YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Richard Nixon Associated Press Q and A Session 1973

Richard Nixon Associated Press Q and A Session 1973 — Transcript

by Buyout Footage Historic Film Archive · 10,329 words · 1,746 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:01Associated Press Managing Editors
0:03Association welcomes President Nixon to
0:05our 40th annual convention. I am John
0:07Quinn, president of APME and vice
0:09president news of Gannett newspapers.
0:11This audience includes almost 400
0:13editors from AP member newspapers in 43
0:16states and their families and guests.
0:18The regular White House press corps is
0:19present. Our invitation last month to
0:22the president urged him to come here for
0:24some straight talk from the White House
0:26to the managing editors. The acceptance
0:28this week said the president would
0:30respond for 1 hour to any questions of
0:33managing editor present.
0:35No restrictions were requested by the
0:37White House, nor set by APME, except
0:40that questioners must be active editor
0:42members of APME. Ladies and gentlemen,
0:45the president of the United States.
1:11Uh President Quinn and ladies and
1:13gentlemen,
1:14when Jack Horner,
1:15who has been a correspondent in
1:17Washington and other places around the
1:19world, retired after 40 years,
1:23he once told me
1:25that if I thought that the White House
1:27press corps answered tough questions, he
1:29should hear the kind of questions the
1:31managing editors ask him.
1:33Uh consequently, I welcome this
1:35opportunity tonight to meet with the
1:36managing editors of the nation's
1:38newspapers.
1:39Uh I will not have an opening statement
1:41because I know with 400 of you, it will
1:43be hard to get through all the questions
1:45you have. And I understand the president
1:47has the prerogative of asking the first
1:48question. Mr. Quinn.
1:50Mr. President, this morning Governor
1:52Askew of Florida addressed this group
1:54and recalled the words of Benjamin
1:56Franklin. When leaving the
1:57Constitutional Convention, he was asked,
2:00"What have you given us, sir, a monarch
2:01or a republic?"
2:03Franklin answered, "A republic, sir, if
2:05you can keep it."
2:07Mr. President, in the prevailing
2:08pessimism of the lingering matter we
2:10call Watergate, can we keep that
2:11republic, sir, and how?
2:15Mr. Quinn, I would certainly not be
2:17standing here answering these questions
2:19unless I had a firm belief
2:21that we could keep the republic, that we
2:23must keep it, not only for ourselves,
2:25but for the whole world.
2:27Uh I recognize that because of mistakes
2:30that were made, and I must take
2:31responsibility for those mistakes,
2:34uh whether in the campaign or during the
2:36course of the administration, that there
2:38are those who wonder whether this
2:39republic can survive.
2:42But I also know that the hopes of the
2:44whole world
2:45for peace, not only in our but in the
2:47years to come, rests in the United
2:49States of America.
2:51And I can assure you that as long as I
2:53am physically able
2:55to handle the position to which I was
2:56elected and then reelected last
2:58November,
3:00I am going to work for the cause of
3:02peace in the world, for the cause of
3:04prosperity without war and without
3:06inflation at home, and also, to the best
3:10of my ability, to restore confidence in
3:13the White House and in the president
3:15himself. It's a big job, but I think it
3:17can be done, and I intend to do it.
3:20Mr. President,
3:21I'm George Gill of the Louisville
3:23Courier-Journal.
3:24Would you please tell us, sir,
3:26when did you personally discover that
3:29two of the nine subpoenaed White House
3:31tapes did not exist,
3:34and why did you apparently
3:36delay for a matter of weeks disclosing
3:39this matter to the federal court and to
3:41the public?
3:43Well, the first time that the fact that
3:45there were no recordings of the two
3:47conversations to which you referred,
3:49that they did not exist, came to my
3:51attention
3:52on approximately September 29th or
3:54September the 30th.
3:56At that time,
3:58I was informed only that they might not
4:00exist because a search was not made
4:03because seven of the nine recordings
4:06requested did exist, and my secretary,
4:08listening to them for me and making
4:11notes for me,
4:13proceeded to go through those seven
4:14tapes. I should point out, incidentally,
4:16that the two which did not exist, in
4:19which there were no tape recordings of
4:21the conversations, were not ones that
4:24were requested by the Senate Committee.
4:26Uh and consequently, we felt that we
4:28should go forward with the ones who were
4:29requested by both the Senate Committee
4:31and the others.
4:33When we finally determined
4:35that they could not be in existence was
4:38on October the 26th
4:41uh of this year.
4:42And we learned it then when I directed
4:45the White House counsel, Mr. Buzhardt,
4:47to question the Secret Service
4:49operatives as to what had happened,
4:52to make sure that there might not be a
4:53possibility that, due to the fact that
4:56the mechanism uh was not operating
4:58properly,
4:59that we might find them in some other
5:01place. He questioned them for 2 days and
5:04reported on the 27th that he could not
5:06find them.
5:08He then,
5:09having had a date made, and he asked for
5:11the date sooner with Judge Sirica, asked
5:13for a date on Thursday. You may recall I
5:15pointed that out in my press conference
5:17on the 26th.
5:18Judge Sirica saw him on Tuesday in
5:20camera.
5:22The White House counsel reported to
5:23Judge Sirica that the two tapes did not
5:25exist and gave him the reasons for it.
5:28The judge decided, and I think quite
5:30properly, that
5:32the reasons for the tape not existing
5:34should be made public and those involved
5:37with access to the tapes and those who
5:39operated the machines should be
5:41questioned so that there would be no
5:42question of the White House, somebody
5:45around the president, or even the
5:47president himself, having destroyed
5:49evidence that was important, even though
5:51the Senate Committee had not, as I have
5:53already pointed out, subpoenaed either
5:55of these two tapes.
5:57And since we're on this subject, and I
5:58do not want to
6:00be taking all of the time on it, except
6:02that I know there is going to be
6:03enormous interest in it, not only among
6:06this audience here, but among our
6:07television viewers,
6:08let me point this out.
6:11I have done everything that I possibly
6:12can to provide the evidence
6:16that would have existed had we found it
6:18that had we found the tapes.
6:20First, with regard to the tape of June
6:2220th, as you may recall, it was a
6:245-minute telephone conversation with the
6:27former Attorney General John Mitchell,
6:29who had just left as campaign manager or
6:31was planning to leave as campaign
6:33manager at that time.
6:35I have a practice of keeping a personal
6:37diary. I can assure you, not every day.
6:39Sometimes you're too tired at the end of
6:41the day to either make notes or to
6:43dictate it into a Dictabelt.
6:45On that particular day, I happened to
6:47have dictated a Dictabelt.
6:49And on the Dictabelt for June 20th,
6:51which I found,
6:52I found that I had referred to the
6:54conversation with John Mitchell.
6:56And I think it's fair to disclose to
6:58this audience what was there,
7:00because it will be disclosed to the
7:02court. It's already been offered to the
7:03court, and eventually, I assume, would
7:05be made public.
7:07It said first that I called John
7:08Mitchell to cheer him up because I knew
7:11he was terribly disheartened
7:12disheartened by what had happened in the
7:14so-called Watergate matter.
7:16Second, he expressed chagrin to me
7:19that the organization over which he had
7:22control
7:23could have gotten out of hand in this
7:25way.
7:26That was what was on that tape. Now,
7:27turning to the one on April 15th,
7:30I thought that I might have a Dictabelt
7:32of that conversation as well.
7:35Let me tell you first why the one
7:39the telephone conversation was not
7:40recorded.
