OCR Text |
Show Nixon Denies Watergate Mole, Remains Firm on Tapes powers" and "executive privilege" are lawyers terms and said he wanted to state the common sense of the matter. "Every day a President of the United States is required to make difficult decisions on grave Issues, he said. "It is absolutely essential, if the President is to be able to do his job as the country expects that he be able to talk openly and candidly with his advisers about issues and individuals and that they be able to talk in the same fashion with him," Nixon said. Nixon told his broadcast audience that he would not sort out the evidence or rebut specific Senate witnesses because that is fo the committee and the courts. But he said he wanted to defend the integrity of this great ofi.ee against false charges" and to put the events in perspective from the standpoint of the presidency. The most emotional portion of his rpeech came toward the end when he appealed "for your understanding" and for your support in getting on once again with meeting your pro'err.s, improving your life and building your future. Continued From Page One hearings to date there is not the slightest evidence to the contrary. Not a single witness has testified that I had any knowledge of the planning for the Watergate break-in,- " he said. On July 16, former White House aide Alexander P. Butterfield testified that automatic tape recordings were made of all conversations in the President's office and over his telephones. Nixon did not address himself to the making of the tapes but said in the statement: "Many persons will ask why, when the facts are ns I have stated them, I did not make public the tape recordings of my meetings and conversations with members of the White House staff during this period." The matter of the tape recordings and other White House documents has been taken into federal court by both the Senate Watergate Committee and Nixons special Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox. In the statement Nixon said he is aware that the terms Lke separation of Nixon held the text of his address firmly tn both hands and spoke calmly and firmly. Citing two million words of televised testimony, Nixon declared: Nation Neglects Major Matters We have reached a point at which a obsession continued, backward-lookinwith Watergate is causing this nation to neglect matters of far more importance to all of the American people. "We must not stay so mired in Watergate that we fail to respond to challenges of surpassing importance to America and the World. We cannot let an obsession with the past destroy our hopes for the future," the President said. He referred to foreign and domestic issues which "cry out for action now, then added: The time has come to turn Watergate over to the courts, where the questions of guilt or innocence belong. The time has come for the rest of us to get on with the urgent business of oiir nation." He referred to his record landslide in 1972 and asked for support in carrying out hs goals and for your help to insure that those who would exploit Watergate in order to keep us from doing what we were elected to do will not succeed." Plows Little New Ground As for the specifics of the Watergate scandal, Nixons address plowed little new ground. Repeating his previous denials, Nixon said he had no advance knowledge of the wiretapping or break-i- r and noted that no witnesses at the Senate hearings have even accused him of that. He said again that he had no knowledge of the subsequent coverup and added, "until March 21, I was unaware that there was anything to coverup. He specifically contradicted Dean on a meeting between the two Sept. 15, 1972, the day seven men were indicted for the bugging raid. Nixon said Dean gave me no reason at that meeting to believe any others were involved. Dean said he told Nixon the case might not be contained thereafter. Modifies Earlier Statement The President modified a few things he said in his last previous formal Watergate statement on May 22. He dropped ber telling Nixon that. Wednesday Nixon dropped any reference to a warning by his claim that he ordered government investigators to begin reporting directly to him about Watergate developments, on March 21, the day he says he first learned of the coverup. He also acknowledged that he learned about the 1971 Daniel Ellsberg psychiaon March 17, four days trist's break-iearlier than he previously said he found out about it. He ignored this time his previous description of a telephone warning he received from acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray III. Gray said he told Nixon on July 6, 1972, less than three weeks after the Watergate raid, that men on his staff were trying to wound him mortally by using the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency to confuse the investigation. Drops Reference to Warning Gray. The President acknowledged in his statement that it added little to what he had previously said. "I recognize that this statement does not answer many of the questions and contentions raised during the Watergate hearings, he said. n acknowledged that the term "Watergate" has come to mean much more than just a burglary and bugging of Democratic national headquarters. Nixon "It has come to stand for excessive for 'enemies lists, for partisanship, efforts to use the great institutions of government for partisan political purhe said. poses, Concedes Serious Abuses conceded there were serious in the 1972 presidential camabuses paign and said I deplore them." I pledge to you tonight that I will do all that I can to insure that one of the results of Watergate is a new level of poin and litical integrity decency America," the President said. He Gray testified that this should have been enough warning for the President to know something illegal was going on among his staff that early. Nixon said in his May 22 statement that Gray had told could go him the FBI investigation higher, but Gray said he didnt remem Heres Statement Issued With Presidents Response on Watergate WASHINGTON (UPI) -Sby President Nixon issued with his Wednesday tatement night Watergate radiotelevision speech. On May 17th the Senate Se- lect Committee began its hearings on Watergate. Five days later, on May 22nd, I issued a detailed statement discussing my relationship to the matter. 