Washington Straight Talk; Pat Buchanan

Patrick J. Buchanan, aid to President Nixon, critic of the national media, conservative ideologist. Tonight on Washington Strait Talk, Patrick J. Buchanan, special consultant to the president veteran Nixon speech writer and loyal defender of the president and his policies. Answers questions put to him by Bill Moyers. How are you spending most of your time on matters related to watergate, impeachment, what's happening in Congress in regard to questions about the president? I'm spending a good deal of my time on that bill, but I would think in the last two weeks the bulk of my time has been spent on the preparation of the briefing books for several presidential press conferences that have been held for the session with executives in Chicago and for the one coming up at the NAB in Houston.

Is there an atmosphere in the White House of being besieged, of having to spend an excessive amount of time on this one issue? I think it would be a valid statement. I don't think besiege would be the proper verb, but I think it would be a valid statement that those of us who are not within the, say, the domestic council or the national security council are spending an inordinate amount of time with the watergate problem as things seem not unusual considering the circumstances. But the other machinery within the White House, again referring to the domestic council, is going ahead moving ahead with the domestic program working with the Congress and the National Security Council, of course, under Dr. Kissinger, is continuing with its work which is unrelated to watergate. How is the president spending his time in regard to watergate versus other issues? Well, the president, when he's working on substantive matters, which is most of the time, he spends I think the majority of it on foreign policy in the last several weeks. He does spend a considerable amount of time preparing for these press conferences, but they would deal with both watergate and non-watergate with aid in matters.

Do I infer from that that you don't consider watergate a substantive matter? Well, no, programmatic and policy matter, I would say it is not. Certainly it's an issue and it's a dominant issue in the national medium, one of the critical issues right now and he spends time with that. What's his? That's what we're going to do. What's his mood? I think the mood could be assessed as well by the average American who saw the president on the executive sessions in the last two press conferences or who will seem tomorrow night. I think his mood is good. These are not the salad days of the Nixon administration clearly, but I think the president is confident and I think he's moving forward with what he's doing on foreign policy and he's confident he'll see this thing through. How often do you, in person, as his oldest, I think oldest surviving assistant? There would be, there would be, there's 23, I believe, years of service and I'm in my ninth year. How often do you see him now? I do not seem often personally, I would say.

I communicate with him almost daily, I would think, through Memoranda. My staff provides him as daily news summary, which he reads each day. I provide him with numerous Memoranda, especially at a time like this when we're doing the briefing books for the various press conferences. I would say in the last two weeks, I've seen him personally probably twice for extended periods as well. Is that a satisfactory access to him from your standpoint? I think so because I'm a former journalist and a writer and I prefer to communicate and I think it's better and more effective communication with the president on paper where you can sort your ideas out beforehand, you can hone them down, you can rethink them and then you can send a communication to the president which will take him say 10 minutes to read whereas getting all these ideas through to him verbally could take, I mean, could take an hour. I know President Johnson preferred to work with face-to-face contact as I understand it with Congressman and with Staff Aids. The president works with paper. He has that predilection of the lawyer so to speak to, to deal in his communications

on paper and so that's why I prefer to deal with him. Have you been advising him personally on his strategy toward the House Judiciary Committee? I don't think that would be a fair statement, no, I think he's raised him out of me but I would not be considering myself a principal advisor. I think his congressional staff, Bryce Harlow, Mr. St. Clair, perhaps General Hig would be considered his primary advisors on handling matters connected with Judiciary. When the book you wrote a couple of years ago, the pamphlet or the paper you will call the new majority, you were fairly critical of advocacy journalists for quote acting on the belief that given the facts, the American people are too ignorant to reach the proper conclusion and must be led there by the hand. I think there was a criticism of instant analysis following the presidential address, was it not? Yes, it was. Wouldn't it be, however, if I could translate that into the present situation? Wouldn't it be a good idea for the president?

Wouldn't it help to get him back to the substantive matters, as you say, if, once and for all, he simply did give the Judiciary Committee what they're asking for and let's get it over with one way or the other? Well, that's, that has a certain appeal, I know, to say, well, why don't we just send up a U-Haul trailer and give them whatever they've requested and send it down there? The Judiciary Committee has not hired a U-Haul trailer. They haven't hired it yet, but they sent a letter, I think, which even the Judiciary Committee members themselves indicated they had not read, which came from the staff, which called for a thorough index of all the files in the White House. Now, our argument, it basically is, I think, this, that we feel Judiciary Committee ought to define what is an impeachable offense and they ought to indicate the area that charges and so that we can know precisely where they're going to target their request. Now, I've seen it discuss that three of the issues under consideration as impeachable offenses are the dismantling of OEO, the Cambodian bombing was the other, and the third does not, the impoundment of funds.