7:42Not because of any
7:43uh
7:44deliberate attempt to keep the recording
7:47from the public,
7:48but because the only telephones in the
7:50residence of the White House
7:53which are recorded, the only telephone,
7:55there is only one, is the one that is in
7:57the office, the little Lincoln sitting
7:58room, you know, right off of the Lincoln
8:00bedroom.
8:01The call I made to John Mitchell was
8:02made
8:03at the end of the day, at about 6:30,
8:06just being go before going into dinner,
8:08from the family quarters. And no
8:10telephones in the family quarters ever
8:12were recorded. That's why a recording
8:14did not exist.
8:15Turning to April 15th,
8:17the conversation referred to there was
8:20at the end of the process in which Mr.
8:22Dean came in to tell me what he had told
8:25US attorneys that day.
8:27He saw me at 9:00 at night, Sunday
8:29night.
8:30There should have been a recording.
8:32Everybody thought there probably was a
8:34recording.
8:35The reason there wasn't a recording is
8:38that the tape machines over the weekend
8:42only can carry 6 hours of conversation,
8:45and usually that's more than enough,
8:47because I do not use the EOB office.
8:49That's the little That's the Executive
8:51Office Building office, rather than the
8:52Oval Office, over the weekend to that
8:54extent.
8:56But that weekend,
8:57I was in the EOB for a long conversation
9:00with Dr. Kissinger on foreign policy
9:01matters.
9:02I was there for two other hours, or two
9:04or three other hours,
9:06and the tape ran out
9:08in the middle of a conversation with Mr.
9:10Klein Dees,
9:11in the middle of the afternoon, Sunday
9:13afternoon.
9:14And a later conversation I had, the rest
9:16of Klein Dees' conversation, a later
9:17conversation I had also with Mr.
9:20Petersen, and the conversation at 9:00
9:23at night with Mr. Dean was not there.
9:26So,
9:27I tried to find whatever recording,
9:29whatever record, that would help the
9:31prosecutor in this instance to
9:32reconstruct the evidence, because it was
9:34the evidence that he was after, and not
9:36just the tape.
9:37What I found was not a Dictabelt.
9:40What I found was my handwritten notes
9:43made at the time of the conversation.
9:46I have turned those over to, or have
9:48authorized my counsel to turn those
9:50notes over to the judge,
9:52so that he can have them checked for
9:54authenticity. And I understand there are
9:56ways that he can tell that they were
9:58written at that time.
10:00Those handwritten notes are available,
10:02and then I did one other thing, which I
10:04think will also be helpful.
10:06The next day, I had a conversation with
10:09Mr. Dean in the morning at 10:00.
10:12That conversation was recorded.
10:15And in that conversation, there are
10:16repeated references to what was said the
10:19night before.
10:21And when compared with my handwritten
10:23notes, it is clear that we are
10:25discussing the same subject.
10:27That entire tape, as well as the
10:29conversation I had in the afternoon with
10:32Mr. Dean for about 20 minutes, will be
10:35made available to the court, even though
10:37the court has not subpoenaed them. And I
10:39would just simply say in conclusion, you
10:41can be very sure that this kind of a
10:43subject is one that uh
10:46is a difficult one to explain.
10:48It appears that it's impossible that
10:51when we have an Apollo system, that we
10:53could have two missing tapes when the
10:55White House is concerned. Let me explain
10:58for one moment what the system was. This
10:59is no Apollo system.
11:01I found that it cost I just learned this
11:03$2,500.
11:05I found that instead of having the kind
11:07of equipment that was there when
11:09President Johnson was there, which was
11:10incidentally much better equipment,
11:12but I found that if
11:15And I'm not saying that critically.
11:20But I found that in this instance, it
11:21was a Sony.
11:23A little Sony that they had.
11:26And that what they had are these little
11:29lapel mics in my desks.
11:32And as a result, the conversations in
11:34the Oval Office, the conversations in
11:36the Cabinet Room, and particularly those
11:39in the EOB, those are the three rooms,
11:41only those three rooms, where they
11:43recorded. For example, the Western White
11:45House had no recording equipment. The
11:47San and my house in in Key Biscayne had
11:49none.
11:50But as far as those particular
11:52recordings are concerned,
11:54the reason that you have heard that
11:56there are difficulties in hearing them
11:59is that the system itself
12:02was not a sophisticated system. I don't
12:04mean to suggest by that that the judge,
12:07by listening to them, will not be able
12:09to get the facts.
12:10And I would simply conclude by saying
12:12this.
12:13I think I know what is on these tapes
12:15from having
12:16listened to some, those before March
12:1921st,
12:20and also from having seen from my
12:23secretary's notes the highlights of
12:25others.
12:26And I can assure you those tapes,
12:29when they are presented to the judge,
12:32and I hope eventually to the grand jury,
12:34and I trust in some way
12:36we can find a way at least to get the
12:38substance to the American people,
12:40they will prove these things without
12:43question. One,
12:45that I had no knowledge whatever of the
12:47Watergate break-in before it occurred.
12:50Two,
12:51that I never authorized the offer of
12:53clemency to anybody, and as a matter of
12:55fact, turned it down whenever it was
12:58suggested. It was not recommended by any
13:00member of my staff,
13:02but it was on occasion suggested
13:04as a result of news reports that
13:06clemency might become a factor.
13:08And third, that as far as any knowledge
13:11with regard to the payment of blackmail
13:13money,
13:14which as you recall was the charge was
13:16made that Mr. Hunt's attorney had asked
13:19for $120,000 in money to be paid to him,
13:22or he would tell things about members of
13:25the White House staff, not about
13:26Watergate, that might be embarrassing.
13:29Testimony had been given before the
13:30Senate Committee that I was told that
13:33before the 25th 1st of March. Actually
13:35told it on the 13th of March. I know
13:38I heard it for the first time on the
13:4021st of March, and I will reveal this
13:43much of the conversation. I'm sure the
13:44judge wouldn't mind. I recall very well
13:47Mr. Dean, after the conversation began,
13:50telling me, "Mr. President, there's some
13:52things about this I haven't told you. I
13:54think you should know them." And then he
13:56proceeded then for the first time to
13:58tell me about that money.
14:00I realize that some will wonder
14:03about truth of these particular
14:05statements that I made.
14:07I'm going to hand out later I won't hand
14:09them out, but I'll have one of your
14:10executives hand out my May 22nd
14:12statement, my August 15th statement, and
14:15one with regard to these two tapes. You
14:17can believe them
14:19if you want. I can tell you it is the
14:21truth, because I have listened to or
14:23I've had knowledge of from someone I
14:26have confidence in as to what is in the
14:28tapes. Mr. President. Yes, sir.
14:31Mr. President, Richard Tuttle, Democrat
14:34and Chronicle, Rochester, New York.
14:37Could you tell us
14:40your uh
14:41personal reaction
14:43and your political reaction, and within
14:46that word I mean your credibility
14:50with the American people, your reaction
14:52to
14:54uh the discovery that the Dean and
14:56Mitchell tapes did not exist?
15:01Well, my personal reaction was one of
15:03very great disappointment,
15:05because I wanted the evidence out. And I
15:07knew that when there was any indication
15:10that something didn't exist,
15:12immediately there would be the
15:14impression that some way, either the
15:16President, or more likely perhaps
15:18somebody on the President's staff, knew
15:21there was something on those tapes that
15:22wouldn't be wise to get out.
15:24But let me point out again,
15:26while I was disappointed,
15:28let me say I would have been a lot more
15:31disappointed if the tapes that had been
15:33considered important by both Mr. Cox,
15:36the special prosecutor, and the Ervin
15:38Committee, if any one of those had been
15:40missing.