1 stated categorically that I had no prior knowledge of the Watergate operation and that I neither knew of nor took part in any subsequent efforts to cover it up. 1 also stated that I would not invoke Executive Privilege as to testimony by present and former members of my White House staff with respect to possible criminal acts then under investigation. witnesses have testified so far. The record is more than 7,500 pages and Thirty-fiv- e some two million words long. The allegations are many, the facts are complicated, and the evidence is not only extensive but very much in conflict. It would be neither fair nor appropriate for me to assess the evidence or comment on specific witnesses or their credibility. That is the function of the Senate Committee and the courts, What I intend to do here is to cover the principal issues relating to my own conduct which have been raised since my statement of May 22, and thereby to place the testimony on those issues in perspective. I said on May 22nd that I had no prior knowledge of the yatergate operation. In all the testimony, there is not the slightest evidence to the contrary. Not a single witness has testified that I had any knowledge of the planning for the Watergate break-in- . It is also true, as I said on May 22nd, that I took no part in, and was not aware of, any subsequent efforts to cover up the illegal acts associated with the Watergate break-in- . In the summer of 1972, 1 had given orders for the Justice Department and the FBI to conduct a thorough and aggressive investigation of the break-in- , and I Wateigate relied on their investigation to disclose the facts. My only concern about the scope of the investigation was that it might lead into CIA or other national security operations of a sensitive nature. Mr. Gray, the Acting Director of the FBI, told me by telephone on Ju'y 6th that he had met with General Walters, that General Walters had told him that CIA was not involved, and that CIA activities would not be compromised by the FBI investigation. As a result, any problems that Mr. Gray may have had in coordinating with'the CIA were moot. I concluded by instructing him to press forward vigorously with his own investigation. During the summer of 1972, asked for reports on the progress of the investigation. Every report I received was that no persons, other than the seven who were subsequently indicted, were involved in the Watergate operation. On September 12, at a meeting attended by me, and by the Cabinet, senior members of the White House staff and a number of legislative General leaders, Attorney Kleindierist reported on the investigation. He informed us that it hac been the most intensive investigation since he assassination of President Kennedy, anJ that it had been established that no one at the White House, and no higher-up- s in the campaign committee, were involved. His report seemed to be confirmed by I repeatedly the action of the Grand Jury on September 15th, when it indicted only the five persons arrested at the Watergate, plus Messrs. Liddy and Hunt. Those indictments also seemed to me to confirm the validity of the reports that Mr. Dean had been providing to me, through other members of the White House staff and on which I had based my August 29 statement that no one then employed at the White House was involved. It was in that context that I met with Mr. Dean on September 15, and he gave me no reason at that meeting to believe any others were involved. Not only was I unaware of but at that time, any cover-up- , and until March 21st, I was unaware that there was anything to cover up. Then and later, I continued to have full faith in the investigations that had been conducted and in the reports I had received, based on those investigations. On February 16, 1 met with Mr. Gray prior to submitting his name to the Senate for confirmation as permanent Director of the FBI. I stressed to him that he would be questioned closely about the FBIs conduct of the Watergate investigation, and asked him if he still had full confidence in it. He replied that he did; that he was proud of its thoroughness, and that he could defend it with enthusiasm. Frequent Meetings interest in Watergate rose in February and March as the Senate Committee was organized and the hearings My were held on the Gray nomination. I began meeting frequently with my counsel, Mr. Dean, in connection with those matters. At that time, on a number of occasions, I urged my staff to get all the facts out, because I was confident that full disclosure of the facts would show that persons in the White House and at the Comof mittee for the the President were the victims of unjustified innuendoes in the press. I was searching for a way to disclose all of the facts without disturbing the confidentiality of communications with and among my personal staff, since that confidentiality is essential to the functioning of any President. It was on March 21st that I was given new inhumation that indicated that the reports I had been getting were not true. I was told then for the first time that the planning of went the Watergate break-ibeyond those who had been tried and convicted, and that at least one, and possibly more, persons at the n Committee were In- volved. It was on that day also that I learned of some of the activities upon which charges of cover-uare now based. I was told then that funds had been raised for payments to with the defendants, the knowledge and approval of persons both on the White House staff and at the Committee. But