Now, of course, we don't consider these anything approaching an impeachable offense. To get all the background and data on these three items would, of course, mean rummaging through some national security files and other files, which have no bearing on what we would consider to be impeachable offenses. So our argument is first, let's define what the president is charged with. Let's define what you think are the impeachable offenses and then proceed from there. As I understand it, they're very concerned about the president's role, if he played any role in the so-called hush money, and that they've asked him specifically for 42 tapes that would help clear up any doubts or ambiguity or holes in that particular aspect of the case. Now, why wouldn't it be to the country's benefit? The benefit of the presidency is an institution and even to Mr. Nixon's benefit to give them those 42 tapes and let them, once and for all, decide if the president and their judgment was involved. Well, I think that the first thing is that the 42 tapes, quite obviously, are going to contain great vies and material that have nothing to do with water gates.

Secondarily, the Irvin Committee, I believe, indicated that it needed nine or ten tapes to prove or disprove the truth about water gate. I think Mr. Worsky indicated that he had the full story of water gate with what he had. We've already committed that material. It's been promised and pledged to judiciary. I don't believe judiciary has even gone through that material. Now, our argument, our contention is that they ought to sit down and go through that material before they argue that they need more. Would you, in effect, are limiting their investigation? You're setting boundaries to an independent branch of government's own machinery. That's very true. And I think you would agree with this when the House Judiciary votes an impeachment resolution. Certainly, they don't have the right to come down and get anything. I think at the same time when a House Judiciary votes an impeachment, certainly, they have a right to something. Now, I think where the points of disagreement would be, where precisely where the line should be drawn, wherever it's drawn, some people on both sides are going to be dissatisfied. Our contention is we've provided everything that's going to the special prosecution force

or committed that. In addition to that, we've provided materials from seven agencies. Beyond that, we've agreed to, written in derogatories. Beyond that, we've agreed to a verbal session between the President and the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Committee. I think that's indicative of the fact that we do want to cooperate. We do want to terminate the process as rapidly as possible. But that- We do not want it to cooperate on giving them what they say they need. There's going to be disagreements. Let's take a hypothetical case, Bill. Suppose you had a hostile Congress, a Republican Congress and a Democratic President, and that Congress by a simple resolution voted an impeachment resolution to a judiciary committee, should it then have the right to go through and demand what it wanted on what areas it wanted in the presidential files? I think that would be a dangerous precedent to be set. What are dealing with the hypothetical condition? We're dealing with an actual investigation by the House Judiciary Committee of the possibility of presidential involvement in the obstruction of justice, which seems to me to go beyond

hypothesis into the area of actual investigation. Well, wouldn't it be then the proper thing for the House Judiciary to say that we believe that vote, these are the following offenses, which we believe are impeachable offenses. One of them is the obstruction of justice, B. We believe there's reason in the- from what we have received, what we have studied, and what the special prosecution force has given us to subpoena X, Y, and Z. Are you not swayed by the fact of two leading Republicans, both of them conservatives, Mr. Hutchinson, who is the senior member of the Judiciary Committee, and John Anderson, Illinois, saying, we've asked for what is relevant and reasonable. There wouldn't be an inquiry quoting Mr. Hutchinson, where we're no suspicion about the President's actions in connection with the so-called Watergate cover. Aren't you swayed by those conservative men saying we need this? Well, I would first raise an argument as to whether I would consider John Anderson a conservative. Certainly he's a good Republican.

Well, secondarily, what's developing is something of an institutional struggle and institutional clash. You have the House Judiciary, members of the House of Representatives, who are quite obviously going to stand up for the full rights and prerogatives of the House of Representatives. Likewise, the President of the United States is going to have to defend what he thinks of the rightful duties, responsibilities, and powers of his office. Now I don't think it's altogether unexpected that Congressmen, even conservative Congressmen, in something like that, a clash over rights and duties would stand up for their particular body. Despite all that you say you have given to both court and the Congress, the President himself is on the record with two contradictory statements about what he was told on March 21st. Have you said to him, Mr. President, would you explain the difference to me of those contradictions? Well, no. I didn't call him up and ask him to explain that. I think I don't know what the facts are. Talk to him about it. Talk to him about it.