15:41Because I should point out,
15:43the tape of September 15th,
15:45when as you recall has been testified
15:46that I was first informed that there was
15:48a cover-up. That of course is there.
15:51The tape of March 13th,
15:53where it has been testified as I pointed
15:55out in the answer to the Louisville
15:56Courier-Journal,
15:57where it has been testified that I was
15:59informed then
16:00of the demands for money for purposes of
16:03blackmail. That is available. And the
16:06tape of March 21st, where we discussed
16:08this in great detail, as well as three
16:11other tapes in which Mr. Dean
16:12participated, three other conversations,
16:14are all available. But as far as these
16:16two tapes are concerned,
16:18even though they were not considered by
16:20the Ervin Committee to be an
16:22indispensable part of their
16:23investigation, the fact that they were
16:26not there was a great disappointment,
16:28and I just wish we'd had a better
16:29system. I frankly wish we hadn't had a
16:31system at all, then I wouldn't have to
16:33answer this question.
16:35President,
16:36uh your
16:37Take the one on the left, and I'll come
16:38to you back.
16:43Cox uh still
16:45to stay out of the Ellsberg case, and if
16:47you did, why? And do you think that the
16:49new special prosecutor should be kept
16:51from investigating the Ellsberg case?
16:54I have never
16:56spoken to Mr. Cox at all. As a matter of
16:58fact, however, I did talk to Mr.
17:00Petersen about it before Mr. Cox took
17:02over.
17:03And I told Mr. Petersen
17:05that the job that he had, and I would
17:08have said the same thing to Mr. Cox, was
17:11to investigate the Watergate matter.
17:13That national security matters were not
17:15matters
17:16that should be investigated because
17:18there were some very highly sensitive
17:20matters involved, not only in Ellsberg,
17:24but also another matter so sensitive
17:27that even
17:29Senator Ervin and Senator Baker uh Baker
17:31have decided that they should not delve
17:33further into them.
17:35I don't mean by that that we're going to
17:36throw the cloak of national security
17:38over something because we're guilty of
17:40something. I'm simply saying that where
17:42the national security would be disserved
17:45by having an investigation, the
17:47President has the responsibility to
17:49protect it, and I'm going to do so.
17:52President, uh the gentleman on the left
17:54in the back. Saul Friedman from the
17:55Detroit News. Uh are you personally
17:58satisfied, sir, that the investigation
18:00of the
18:01the Watergate matter is complete to your
18:03satisfaction? And if so, could you tell
18:06us what your plans are to
18:08tell the American people uh
18:10about the facts of the case
18:13in uh with regard again to your
18:15credibility on this matter?
18:18Well, first with regard to whether the
18:19investigation is complete, as you know,
18:21there is now a new special prosecutor,
18:24Mr. Jaworski.
18:26He is a Democrat. He has always
18:27supported the Democratic ticket. He is a
18:30highly respected lawyer, a former
18:31president of the ABA in the year 1971.
18:35I may have met him. I have never talked
18:36to him personally, and certainly have
18:38never talked to him about this matter. I
18:39refused to because I want him to be
18:41completely independent. He cannot be
18:43removed unless there is a consensus of
18:46the top leadership of both the House and
18:48the Senate, Democrat and Republican, the
18:50Speaker and the Majority and Minority
18:52Leader of the House,
18:53and the President pro tem, the Majority
18:55and Minority Leader of the Senate, and
18:58the ranking two members of the Judiciary
19:00Committees of both the House and the
19:02Senate, which incidentally gives you
19:04uh as you can see a very substantial
19:07uh majority as far as the Democrats as
19:10far as the Democrats are concerned. The
19:11second point that I'm point I'm trying
19:14to make is one, he is qualified. Two, he
19:17is independent and will have
19:19cooperation. And three, he will not be
19:21removed unless the Congress,
19:24particularly the leaders of the
19:25Congress, and particularly the
19:26Democratic leaders who have a strong
19:28majority on this group that I have
19:29named,
19:31agree that he should remove, and I do
19:32not expect that that time will come.
19:35As to what I can tell the American
19:36people, this is one forum,
19:39and there may be others. As to what the
19:41situation is, as to when it can be done,
19:44it is of course necessary to let the
19:48grand jury proceed as quickly as
19:50possible to a conclusion.
19:52And I should point out to you, as you
19:54may recall,
19:55Mr. Petersen testified before the Ervin
19:57Committee
19:58that when he was removed from his
19:59position, you recall he was removed in
20:01April and a special prosecutor was put
20:04in, that the case was 90% ready.
20:07For 6 months
20:09under the special prosecutor who was
20:10then appointed,
20:12the case
20:13has not been brought to a conclusion.
20:16And I think that now,
20:18after 6 months of delay, it's time that
20:21the case be brought to conclusion. If it
20:24was 90% finished in April, they ought to
20:26be able to finish it now. Those who are
20:28guilty or presumed to be guilty should
20:30be indicted. Those who are not guilty at
20:33least should get some evidence of being
20:35cleared. Because in the meantime,
20:38the reputations of men,
20:40some maybe who are not guilty, have been
20:42probably irreparably damaged by what has
20:45happened in the hearings that they've
20:46appeared before publicly. They've
20:48already been convicted and they may
20:49never recover.
20:51And that isn't our system of government.
20:53The place to try a man or a woman for a
20:55crime is in the courts and not to
20:57convict them either in the newspapers or
20:59on television before he has a fair trial
21:01in the courts.
21:03Mr. President.
21:04I'm Bob Haiman from the St. Petersburg
21:05Times in St. Petersburg, Florida. Mr.
21:07President, when Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr.
21:09Haldeman left your administration, you
21:11said they were guiltless in the
21:12Watergate affair and they were quote
21:13"two of the finest public servants you'd
21:15ever known." End quote. After what's
21:17transpired and been revealed since then,
21:20do you still feel the same way about
21:21both men and both statements?
21:24First,
21:25I hold that both men
21:27and others who have been charged are
21:29guilty until I have evidence that they
21:31are not guilty. And I know that every
21:33newspaper man and newspaper woman in
21:35this
21:36whole audience would agree with that
21:38statement. That's our American system.
21:39Second,
21:40Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman
21:43have been and were dedicated, fine
21:46public servants. And I believe, it is my
21:49belief based on what I know now, that
21:51when these proceedings are completed,
21:54that they will come out all right. On
21:56the other hand, they have appeared
21:58before the grand jury before. They will
22:00be appearing again. And as I pointed out
22:02in answer to an earlier question, it
22:04probably doesn't make any difference,
22:06unfortunately, whether the grand jury
22:08invites them or not, whether they're
22:10tried or not, because, unfortunately,
22:13they've already been convicted in the
22:15minds of millions of Americans by what
22:17happened before a Senate committee.
22:19Mr. Mr. President.
22:21Yes, at the time This is Ed Heins from
22:24the Des Moines Register and Tribune.
22:26At the time you gave Egil Krogh approval
22:29for the Dr. Ellsberg project, was there
22:32any discussion of surreptitious entry at
22:35to any premises and was there any
22:36discussion of legality or illegality in
22:40that situation?
22:42I think, sir, that you have made an
22:43assumption that Mr. Krogh and others
22:46have not testified to it. I I I'm not
22:47saying that critically, but I think I do
22:49remember what the evidence is.
22:51I don't think Mr. Krogh has said or Mr.