I was only told that the money had been used for attorneys fees and family support, not that it had been paid to procure silence from the recipients. I was also told that a member of my staff had talked to one of the defendants about clemency, but not that offers of clemency had been made. I was told that one of the dep fendants was currently attempting to blackmail the White House by demanding payment of $120,000 as the price of not talking about other activities, unrelated to Watergate, in which he had Hese engaged. allegations were made in general terms, they were portrayed to me as being based in part on supposition, and they were largely unsupported by details or evidence. These allegations were very troubling, and they gave a new dimension to the Watergate matter. They also reinforced my determination that the' full facts must be made available to the grand jury or to the Senate Committee. If anything illegal had happened, I wanted it to be dealt with appropriately according to the law. If anyone at the White House or high up in my campaign had been involved in wrongdoing of any kind, I wanted the White House to take the lead in making that known. When I received this disturbing information on March 21st, I immediately began new inquiries into the case and an examination of the best means to give to the grand jury or Senate Committee what we then knew and what we might later learn. On March 21st, I arranged to meet the following day with Messrs. Haideman, Ehrlichman, Dean, and Mitchell to discuss the appropriate method to get the facts out. On March 23rd, I sent Mr. Dean to Camp David, where he was instructed to write a complete report on all that he knew of the entire Watergate matter. On March 28th, I had Mr. Ehrlichman call the Attorney General to find out if he had information additional about Watergate generally or White House involvement. The Attorney General was told that 1 wanted to hear directly from him, and not through any staff people, if he had any information on White House involvement or if information of that kind should come to him. The Attorney General indicated to Mr. Ehrlichman that he had no such information. When I learned on March 30th that Mr. Dean had been unable to complete his report, I instructed Mr. Ehrlichman to conduct an independent inquiry and bring ail the facts, to me. On April 14, Mr. Ehrlich-me- n gave me his findings, and I directed that he report them to the Attorney General immediately. On April 15th, Attorney General Kleindienst and Assistant Attorney General Petersen told me of new information that had been received by the prosecutors. By that time the fragmen- tary information I had been given on March 21st had been in supplemented important by Mr. Ehrlichmans report to me on April 14th, by the information Mr. Kleindienst and Mr. Petersen gave me on April 15th, and by independent inquiries been making on my own. At that point, I realized that I would not be able personally to find out all of the facts and make them public, and 1 concluded that the matter was best handled by the Justice Department and the grand jury. On April 17th, I announced that new inquiries were underway, as a result of what I had learned on March 21st and in my own investigation since that time. I instructed all Government employees to cooperate with the judicial process as it moved ahead on this matter and expressed my personal view that no immunity should be given to any individual who had held a position of major importance in this Administration. wavs, particularly My consistent position from, the beginning has been to get out the facts about Watergate, not to cover them up. On May 22nd I said that at no time did I authorize any oifer of Executive Clemency for the Watergate defendants. nor did I know of any surh offer. I reaffirm that statement. Indeed, I made my view clear to Mr. Ehrlichman in no cirJuly 1972, that under ' cumstances could Executive Clemency be considered for those who participated in the I mainWatergate break-in- . tained that position throughout. On May 22nd I said that it was not until the time of my own that I investigation learned of the break-iat the office of Mr. Ellsbergs psychiatrist, and I specifically authorized the furnishing of this information to Judge Byrne." After a very careful review, I have determined that this statement of mine is not precisely accurate. It was on March 17th that I first learned of the break-iat the office of Dr. Fielding, and that was four days before the beginning of my own investigation on March 21st. I was told then that nothing by way of evidence had been obtained in On April 18th I the break-in- . n n learned that the Justice Department had interrogated or was going to interrogate Mr. I Hunt about this break-in- . was gravely concerned that other activities of the Special Investigations Unit might be disclosed, because I knew this could seriously injure the na-- , tional security. Consequently, I directed Mr. Petersen to stick to the Watergate investigation and stay out of national security matters. On April 25th Attorney General Kleindienst came to me and urged that the fact of the break-ishould be disclosed to the court, despite the fact that, since no evidence had been obtained, the law did not clearly require it. I concurred, and authorized him to report the break-ito Judge Byrne. In view of the incident of Dr. Fieldings office, let me emphasize two things. "blow off steam about important public figures. This kind of frank discussion is only possible when those v.ho take part in it can feel assured that what they say is in the strictest confidence. The Presidency is not the only office that requires confidentiality if it is to function effectively. A Member of Congress must be able to talk in confidence with his assistants. Judges must be able to confer in confidence with their law clerks and with each other. Throughout our entire history the need for