He'll be prepared to deal with that. If you look at the August 15th conversation, which you mentioned, where the President says that he was told on March 21, which was six months earlier, that he was told that the money was being used for defendants, legal fees, and family, and not, quote, to procure sides. I think if you look at the situation, if you look at August 22nd, which was just a week later, he did discuss the whole question of hush money. But you can't explain it with the fact that only the record he said two different things about what he was told. I think it was the President's record, let's give you an example. John Deane, for example, said he had a tremendous memory and that he had remembered these things perfectly. He was repeated that he knew exactly what he was talking about and that his recollections were precise. That's the other day John Deane came forward, or they came forward to say, well, John Deane appears to have been terribly mistaken. The discussion he was certain took place on March 13th and reality did not take place on March 13th.

It took place on March 21 as the President has stated. Now, that was an error which John Deane said he recollected precisely now. I do not know the precise facts of that. My thinking is that this was a written statement on August 15th by the President. And also delivered a speech that day which he had worked on while some of the other staff were working on the statement. And my guess is that it's because of the very fact that the President had not reviewed the March 21st tape and had not recalled it for six months. This single error occurred in that paper, a single error which I think taken with all the precision and accuracy that were in the other statement, seems to be as hardly a really major point. So I think the President's March 6th statement and his statement in Chicago that these really are not proof that hush money had been paid. But there were allegations on the part of John Deane is the precise one. Would the 42 tapes clear that up? The 42 tapes? I think.

I think the House Judiciary Committee has asked for. Well, I think maybe that, I don't know quite frankly, I don't know which of the precise 42 that they've asked for. But among those tapes, don't you think the answer would be found? Well, there's a tape that, in the materials that are going to be provided to the Judiciary Committee. There's a tape of April 16th, a conversation between John Deane and the President when John Deane is after John Deane, I believe, has been to the special prosecution force. I think from my own limited information that these things will help clear it up and what we're suggesting is- Why doesn't Judiciary- Why doesn't Judiciary- No, no, no, no. You're making a selection. No, no, no, no. Not a selection. Judiciary went into court and said, we'd like to have these. And we said, fine, you can have everything that's been given to the special prosecution force. In addition to that, you can have what the grand jury has turned over to Judge Sareeke. In addition to that, you've made some requests with regard to the agencies, you can have that. In addition, you can have written in a rocket to ours. In addition, we'll sit down with Mr. Adino and Mr. Hutchinson have a discussion. I think, I mean, I think what's being lost here is a degree of cooperation, the number

of concessions that have been made by the President of the United States already in the last several weeks. And I think our argument is, let's wait, let's define our terms here, let's find what's an impeachable offense, and let's move forward from there before sending the U-Haul trailer down. Let's review what we've given him. Which still like to see the conflict of the contract between the Judiciary Committee and the Avis Renacompany. Well, Senator Scott say, if not a truck, then at least a station wagon. Senator Scott has also said he thinks that what the Judiciary Committee has asked for should be turned over by the White House. So what the White House is doing, in effect, is saying to the Congress, to the Judiciary Committee, to some of its own Republican members on the Hill, we will decide what you can investigate. No, the White House is saying, no, it's not saying we will decide what you should investigate. It's saying you decide what's an impeachable offense. You decide what are the charges that you're going to make against the President and then come back to us. You look over the materials that have already been provided and then come back. Do you think obstruction of justice would be an impeachable offense?

I think, yes, I think, you know, right, a clear, deliberate intention to obstruct justice, I think would be, would constitute a high crime or a misdemeanor and would be an impeachable offense. Now that's a separate question about whether or not in my personal judgment of President of the United States should be impeached, even if something like that were demonstrated. I've got great concerns about what would happen to the United States, what would happen to this country, the President would be set for the future, what would happen to the quality of American politics, if even say a presidential error and something like that were demonstrated in that the Congress moved ahead with impeachment. What about the President of saying that in this country, no man, whether he's a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican or whatever, can be beyond the reach of justice? Now, let me give you an example. You served under President Lyndon Johnson. In my judgment, if you had a hostile Congress, Republicans both housed as hostage to the

President, if you had a special prosecution force set up, which was a dominated by liberal Democrats who were hostile to President Johnson, and I think they took, say, the Bobby Baker case, they took President Johnson, or not, would it be, can I finish making this point? I think if you had that and you had a malevolent media, I think the three of them combined, if they took, say, the Bobby Baker case, if they took President Johnson's, the financial empire that he built while on a government salary, if they took the Pentagon papers that the New York Times had, and they handled those in the fashion watergate has been handled, I think they could have really destroyed or crippled the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. And I think that would have been damaging to the country, even if what they regurgitated the truth. If Lyndon Johnson had been suspected of obstructing justice, my own opinion is that house should have investigated it. But you really can't play that game because the same things are not being said of this minute.

