:11no exposure.
28:12The information that we have is that
28:14Herbert Kalmbach
28:17got
28:19channeled
28:21to Anthony Ulasewicz
28:24from the end of June to the end of
28:25September $219,000.
28:31For what?
28:32I'm I
28:33For the Watergate defense fund?
28:35You simply cannot get an answer from me
28:37cuz I don't know.
28:38Did you never talk to Kalmbach? Did you
28:40never tell him that Dean's a good man,
28:41you can talk to him, he's reliable?
28:43Well, now that goes back to the question
28:45I said I'd like to reserve to the to the
28:47committee. But in answer to your
28:49question about all this money,
28:52I'm simply not your man. I just don't
28:54know the answer to that question.
28:56Split between the Haldeman-Ehrlichman
28:58faction and the Mitchell-Dean faction to
28:59what level?
29:00What?
29:01Piffle, sir.
29:03What do you mean?
29:03I mean this this faction business.
29:06I I don't recognize that
29:09as as having any basis in truth.
29:11John Mitchell is not going to be the
29:12fall guy.
29:14I don't
29:15I don't know. Don't know of any evidence
29:18first-hand that that involves Mr.
29:19Mitchell.
29:20Well, when John Mitchell came to the
29:21White House on Saturday, April 14th, he
29:24sought to see the president and he wound
29:25up with John Ehrlichman instead. What
29:27did you say to him and he to you?
29:29Basically, I said to him that uh the
29:32president had a message that he wanted
29:33me to deliver to him, which was
29:36and and two other people also.
29:39That the president did not deem it
29:42in any way in the interest of himself
29:45personally or the presidency for anyone
29:48to stand mute
29:49and uh
29:51uh not to tell
29:53the facts. Subject only to that
29:55individual's civil rights and his own
29:58right to to uh
30:00uh reticence for his own for his own
30:02purposes. But the the president had the
30:04sense, and I don't mean to direct this
30:05at Mr. Mitchell, but just generally, the
30:07sense that perhaps some people thought
30:09they were protecting him or were serving
30:12the interests of the presidency by not
30:14speaking out.
30:15Why wouldn't the president tell that to
30:16his good friend John Mitchell himself?
30:17He was the Nobody was closer to him than
30:19John Mitchell for so many years.
30:20I I think he found it just
30:23in in terms of sensitivity, very awkward
30:25to to uh have a meeting with him right
30:28at that point in time.
30:30And so he asked me to do that, and I
30:31did.
30:32Why sensitive at that point?
30:34Well, you'd have to ask the president
30:35that, but that was he was he was
30:37sensitive on that subject.
30:39Did you see Senator Weicker enumerate a
30:41list
30:42of the
30:44illegal or unconstitutional
30:47or unethical acts committed by various
30:49persons either in the White House
30:52or employed by officials of the White
30:55House.
30:55No, I didn't.
30:56Let me read them.
31:01A list of acts committed by people in
31:04the White House or employed by people in
31:06the White House or employed by people in
31:07the cabinet. You know what I'm saying.
31:09Breaking and entering.
31:11Wiretapping.
31:13Conspiracy to foster prostitution.
31:16Conspiracy to commit kidnapping.
31:19Destruction of government documents.
31:22Forgery of State Department documents
31:23and campaign letters.
31:25Secret slush funds.
31:27Laundering money in Mexico.
31:30Payoffs to silence witnesses.
31:32Perjury.
31:34Plans to audit tax returns for political
31:36retaliation.
31:38Theft of psychiatric records.
31:40Spying by undercover agents.
31:43Bogus opinion polls.
31:45Plans to firebomb a building.
31:47Conspiracy to obstruct justice.
31:50All of this
31:51by the law and order administration of
31:53Richard Nixon.
32:01Is there a question in there somewhere?
32:03I'm just curious to know
32:05your reaction to it.
32:07How did it happen?
32:09Point here is that
32:11to make a list like that and say how did
32:13it happen or how did that climate get
32:15created? It seems to me is is to
32:18misstate
32:19the association
32:22of a number of events.
32:24That has seemed to be the conscious
32:26tactic of some people
32:28in an effort to
32:30somehow or another
32:33make it tougher on the president of the
32:35administration.
32:36And it it seems to me that he is
32:38entitled to uh uh
32:40uh
32:40a measure of fairness
32:43in the in the consideration of this
32:45whole thing that that that kind of an
32:47approach doesn't give him.
32:50Senator Sam Ervin seems to suggest that
32:52perhaps the fairest approach to
32:54resolving the conflicting accounts of
32:56Watergate in all of its implications
32:59is for the president somehow
33:01to put his own information, his own
33:02testimony on the record
33:04before the Senate Watergate Committee.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of John Ehrlichman: The 60 Minutes Watergate Interview (1973) by 60 Minutes, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 5,531 words across 1,044 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.