this kind of confidentiality has been recognized. No branch of Government has ever compelled disclosure of confidential conversations between officers of other branches of Government and their advisers about Government business. The argument is often raised that these tapes are somehow different because the conversations may bear on illegal acts, and because the commission of illegal acts is not an official duty. This misses the point entirely. Even if others, from their own standpoint, may have been thinking about how to cover up an illegal act, from my standpoint I was concerned with how to uncover the illegal acts. It is my responsibility under the Constitution to see that the laws are faithfully executed, and in pursuing the facts about Watergate I was doing precisely that. Therefore, the precedent would not be one actions illegal concerning only; it would be one that would risk exposing private Presidential conversation involving the whole range of official duties. Long Recognized The need for confidence is not something confined to the Government officials. The law has long recognized that there are many relations sufficiently important that things said in that relation are entitled to be kept confidential, even at the cost of doing without what might be critical evidence in a legal proceeding. Among these are, for example, the relations between a lawyer and his client, between a priest and a penitent, and between a husband and wife. In each case it is thought to be so important that the parties be able to talk freely with each other, that' they need not feel restrained in their conversation by fear that what they say may someday come out in court, that the law recognizes that these conversations are "privileged" and that their disclosure can- - not be compelled. If I were to make public these tapes, containing as they do blunt and candid remarks on many subjects that have nothing to do with Watergate, the confidentiality of the Office of the President would always be suspect. Persons talking with a President would never again be sure that recordings or notes of what they said would not at some future time be made public, and they would guard their words against that possibility. No one .would want to risk being known as the person who recommended a policy that ultimately did not work. No one would want to advance tentative ideas, not fully thought through that might have possible merit but that might, on further examination, prove unsound. No one would want to speak bluntly about here and public figures abroad. I shall therefore vigorously oppose any action which would set a precedent that would cripple all future Presidents by inhibitng conversations between them and the persons they look to for advice. This principle of confidentiality in Presidential communications is what is at stake in the question of the tapes. I shall continue to oppose any efforts to destroy that principle, which is indispensable to the conduct of the Presidency. I recognize that this statement does not answer many of the questions and contentions raised during the Watergate hearings. It has not been my intention to attempt any such and detailed comprehensive response, nor has it been my intention to address myself to all matters covered in my May 22nd statement. With the Senate hearings and the grand jury investigations still proceeding, with much of the testimony in conflict, it would be neither Dossible to provide nor appropriate to attempt a definitive account of all that took place. Neither do I believe I could enter upon an endless course of explaining and rebutting a complex of claims r.nd charges out of that conflicting arising testimony which may engage committees and courts for months or years to come, and still be able to carry out my duties as President. While the judicial and legislative branches resolve these matters, I will continue to discharge to' the best of my ability my Constitutional responsibilities as President of the United States. point-by-poi- nt , Mixed Reactions to Speech President Fails to Silence Critics n n Damage Security First, it was and is important that many of the matters worked on by the Special Investigations Unit not be publicly disclosed because disclosure would unquestionably damage the national security. This is why I have exercised Executive Privilege on some of these matters in connection with the testimony of Mr. Ehrlichman and others. The Senate Committee has learned through its investigation the general facts of some of these security matters, and has to date wisely declined to make them public or to contest in these respects my claim of Executive Privilege. Second, I at no time authorized the use of illegal means by the Special Investigations Unit, and I was not aware of of Dr. Fielding's the break-ioffice until March 17, 1973. n Many persons will ask why, when the facts are as I have stated them, I do not make public the tape recordings of my meetings and conversations with members of the White House staff during this period. I am aware that such terms as separation of powers and Executive Privilege" are lawyers terms, and that those doctrines have been called "abstruse" and esoteric." Let me state the common sense of the matter. Every day a President of the United States is required to make difon grave ficult decisions issues. It is absolutely essential, if the President is to be able to do his job as the country expects, that he be able to talk openly and candidly with his advisers about issues and individuals and that they be able to talk in the same fashion with him. Indeed, on occa-sthey must, be able to A By Lawrence L. Knutson Associated Press Writer - WASHINGTON President Nixon didnt succeed in silencing critics of his role in the Watergate scandal with his Wednesday night speech. But he won endorsement from Republican leaders for his plea to end the governmental paralysis he said has resulted. Many principal