22:54Ehrlichman or anybody else that I
22:56specifically approved or ordered the
22:59entrance into Dr. Ellsberg's
23:01psychiatrist's office. As a matter of
23:04fact, on the other hand, I learned of
23:06that for the first time on the 17th
23:09of 17th of March, which I have stated in
23:12my August 15th statement, which will be
23:14available to members of the press when
23:16they
23:17uh this meeting is concluded. Second,
23:20with regard to such activities,
23:22I personally thought it was a stupid
23:23thing to do, apart from being an illegal
23:26thing to do.
23:27And third,
23:29I should also point out that
23:31in this particular matter, the reason
23:33that Mr. Krogh
23:35and others were engaged in what we call
23:37the Plumbers operation,
23:39was because of our concern at that time
23:43about
23:44leaks out of our government.
23:46The Pentagon Papers, which as you recall
23:48what Ellsberg was all about, as well as
23:51other leaks which were seriously
23:52damaging to the national security,
23:54including one that I pointed out
23:57that was so serious that even Senator
23:59Ervin and Senator Baker agreed it should
24:01not be disclosed.
24:02And that's what they were working on.
24:06I guess we go to the right this time.
24:08Joe Ungaro, the Providence Evening
24:09Bulletin. The Journal Bulletin on
24:11October 3rd reported that you paid $792
24:15in federal income tax in 1970
24:18and $878
24:19in 1971.
24:21Are these figures accurate and would you
24:23tell us your views on whether elected
24:25officials should disclose their personal
24:27finances?
24:29Well, the answer to the second question
24:31is I have disclosed my personal
24:33finances. And an audit of my personal
24:35finances will be made available at the
24:37end of this meeting because, obviously,
24:39you're all so busy that when these
24:41things come across your desk, uh maybe
24:43you don't see them. Uh I can simply
24:45point out that that audit was I paid
24:47for. I haven't got the bill yet, but I
24:49know that several thousands of dollars.
24:51And I think that that audit is one that
24:54is a pretty good one. That audit,
24:56however, deals with the acquisition of
24:58my property and knocks down some of the
25:00ideas that have been around. But since
25:02this question has been raised,
25:04let me, sir, try to respond to it as
25:06fully as I can.
25:08I paid $79,000
25:10in income tax in 1969.
25:13In the next 2 years, I paid nominal
25:16amounts. Whether those amounts are
25:18correct or not, I do not know because I
25:20haven't looked at my returns and
25:22obviously the Providence Journal's got
25:23much better sources than I have to find
25:25such returns.
25:27And I congratulate you, sir, for having
25:28such a lively
25:31uh staff.
25:34Now,
25:35why did I pay this amount?
25:37It wasn't because of the deductions for,
25:40shall we say, a cattle ranch or or
25:42interest or, you know, all these
25:44gimmicks that you got for you you can
25:46deduct from, which most of you know
25:47about, I'm sure. If you don't, your
25:49publisher do because
25:52But the reason was this. Lyndon Johnson
25:55came in to see me shortly after I became
25:57president.
25:59He told me that he had given his
26:01presidential papers,
26:03or at least most of them to the
26:04government.
26:06He told me that under the law, up until
26:081969,
26:10presidential or vice presidential papers
26:13given to the government
26:14were a deduction
26:16and should be taken and could be taken
26:18as a deduction from the tax.
26:21And he said, "You, Mr. President, ought
26:23to do the same thing." I said, "I don't
26:24have any presidential papers." He said,
26:26"You've got your vice presidential
26:27papers."
26:28And I thought of that a moment and I
26:29said, "All right, I'll turn them over to
26:31the tax people." I turned them over.
26:34They found they were They appraised them
26:36at $500,000. I suppose some wonder, how
26:39could the Vice President's papers be
26:41worth that? Well, I was
26:43shall we say, a rather active Vice
26:44President.
26:45All of my personal notes, including
26:48matters that have not been covered
26:51in my book,
26:52which if I don't advise other people to
26:54write, but in any event, I wrote one and
26:56I will stand by it. All of my papers on
26:58the Hiss case, on the famous fund
27:00controversy in 19 uh 52,
27:04uh
27:05on President Eisenhower's heart attack,
27:07on President Eisenhower's stroke,
27:09uh on my visit to Caracas when I had a
27:11few problems in 1968,
27:14and on my visit with Khrushchev,
27:16all of those papers, all of my notes,
27:19valued, many believe, conservatively at
27:21that amount.
27:23And so, the tax people who prepared it
27:26prepared the returns and took that as a
27:29deduction.
27:30Now, no question has been raised by the
27:32Internal Revenue about it. But if they
27:34do, let me tell you this, I'll be glad
27:36to have the papers back and I'll pay the
27:37tax because I think they're worth more
27:39than that. I can only say that we did
27:42what we were told
27:44was the right thing to do and, of
27:46course, what President Johnson had done
27:48before.
27:49And that doesn't prove, certainly, that
27:51it was wrong because he had done exactly
27:54what the law required. Since 1969, of
27:57course, I should point out, presidents
27:59can't do that. So, I'm stuck with a lot
28:01of papers now that I've got to find a
28:03way to give away or otherwise my heirs
28:06will have a terrible time trying to pay
28:07the taxes on things that people aren't
28:09going to want to buy.
28:11Mr.
28:11Mr. President, may I suggest that you
28:13may have misspoke yourself when you said
28:15that you assumed Haldeman and Ehrlichman
28:17are considered guilty until proven not
28:20guilty.
28:22Yes, I certainly did if I said that.
28:26Thank you for correcting me.
28:28Myer from the Oak Ridger in Oak Ridge,
28:30Tennessee. Senator Mark Hatfield said
28:33recently that we don't demand so much of
28:36a president, we ask him to play so many
28:38roles that no man can hold that kind of
28:40responsibility without having to share
28:43that responsibility with all Americans.
28:46To what extent do you think that this
28:49explains possibly how something like
28:51Watergate can occur?
28:55Well, I could stand here before this
28:57audience and make all kinds of excuses.
28:59And uh most of you probably would
29:01understand because you're busy also.
29:04Uh '72 was a very busy year for me.
29:06Uh it was a year when we had the visit
29:09to China.
29:10It was a year when we had the visit to
29:12Moscow and the first
29:14limited test ban and the limited nuclear
29:17ban on defensive weapons, you recall, as
29:19well as some other very significant uh
29:21events. It was a year, too,
29:24when
29:25we had the very difficult decisions on
29:28May, bombing and mining of Hai Phong,
29:30and then the negotiations,
29:32and then, in December, of course,
29:35the very, very difficult, perhaps the
29:36most difficult decision I made of the
29:38December bombing, which did lead to the
29:40breakthrough and the uneasy peace, but
29:43it is peace with all the Americans home,
29:45all of our POWs home, and at least for a
29:48while in that period.
29:50Now, during that period of time,
29:51frankly, I didn't manage the campaign. I
29:54didn't run the campaign. People around
29:57me didn't bring things to me that they
29:58probably should have because I was
30:01frankly just too busy trying to do the
30:02nation's business to run the politics.
30:05My advice to all new politicians
30:07incidentally is, always run your own
30:09campaigns. I used to run mine
30:11and I was always criticized for it. Uh
30:13because, you know, when you you lose,
30:15you're always criticized uh for running
30:17your own campaign. But my point is,
30:19Senator Hatfield is correct. Whether
30:21you're senator or congressman, you're
30:23sometimes very busy. You don't watch
30:25these things. When you're president, you
30:26don't watch them as closely as you
30:28might. And on that, I say if mistakes
30:31are made, however, I'm not blaming the
30:33people down below.