We can play one game here. I'm not exonerating our administration from anything that happened. We made a hell of a lot of mistakes. But this is the first time I've heard that the House Judiciary Committee is investigating which enixen for the sins of Lyndon Johnson. No, I've not suggested that. What I do suggest is the Bobby Baker is there. All right, here's what it is. The Bobby Baker matter was brought up before the Senate, and on several separate votes in 1964 in that campaign, the Senate voted not to make a thorough investigation of the Bobby Baker matter. Now, I'm just saying this, that if there were a Republican Congress, and the media was say as friendly to President Nixon as it was to say John F. Kennedy, and I think that these things would have been placed in better perspective. Are you happy with the example of this administration said on law and order and justice? You're asking me, do I, in effect, do I prove of some of the allegations? No, no, no. Do I prove of what I'm asking you? You're asking a simple question. Do you approve of the example? You know, I believe your speech is back in 1968 about law and order and justice.

Did you vote for it? No, I didn't. I didn't. I don't know you in 1972 or in 1968, but a lot of the people in the country did thinking that you were going to set an example of law and order because that was an urgent appetite in the country. I think as I've stated, this administration, as yours, has made serious errors and grave mistakes, and apparently in this Watergate matter, there was serious wrongdoing. But what I do, that doesn't invalidate the point that I'm trying to make, which is that we ought to place this thing in perspective. As Americans, we ought to see what this impeachment process, what it's going to do to American politics down the road. Would it be really wise to reverse the mandate of 1972, which millions of Americans voted for? Not for justice. To an impeachment process. Not for justice. To an impeachment process. Not for it. A lot of things go, if there is an impeachment of this president, and awful lot of things go down the drain because of what you call an obstruction of justice where the, I don't know where the truth is on that issue. So I think we ought to consider the broader issue. But if I don't know the name.

So it has been. To me, the broader issue is, if a sitting President of the United States is suspected of being involved in a cover-up of justice, then whether his name is Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon or whatever his name is, whoever comes after Mr. Nixon, it seems to me that the precedent ought to be that this cannot go uninvestigated, and the president cannot be held accountable if he's in fact involved. Now that's the bigger issue. I would rather have a president impeached and established the president that the president of the United States is not beyond the reach of justice than to establish a president that wrongdoing in high place. But there was also a strong, I mean, you act as though that, or maybe I shouldn't say this, but there is a valid precedent for withholding documents from congressional committees. Now, remember when Dwight Eisenhower withheld those documents and papers and individuals who testified before Senator McCarthy, the same individuals who are beating the drums for termination of presidential confidentiality, they praise General Eisenhower. But it isn't the different criminality, isn't the different suspected criminality, because I don't want to repeat that.

I don't know if the president were involved. I do know that I am troubling us and the country is troubling us to believe that we ought to know, and the difference is one of criminality, isn't it? The difference is the House Judiciary Committee has voted an impeachment resolution. It's gone to Judiciary Committee, we're sort of in a free form, we're in untraveled territory so far as defining what should be done and what should not be done. We've got a point of view, it can be defended by precedent, it can be defended by a variety of arguments. We have our constitutional scholars, the others have theirs. And I think it's a mistake to conclude automatically that simply because we don't provide what's been demanded that we're conducting a cover-up, I think that's unjustified. I don't think you're... I haven't said that I think you're involved in a cover-up. I've only say there have been allegations in serious ones that the president possibly was involved in a cover-up. I'm just wondering, yes, the wire just reports that Judge Sirika has announced that he will send the information from the grand jury. Follows my prediction, and it does not say whether or not Mr. Holdman's attorney will appeal

this to a higher court, but... How do you feel about what the judge has done? Well, we don't feel anything one way or the other. It's been our argument that the Judiciary Committee should certainly have the conclusions of the grand jury investigation if it desires them. Do you think the president feels betrayed by those individuals who perpetrated Watergate? I think that's the question you really should address to the president of the United States himself. Do you feel that they betrayed him? I think the president's indicated they've done whoever was responsible for the break-in and whoever was responsible. You're a human being. Right. It's hard to separate you personally. You're asking me what the president felt? No, I'm asking you now what you feel. Do you feel that those men who allegedly perpetrated Watergate have betrayed the president and conservative principles? If individuals who are... If you're asking if the allegations were true, quite obviously the trust that had been placed in them was not held.