figures in the Watergate investigations declined immediate comment. But others said they believe Nixon did not present his case with the candor he promised and did not blow away the cobwebs of suspicion they said enmesh his administration. The split of opinion was evidenced by the reactions of the chairmen of the Republican and Democratic national committees. GOP National Chairman George Bush said the speech put Watergate in perspective and called it, a credible and reasonable speech." Terribly Disappointed But Democratic Chairman Robert Strauss said the President neither added to nor subtracted from the nations knowledge of the scandal or of his role in it. "1 think I'm like most Republicans and Democrats. Strauss said. I'm terribly disappointed. Strauss said Americans are anxious for the President to release the tape recordings of his conversations with some of the principals in the affair and called this a key to returning the nation to the other issues and problems that must be dealt with. Howard H. Baker Jr.. vice chairman of the Senate Watergate committee, listened to the speech at his home in Huntsville, Tenn , and issued a noncommittal stateI welcome any informent: mation that the President can give us on the matter which is now under investigation. His comments tonight along with any future statements will be given every consideration as the committee attempts to write a meaningful report." Sen. Sam J. Ervin Jr., the committee chairman, said he would have no immediate comment. So did Sens. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Edward J. Gurney, and Herman E. Sen. Also declining comment were special prosecutor Archibald Cox and such principals in the affair as ousted White House counsel John W. Dean III and Jeb Stuart Magruder, former No. 2 man in the Nixon campaign. Sen. Joseph M. Montoya, a committee member, said he was disappointed. It was a rehash in new rhetoric of what we have uncovered at the hearings," Montoya said from his home in Santa Fe. "The fact that he urged the termination of the hearings is clearly an invasion of the separation of powers principle whirh he is using to keep the tapes at the White House, Montoya said. I think the President was being very prayerful in trying to get the pressure off of But him, Montoya said. when he mentioned that legislation was suffering in Congress, I think he is wrong. Watergate Obsession One of those endorsing Nixons appeal for the country to rid itself of what Nixon called the Watergate obsession was Sen. Barry Gold-wate- r, n crux of Mr. Nixons speech was contained in his closing appeal to to realize Americans that there are more dangerous and situadisastrous potentially tions in our country than Watergate, he said. I believe the whole But as to the credibility Nixons explanation. of Gold-wat- In my opinion said: the President did not add anything to his other speeches that would tend to divert suspicion from him. Joseph L. Rauh Jr., national vice chairman of Americans for Democratic Action, called the speech an effort to bury the Watergate coverup and said, It wholy failed to answer the charges against him and his administration. Major Points Of Presidents Speech At-A-Glan- ce: WASHINGTON Here, at a glance, are highlights (AP) President Nixons speech and prepared statement Wednesday nigl.t on the Watergate affair: of - PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND INVOLVEMENT Repeated that he had no prior knowledge of Watergate break-i- n ar.d was net aware of cover-up- . THE IN ESTIGATION Ordered thorough and aggressive investigation; repeated reports said no persons other than seven subsequently indicted were involved; didnt learn until March 21 others were involved and that there had been cover up. ELk.SBERG BREAK-IMarch 17 rather than March EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY tergate defendants. PRESIDENTIAL TAPES ADA reaffirms its call for his resignation, Rauh said. ' I guess 1 can sum it up in one sentence, said Sen. Edmund S. Muskie, "I regret to say I was not impressed. Muskie said Nixons suggestion that the Watergate investigations are more deplorable than the break-iand bugging of Democratic national headquarters and the later cover-u-p is a little hard to swallow." Said he first learned of 21 as he said previously. - Did not authorize Confidentiality will continue to oppose releasing White House tapes. break-i- for Wa- is essential, POLITICAL ABUSES Deplored illegal acta committed in 1972 campaign, pledged to ensure that such abuses are not repeated. THE FUTURE Called for turning the questions of guilt or innocence in Watergate over to the courts; asked for help in carrying out the goals of his administration. He has not satisfied me on the question of how the President should have been totally ignorant until April of this year of activities he so roundly condemns, Muskie said. Support for the President came from Sen. Strom Thurand from Brig. mond, Gen. John P. Flynn, the ranking officer among the returned Vietnam prisoners of war. Tree Consensus Flynn sent this message to Nixon before the speech; I thought it might be important to you, sir, to know ... that all of our community is behind you. We also believe that we represent the true consensus of the people of the United States. One conservative congressional Republican, Rep. John M. Ashbrook of Ohio, said before the speech that conservatives should now abandon their sympathy for the President. Switchboard Jammed The White House reported that its switchboard was jammed with telephone calls, favorrunning as much as able. 1 Press Secretary Deputy Gerald L. Warren said the telcalls were the ephone since biggest response" Nixon made a Vietnam speech last Nov. 3. Mrs. Nixon was described by her press secretary as happy and proud after watching the television broadcast. The President spoke from the heart and it went to the hearts of the American people," said the first lady. |