30:35The man at the top's got to take
30:37the heat for all of it. Let me just
30:39respond, if I could, sir, before going
30:40to your question. I'll turn left and
30:42then come back to the right. I don't
30:44want to tilt either way at the moment,
30:45as you can be sure.
30:49Uh since the question was raised a
30:50moment ago about my uh
30:52tax uh
30:54tax payments.
30:56Uh I noted in some editorials and uh
31:00perhaps in some commentaries on
31:02television,
31:03uh a very reasonable question.
31:05They said, you know, how is it that
31:07President Nixon
31:09uh could have a very heavy investment in
31:12a fine piece of property in San Clemente
31:15and a big investment in a piece of
31:16property in Florida, in which I have two
31:19houses, one which I primarily use as an
31:21office and the other's a residence,
31:23and also an investment in what was my
31:26mother's home, not a very much of a
31:28place, but I do own it, those three
31:30pieces of property.
31:32I'm going to state first, that's all I
31:33have.
31:35I am the first president since Harry
31:36Truman who hasn't owned any stock since
31:39ever I've been president.
31:40I'm the first one who hasn't had a blind
31:42trust
31:43since Harry Truman. Now, that doesn't
31:44prove that those who owned stocks or had
31:46blind trust did anything wrong.
31:48But I felt
31:50that in the presidency, it was important
31:54to have no question about the
31:56president's personal finances, and I
31:57thought real estate was the best place
31:59to put it. But then the question was
32:01raised by good editorial writers, and I
32:03want to respond to it because some of
32:05you might be too polite to ask such an
32:07embarrassing question. They said, now,
32:09Mr. President, you earned $800,000 when
32:12you were president. Obviously, you paid
32:14at least half that much or could have
32:15paid half that much in taxes
32:18or a great deal of it. How could you
32:19possibly have had the money? Where did
32:21you get it?
32:22And then, of course, overriding all of
32:24that are the story to the effect that I
32:26have a million dollars in campaign
32:27funds, which was broadly printed
32:29throughout this country with retractions
32:32not quite getting quite as much play as
32:34the printing of the first, and
32:35particularly not on television. The
32:37newspapers did much better than
32:38television in that respect, I should
32:40point out.
32:41And second,
32:42they said, how is it
32:45uh that uh as far as this money is
32:47concerned, how is it possible for you to
32:49have this kind of investment when all
32:51you earned was $800,000 as president?
32:55Well, I should point out, I wasn't a
32:56pauper when I became president. I wasn't
32:58very rich
32:59as presidents go. But you see, when the
33:01eight years that I was out of office,
33:04first,
33:05just to put it all out, and I'll give
33:06you a paper on this. We'll send around
33:08to you these figures if you'd like to
33:09have Not today, but I'll have it in a
33:11few days.
33:12When I left office after four years as a
33:14congressman, two years as a senator, and
33:17eight years of $45,000 a year as vice
33:20president,
33:21and after stories have been written,
33:23particularly in the Washington Post to
33:25the effect that the president had
33:27purchased a mansion in Wesley Heights,
33:30and people wondered where the money
33:31came,
33:32you know what my net worth was?
33:34$47,000
33:36total after 14 years of government
33:38service
33:39and a 1958
33:41Oldsmobile that needed an overhaul.
33:44Now,
33:47I have no complaints. In the next eight
33:48years,
33:50I made
33:52a lot of money.
33:53I made $250,000
33:56from a book and the serial rights, which
33:57many of you were good enough to purchase
33:59also.
34:00And the practice of law, and I'm not
34:02claiming I was worth it, but apparently
34:04former vice presidents or presidents are
34:05worth a great deal to law firms, and I
34:07did work pretty hard.
34:09But then also in that period,
34:11I earned between 100 and $250,000
34:14every year,
34:16so that when I in 1968 decided to become
34:19a candidate for president, I decided to
34:21clean the decks and to put everything in
34:23real estate. I sold all my stock for
34:26$300,000. That's all I owned.
34:28I sold my apartment in New York for
34:30$300,000. I'm using rough figures here.
34:33And I had $100,000 coming to me from the
34:35law firm.
34:36And so, that's where the money came
34:38from.
34:39Let me just say this.
34:41I want to say this to the television
34:42audience. I made my mistakes.
34:44And all of my years of public life,
34:47I have never profited,
34:50never profited from public service. I've
34:52earned every cent.
34:54And in all of my years of public life,
34:56I have never obstructed justice.
34:59And I think too that I can say
35:02that in my years of public life,
35:04that I welcome this kind of examination
35:06because people have got to know whether
35:08or not their president's a crook.
35:10Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned
35:13everything I've got.
35:16Mr. President, Yes, sir. Harry Rosenfeld
35:18of the Washington Post.
35:23Sir, there have been reports that the
35:24Secret Service was asked at your
35:26direction or authorization
35:28to tap the telephone of your brother,
35:30Donald Nixon.
35:31Is this true, sir? And if so, why?
35:36That, of course, is a
35:38question that has been commented upon
35:40before. It will not take long to respond
35:41to it.
35:43The Secret Service did maintain a
35:45surveillance. They did so for security
35:48reasons. And I will not go beyond that.
35:50They were very good reasons, and my
35:52brother was aware of it.
35:54And may I say too to my friend from the
35:56Washington Post, I like your sports
35:58page.
36:01And also,
36:05be sure Perovich doesn't pay too much
36:07for what I just said.
36:09Go ahead. Sir, Edward Miller, Allentown,
36:12Pennsylvania. Was your brother aware
36:14before or after the fact of the
36:16surveillance? Before or after the fact?
36:18Yes. He was aware during the fact
36:21because uh he asked about it, and he was
36:24told about it, and he approved of it. He
36:26knew why it was done.
36:29Sir, excuse me, does it make any sense
36:31to conduct surveillance when somebody
36:33knows about it?
36:35Does it make any sense? Certainly.
36:37Uh the surveillance
36:39involved not what he was doing.
36:41The surveillance involved what others
36:44who were trying to get him perhaps to
36:47use improper influence and so forth
36:49might be doing, and particularly anybody
36:51who
36:52might be
36:54in a foreign country.
36:55Is Is some of this
37:23story that you say you can't say now
37:24because of national them myself. ITT,
37:28how do we raise the price of milk? I
37:29wish somebody'd asked me that one.
37:31Uh
37:32and who else wanted to raise? Uh
37:34what about the situation with regard to
37:37uh
37:37uh the uh
37:39uh
37:40the the $1 million secret stock
37:42portfolio that you have, a few of those
37:44things. I think all of those things need
37:46to be answered and answered effectively,
37:48and I think the best way to answer them
37:50twofold. One, obviously through the
37:53medium of a televised conference like
37:54this, but two, through sending to the
37:57editors of the nation's newspapers, all
37:5910,000 of them, the facts, and I trust
38:02that you will use them. And if you don't
38:04believe them, I don't mean it, but I
38:06mean I'm not suggesting that you
38:07wouldn't believe them, but if you feel
38:09you need more information, write to me,
38:11and I'll give it to you. I want the
38:13facts out because the facts will prove
38:15that the president is telling the truth.
38:19Now, we Let's go to the I think we go to
38:21the back this time. Um and Mr.
38:23President, John Finnegan, St. Paul
38:25Dispatch Pioneer Press.
38:26Uh
38:27I know the Watergate situation has
38:29raised questions of executive privilege,
38:32and a recent uh Gallup poll indicated
38:34that 62% of the American people
38:37uh will favor a confidential uh
38:40um news source law if uh if adopted by
38:43Congress.