Right. By your own admission, Watergate has blundered what you call the mandate of 72. If they're innocent of these allegations, then who is responsible for the tremendous emphasis on Watergate threat? I'd say the grand jury. I'd say the grand jury. Grand juries? I would say others would be involved as well. But the grand jurors are the ones who've issued the indictments. Yeah, we could name... If, in fact, these men are innocent of the allegations against them, I think we would have to name the national media as an unundited co-conspirator in that one. For reporting? Not for reporting. For the grand jury and died it? Not for reporting. I'm talking about the enormous emphasis. The media puts it on the front page day and night, the untrusted and gentle as in college. When a secretary of commerce is indicted, should that go on page 29? Well, when John Dean testifies... The grand jury did not issue his report to Pat on the basis of newspaper accounts. Right. Bill, when John Dean testifies, why is he on three networks and with those rebutting, why are they only on one? That's a decision of the media. No one suggests that the media broke into Watergate, but I do suggest that history is going to hold them responsible for the manner in which they've handled this, just as it's

going to hold the individual's responsible, who involved. I think history, journalism, you think they will vindicate. I don't know. I don't know. But aren't you concerned about saying somebody else did it? It's always somebody else's fault. No. I think the individuals who involved in Watergate, whoever was involved, are responsible for that. But the media answers for how it covered Watergate, whether it exaggerated it. I mean, just the media wasn't responsible for the war in Vietnam, but they were responsible for the coverage which had an impact, I think, upon the consequences of... Of course, bringing facts to bear on the official view of reality that in time food to be accurate. Selected facts, Bill. It's always selected facts. It certainly is. And for that selection, they're going to have to answer. If that selection resulted in undermining American confidence in American policy in Vietnam, they'll have to answer for that. They may be... Are you saying that the press is guilty of criminal acts? I don't think I've suggested there is... There's a difference. There's a difference between irresponsibility and criminal acts, certainly. I think they're guilty of gross irresponsibility and the coverage of the war in Vietnam.

Name me if you're sitting there in the White House. You and I have every obligation that we can fulfill to help the country realize that the present we serve is not responsible for illegal activities. That's all it seems to me that has to dish your committees out there. I think I would... That went rather rapidly, but I believe I would concur with that statement. Well, I suspect there are a lot of things we might perhaps agree on. What about Gerry O'Fourth? Let's... You're often raising hypothetical situations. If the president were to be impeached and acquitted, what kind of president do you think Gerry Ford would make? If he were to be impeached and convicted, what kind of president do you think Ford would make? I think that in that event, which I don't think is likely, I think Gerald Ford would make a conscientious effort to continue the policies of the president. I like the Vice President, I admire him. I think he's a man of competence, ability.

But I do not think he has the knowledge or range or capacity that the president currently has to conduct American foreign policy. So that's one of the reasons that I feel impeachment would really be a... Would really be genuinely harmful to the interests of the United States. I think Gerald Ford... I don't think that Vice President Ford would concur that he does not have the knowledge or range or contacts or base of information that the president now has to manage American foreign policy. But if the president is involved, if the president were to be involved in the obstruction of justice for whatever purpose, is the fact that he's experienced in foreign policy, justification for exempting someone? What do you say? I know, let's just take the alleged obstruction justice. This is purely hypothetical. Suppose the president of the United States, when he heard these, someone came into him with this incredible story involving one aid after another, after another, another allegations all of them, and suppose it can be demonstrated in retrospect that he did not move rapidly enough.

Frankly, he... Suppose it can be hypothetically demonstrated, he just sat on it too long. Do I think he should be impeached for that? That might be a technical obstruction of justice, not rushing over to the Attorney General and reporting it. But no, I don't believe he should be impeached for that. We're not dealing with the hypothetical. We are dealing with hypothetical situations. If you... If the White House would give the Judiciary Committee what it's asking for, then we wouldn't have to deal hypothetically. We'd know. But let the Judiciary read the great volumes of material that are on their way down there before they ask for more. That's our view. Thank you, Pat. Thank you, Bill. Washington Straight Talk. From Washington, N. Packed has brought you Patrick J. Buchanan, special consultant to the president, with Bill Moyers. Next week on Washington Straight Talk, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Carl Albert, with N. Packer Respondent Paul Duke. This program has been made possible by Grant from the Ford Foundation.

This has been a production of N. Packed.