38:44There is a two-tiered law now before the
38:46Judiciary Committee, uh which would
38:48provide an absolute privilege in case of
38:51uh investigative or grand jury hearings,
38:54uh and a qualified shield in in case of
38:56a uh civil or criminal case.
38:59Uh if such a law were passed, would you
39:02sign it or veto it? Well,
39:05you're talking about shield laws in
39:06general, are you not?
39:07Yes.
39:08Well, my attitude toward the shield
39:09laws, briefly, is this.
39:12First,
39:13I share the objective.
39:16I believe that reporters,
39:18if you're going to have a free press,
39:19ought to have some kind of a shield.
39:22Second, except, of course, if they're
39:24involved in criminal activities, and
39:25then I don't think the shield law that
39:27even you that any of suggested would
39:29cover those. As I understand, if there
39:30are criminal activities involved in by a
39:32reporter, obviously, a shield law can't
39:34protect you.
39:35The second point, however, has to do
39:37with the particular legislation and how
39:39it reaches my desk, and I'll have to
39:40take a look at it when it gets there to
39:42see if it's proper.
39:44If it's proper, I'll sign it. But,
39:47I think that a shield law
39:49which would have the effect
39:52of providing to reporters
39:55what the general public felt after they
39:58had a chance to consider it all,
40:00provide for them
40:02privileges that went beyond what the
40:04general public thought was in the
40:05national interest,
40:07then I would have to take a second look.
40:08Now, incidentally, I should point out
40:10too that I followed your editorials, not
40:11yours and just the St. Paul paper, but
40:13others around the country. And the
40:15newspapers in this country are not
40:16united on this.
40:18Uh so, on the shield law, I'm not trying
40:19to duck the question. It's an open
40:21question. But, I will answer one thing I
40:22think is important.
40:24The new Attorney General, Mr. Saxbe,
40:26under my directions,
40:28will follow this practice.
40:31Any federal
40:33case involving a reporter
40:36will not be brought unless it is comes
40:38expressly to the Attorney General and he
40:40approves it. Because that way, that's a
40:42pretty good shield, I think. May I ask
40:44one other question, sir? Sure. Uh do you
40:47feel that the executive privilege is
40:49absolute?
40:53I, of course, don't. Uh I have waived
40:56executive privilege with regard to all
40:57of the members of my staff uh who have
41:00any knowledge of or who have any charges
41:02against have been made against in the
41:04Watergate matter.
41:05Uh
41:06I have uh of course voluntarily waived
41:09privilege with regard to turning over
41:11the tapes and so forth.
41:13Uh let me point out it was voluntary on
41:15my part and deliberately so
41:18to avoid a precedent
41:21that might destroy the principle of
41:23confidentiality for future presidents,
41:25which is terribly important.
41:26If it had gone to the Supreme Court, and
41:28I know many of my friends argued, "Why
41:30not carry it to the Supreme Court and
41:31let them decide it?"
41:33That would first have had a
41:34confrontation with the Supreme Court
41:35between the Supreme Court and the
41:37President. And secondly,
41:39it would have established, very a
41:41precedent. A precedent breaking down
41:43constitutionality
41:45that would plague future presidencies,
41:48not just president.
41:49I could just say in that respect, too,
41:51that
41:52I I have referred to what I call the
41:54Jefferson rule.
41:56And it's the rule I think that we should
41:58generally follow, a president should
42:00follow with the courts uh
42:02when they want information. And a
42:03president should also follow with
42:05committees of Congress when they want
42:06information from his personal files.
42:08Jefferson, as you know,
42:10in that very, very famous case,
42:13had correspondence
42:15which it was felt might bear upon the
42:18guilt or innocence of Aaron Burr.
42:21Chief Justice Marshall, sitting as a
42:22trial judge,
42:25said that Jefferson held that Jefferson
42:27as President had to turn over the
42:29correspondence. Jefferson refused.
42:32What he did
42:34was to turn over a summary of the
42:36correspondence. All that he considered
42:39was proper to be turned over for the
42:41purposes of the trial. And then
42:43Marshall, as sitting as Chief Justice,
42:46ruled for the President.
42:47Now, why did Jefferson do that?
42:49Jefferson didn't do that to protect
42:51Jefferson. He did that to protect the
42:53presidency. And that's exactly what I
42:55will do in these cases.
42:58It isn't for the purpose of protecting
42:59the President. It is for the purpose of
43:02seeing that the presidency
43:04where great decisions have to be made,
43:06and great decisions can't be made unless
43:09there is very free flow of conversation.
43:12And that means confidentiality.
43:14I have a responsibility to protect that
43:16presidency.
43:17At the same time, I will do everything I
43:19can to cooperate
43:20where
43:22there's a need for presidential
43:23participation.
43:26I'll come to you next, sir. Mr.
43:27President, Murray Light, Buffalo Evening
43:29News.
43:30The American people, sir, are very
43:32interested in one subject other than
43:34Watergate. Is gas rationing imminent?
43:40I didn't hear the last. I'm sorry.
43:44Is gas rationing imminent?
43:50I'll tell you a little about my career
43:52that I didn't put in my campaign folders
43:55when I ran for Congress in 1946.
43:58I was once in OPA.
44:00And uh
44:02I was in tire rationing.
44:04I suppose they put me in tire rationing.
44:06This is just before I went into the
44:07service. I was waiting for my service
44:08call because I had worked in a service
44:10station.
44:11But, I didn't know anything about tire
44:12rationing.
44:13And neither did the man above me, who I
44:15don't think had ever been in a service
44:17station.
44:18But, we put out the rationing
44:19regulations on tires.
44:22And we were fair as we could be.
44:24But, also, I found
44:26that if you get a bunch of government
44:28bureaucrats, and in order to have
44:30rationing, you'd have to have thousands
44:32of them,
44:33making decisions with regard to who's
44:35going to get this much, this much, this
44:37much in rationing.
44:39If you're going to try to do that in
44:40peacetime, when you do not have what we
44:42had in wartime, you know, support for,
44:44you know,
44:46don't you don't use a C
44:48uh ration card it when you're only
44:50entitled to an A. Uh then you were sort
44:52of disloyal or something. Or
44:54unpatriotic. If you do not have that
44:56behind it,
44:57I can assure you that a rationing system
45:00in peacetime, run by a group of
45:02well-intentioned
45:03but being bureaucrats as they are,
45:05gaining and feeling their power,
45:07would be something that the American
45:08people
45:10would
45:11resent very, very much. Now, what we
45:13have asked the Congress for is for a
45:15contingency plan in the event that
45:18rationing becomes necessary. But, in the
45:20meantime, let me tell you, our goal is
45:23to make it not necessary. I'm not going
45:26to pledge to this audience, and I'm not
45:27going to pledge to the television
45:28audience, that rationing may never come.
45:31If you have another war in the Mideast,
45:33if you have a complete cut off and not a
45:35resumption of the flow of oil from the
45:37Mideast,
45:38or some other disaster occurs, rationing
45:40may come.
45:42But, if on the other hand, the things
45:44that I recommended in my message of a
45:45week ago
45:47for immediate action,
45:48if the voluntary cooperation of keeping
45:50the speed down to 50 miles an hour, and
45:52I'm going to talk to the governors about
45:53that on Tuesday in Memphis, urging that
45:55every state do exactly the same thing.
45:58If we cut back on the aircraft flights,
46:00and we've done that, and for example, I
46:01came down here in a plane here today,
46:03Air Force One. I asked him if I couldn't
46:05take the Jetstar. They said, "No, it
46:07doesn't have communications." So, I had
46:09to take the big plane. But, we did one
46:11thing that saved half the cost. We
46:13didn't have the backup plane.
46:15Secret Service didn't like it.
46:16Communications didn't like it. But, I
46:17don't need a backup plane. This one goes
46:19down, it goes down.
46:20And then they don't have to impeach. So.
46:26Mr. President.
46:29Mr. President, Larry Allison from the
46:31Long Beach, California Independent
46:33Press-Telegram.
46:34Uh back to Watergate.
46:36Uh
46:37Former Attorney Attorney General John
46:39Mitchell has testified that the reason
46:40he did not give you details on the
46:43Watergate problems, sir, was that you
46:44did not ask him.
46:46Now, I realize that you were very busy
46:48at that time, as you said, but there
46:50were reports in newspapers that linked
46:54uh people very high on your staff with
46:55the Watergate problems. Could you tell
46:57us, sir, why you did not ask Mr.
47:00Mitchell what he knew?
47:02For the very simple reason that when I
47:04talked to Mr. Mitchell, and I saw him
47:05often in that period,
47:07that I had every reason to believe
47:10that if he were involved, if he had any
47:12information to convey, he would tell me.
47:15I thought that he would.
47:16As a matter of fact, when I called him
47:17on the telephone, what did he say? He
47:19expressed chagrin that anything like
47:21that could have happened in his
47:22organization.
47:23Looking back, maybe I should have
47:25cross-examined and said, "John, did you
47:27do it?"
47:29I probably should have asked him. But,
47:32the reason I didn't is that I expected
47:34him to tell me.
47:36And he had every opportunity to do and
47:38decided that he wouldn't, apparently. At
47:39least. Now, that doesn't mean to tell me
47:42that he was involved, because you
47:43understand that's still a matter that's
47:45open.
47:46The question is whether he could have
47:48told me about other people that might be
47:50involved or he had information for
47:52members of my staff he did not have
47:53information.
47:55Yes, sir. Uh I'm Joe Shoquist, Milwaukee
47:58Journal. Why didn't the administration
48:00anticipate the uh energy crisis several
48:03years ago, formulate a positive action
48:06plan to do something about it?
48:09You walked into one there.
48:12And that's a great paper, incidentally,
48:13as is the Milwaukee Sentinel. But, uh
48:17anyway,
48:20seriously, you see what happened was
48:22that
48:23I sent the first energy message ever
48:26sent to the Congress. I sent it to the
48:29Congress over 2 years ago.
48:32I saw this thing coming. And you know
48:34why I saw it coming?
48:36Not because of the Mideast or the Alaska
48:39pipeline and the rest, but because
48:42this world with all of its problems is
48:45getting richer.
48:46Oh, I don't mean there are a lot of a
48:48lot of hungry people in not only in
48:49America, too many here.
48:51But, if you want to see hungry people,
48:53go to India or go to some of the
48:56countries in Latin America or upper
48:58Brazil, et cetera, et cetera. But,
49:00generally, as the world gets richer,
49:04there's more air conditioning, there's
49:06more need for power,
49:08and there's more need for energy. And
49:09that's why I sent the message 2 years
49:11ago.
49:12And asked at that time that the Congress
49:15consider a program so that the United
49:18States should become self-sufficient in
49:19energy.
49:20All right. I followed that up this year
49:23in April, before we even knew there
49:25might be or any idea of Mideast crisis,
49:28which made a serious problem a serious
49:29crisis.
49:30I asked them for seven pieces of
49:32legislation to deal with energy.
49:35One has reached my desk, the Alaska
49:37pipeline. I signed it. The other six, I
49:40hope they act before they go home for
49:42Christmas.
49:44Now,
49:45I'm not saying here the Congress is to
49:47blame.
49:48The president should have done
49:49something.
49:50What I do say is that the president
49:52warned about it and the Congress did not
49:54act even though he warned 2 years ago.
49:56The The president warned April, the
49:58Congress did not act. And now, it's time
50:01for the Congress
50:03to get away from some of these other
50:04diversions if they have time and get on
50:07to this energy crisis.
50:08Let me just since that question has come
50:10up, I would like to point out though
50:13how we should react because the question
50:15about rationing
50:16is one that the the your average reader
50:18is going to be interested in. And I I am
50:20interested in it too because I remember
50:22how we all went through it.
50:24The car pools and all that sort of
50:25thing. There are few of you here old
50:27enough to remember car pool, I'm sure.
50:29Taxi cabs in Washington, you couldn't
50:31get one unless five of you rode in one.
50:33You remember?
50:34We don't want it. But if we look at this
50:37energy crisis as simply the crisis of
50:39this year,
50:40we could not make a greater mistake. If
50:42there'd never been a Mideast war, there
50:45would have been an energy crisis
50:47eventually.
50:48That is why I have set as a goal for the
50:50American people and I trust all of you
50:52will subscribe to it, what I call
50:54Project Independence
50:561980.
50:57Why 1980? Why not 1976? Because in
51:00checking with the experts, I find that
51:03it will not be possible
51:04doing everything that we can do to
51:06become self-sufficient in energy until
51:081980. But,
51:10if the Congress cooperates, if the
51:12nation cooperates, this nation in 1980
51:15can have all the energy we need.
51:18Let me just briefly tell you what areas
51:21of cooperation are needed. One, coal.
51:24We have half the coal in the world. And
51:26yet we have conversions from coal to
51:28oil. Why? Because coal is not a clean
51:30fuel. Coal can be made a clean fuel.
51:33Coal can be mined in a way that does not
51:36destroy the landscape. Well, there'll be
51:37our humanity. I'm sure that the
51:40some of the environmentalists I am an
51:42environmentalist along with anybody who
51:44cares about the good for our children
51:45will object.
51:46But we've got to get that coal out of
51:48the ground and we have to develop the
51:50shale oil, for example, that exists in
51:52Colorado and some of our western states.
51:54That'll solve part of the problem. And
51:56second,
51:57you have to deregulate natural gas.
52:00Some protection for the consumer, yes.
52:01But you've got wells in Louisiana and
52:04other places that are shut down and many
52:06that are not being explored because the
52:09price is held at a price
52:12too low
52:13to make the explorer have a profit and
52:16therefore he's not going to do it.
52:18And natural gas, as you know, is one of
52:19the cleanest fuels we can possibly have.
52:21And then third, the most exciting of
52:23all, nuclear power.
52:26Now, don't write an editorial on this.
52:27You're really going to catch it from
52:29your readers if you do because it scares
52:30people.
52:31Nuclear power, they think of the bomb.
52:34They think of the possibility that one
52:35of them's going to blow up.
52:37My house in San Clemente is just 12
52:39miles from the Southern California
52:41Edison Company's nuclear power plant.
52:44It's safe.
52:46It produces good power. It's clean
52:48power.
52:48And the United States, which first
52:51found the secret of the atom,
52:53is behind
52:55where it ought to be in the development
52:56of nuclear power.
52:57If we go all out in developing our coal
53:00resources, our natural gas resources, as
53:02well as of course our oil from Alaska,
53:05which will provide 1/3 I said
53:08incorrectly the other day in talking to
53:10a group, not 1/3 of all of our oil
53:11needs, but 1/3 of all of our oil
53:14imports.
53:15And if we add to that nuclear power, the
53:17United States in 1980
53:20can be self-sufficient. Just closing
53:22that off, let me tell you why that's so
53:24terribly important.
53:26The
53:26Arabs,
53:28they say, "Well, the Arabs, maybe
53:29they're irrational
53:31and we shouldn't depend on them anyway."
53:33Let me tell you, when you're in trouble,
53:35don't depend on anybody but yourself.
53:38Venezuela,
53:39what's going to happen in Venezuela?
53:40They send us a lot of oil, but they
53:42could change their minds under a radical
53:43government and they could get one one
53:45day. I don't think so, but they could.
53:48What about Canada, our great friends to
53:49the north?
53:50A lot of Canadians are listening here,
53:52but I can tell you
53:54your present Minister of the Interior or
53:56whatever is in charge of oil, he's a
53:57tough guy and they drive hard bargains
54:00and I guess we would too if we were
54:01Canadians.
54:03My point is the United States of
54:04America, as the greatest industrial
54:06power in the world with 7% of the
54:08world's people and using 30% of the
54:10world's energy, shouldn't have to depend
54:13on any other country for energy that
54:15provides our jobs and our
54:16transportations and our light and our
54:18heat.
54:19We can become self-sufficient. This is a
54:21great project and I'm going to push it.
54:24Mr. President, I'm John Chancellor of
54:26Kansas City Times.
54:29Uh not being a member of the Washington
54:31press corps, I'm not going to ask you
54:33when you're going to retire,
54:35but I'm going to ask you
54:37when you do
54:38leave the White House, what do you plan
54:40to do?
54:43I think it depends on when I leave.
54:51No, seriously, I uh
54:53I know that uh this this group has asked
54:55very good questions and very appropriate
54:57ones.
54:58I was hoping you'd ask me about the
54:59milk. Would you mind asking me about the
55:00milk?
55:02I don't know You will? All right. I'll
55:05I'll answer this and then I'll go to the
55:06milk in the back. Uh
55:08as far as retirement uh at that time, I
55:10understand I will be 63 years of age.
55:13And uh I'm relatively healthy at the
55:15present time. I don't know how healthy
55:17I'll be then.
55:18Uh
55:19Among the things I will not do, I will
55:21not practice law.
55:22I won't go on any board of directors.
55:24I'll tell you,
55:25after being president, you never want to
55:27sit at any other end of the table.
55:29And And being a board of directors of
55:31the board of directors, it pays well
55:33uh but it's rather boring. Uh at least I
55:35found when I was vice president. Not out
55:37of any conceit or anything, it's just
55:39the fact board of directors are fine,
55:40but I don't think for former presidents.
55:43What I probably will do is to do a
55:45little writing.
55:46I will not do any speaking.
55:48I've made enough speeches in a year to
55:51last most people for a lifetime,
55:52particularly my audiences. And so under
55:54the circumstances,
55:56what I probably will do will be do some
55:57writing
55:58and uh
56:00perhaps contribute to bettering the
56:02political process. Let's just let me say
56:04this.
56:06Neither party is without fault
56:09in the campaign of 1972.
56:11Quite a bit of violence on the other
56:13side. I never spoke any place without
56:14getting a pretty good working over.
56:17Neither party was without fault with
56:18regard to the financing. They raised $36
56:20million and some of that,
56:23like some of ours, came from corporate
56:24sources and was illegal because the law
56:26had been changed and apparently people
56:27didn't know it.
56:29And as far as congressmen or senators
56:30are concerned, they'll all tell you
56:33that with the new laws and so forth,
56:34there ought to be some changes.
56:36I think that if we can't get the
56:38Congress to act on the proposal I gave
56:40to them 6 months ago
56:42to provide a commission to set up new
56:44rules for campaign contributions,
56:46limiting them, new rules for campaign
56:48procedures,
56:49then after I leave office, I'm going to
56:51work for that. Because I don't want to
56:53be remembered as the man who maybe
56:56brought peace for the first time in 12
56:58years, who opened to China, who opened
57:01to Russia,
57:02maybe avoided a war in the Mideast,
57:04maybe if we can continue it, got
57:06unemployment down for the first time in
57:0818 years, for the first time in
57:10peacetime, it's down at 4.5%.
57:13It was never at that low a level, never
57:16below 5% in the '60s, anytime in the
57:19'60s, neither the Kennedy nor the
57:20Johnson administration except during the
57:22war years.
57:24I want to be remembered, I would trust,
57:26as a president that did his best to
57:28bring peace
57:29and also did his best to bring
57:32a degree of prosperity,
57:35perhaps a contribution in the energy
57:37field, in the environmental field,
57:40but also one
57:41who did his best when his own campaign
57:43got out out of hand to do everything
57:46possible to see that other campaigns
57:47didn't get out of hand in the future.
57:48Now, we'll go to the milk case.
57:50Mr. President,
57:52APME would like to ask you about the
57:54milk case, but our 60-minute commitment
57:56of time has run out. APME appreciates
57:59your appearance before us this evening
58:00and we thank
58:01I'll take the time. Television can keep
58:02me on. Just a minute. Yeah.
58:05Yeah. Yeah.
58:10Thank you. Thank you.
58:12It's a lousy movie anyway tonight.
58:17No. The reason the milk case question
58:19and this will be the one that I'll take
58:21ought to be asked answered is it
58:23just some awful nice people are getting
58:24a bad rap about it. I'm not referring
58:26about myself.
58:28I'm referring about people in the
58:29administration. They've had John
58:30Connally down. They've run him around
58:32the track and they've had I guess
58:34they're going to have Cliff Hardin down
58:36and and uh and Pete Peterson and all the
58:39rest and the whole charge is basically
58:42this,
58:42that this administration
58:44in 1971
58:46raised the support price for milk
58:49as a quid pro quo
58:51for a promise by the milk producers that
58:54they would contribute substantial
58:55amounts, anywhere from 100,000 to 2
58:57million to 10 million to our campaign.
59:00Now, that is just not true. I'll tell
59:03you how it happened. I was there.
59:05Cliff Hardin,
59:07in the spring of that year, came in and
59:09said, "The milk support prices are high
59:11enough."
59:13I said, "All right, Cliff. That's your
59:14recommendation, Department of
59:15Agriculture?" He said, "Yes."
59:18Within 3 weeks after he made that
59:20announcement, Congress put a gun to our
59:23head. Let me tell you what it was.
59:25Republicans, uh-uh.
59:27102 members of Congress signed a
59:29petition demanding not 85% of parity,
59:33but a 90% support price.
59:36And 28 members of the Senate, most of
59:38them Democrats, including Senator
59:40McGovern,
59:41signed a petition
59:43demanding a petition or signed a bill
59:46which would have made the milk support
59:47price between 85 and 90%.
59:51So, I talked to my legislative leaders,
59:53and I should look here.
59:54What I am concerned about What I am
59:56concerned about is what people pay for
59:58that milk.
59:59And I don't want to have that price
1:00:01jigged up here.
1:00:03If we can keep it and get the supply
1:00:05with the present support price. You know
1:00:07what I was told? They said, "With the
1:00:09kind of heat that we're getting from the
1:00:11Congress,
1:00:12there is no way
1:00:14that you're not going to get on your
1:00:15desk a bill, and they'll be able to
1:00:17override your veto, that will raise the
1:00:19support price probably to 90%."
1:00:23So, we said 85%,
1:00:25and that's why it was done, and that's
1:00:27the truth.
1:00:28I thank you very much, gentlemen. I
1:00:29guess that's good.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Richard Nixon Associated Press Q and A Session 1973 by Buyout Footage Historic Film Archive, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 10,329 words across 1,746 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.