it goes back to john ehrlichman and the white house which is troublesome. and this -- but nixon hasn't been told about this and he's really very surprised about it when i tell him about it. he later would say to halderman that had i been told, i probably would have authorized it. had he authorized it, you would have followed a national security proceeding. there's a way if you want to deal with the restraints on the fourth amendment, there's a procedure that the attorney general must follow even in place in those days, and that was not a mysterious or unique situation. there was a >> first realized he is not fully informed, and then when he is pushing me as i was talking earlier to write this bogus report, i realize i should tell him i'm not going to write a report that's bogus, but if i write a report, here's what's going to be some of the information in the report, and i don't think -- or it's your call if you want this information reported out. by march 21st when i get another demand that's first sent to the white house and the first time to me from howa

i-man in the left who grew his hair out, and bob mardian who could not grow his hair out and john ehrlichman and john mitchell and ken parkinson in front. when mitchell resigned -- >> mardian. >> as mardian resigned as the lawyer on the dnc civil case to go back into campaign work, mardian had been the goldwater 1964 western states campaign manager for barry goldwater from arizona, and in 1968 he was the western states campaign person for nixon in 1968, so he was more -- he wanted to get involved in the campaign. when he agreed -- mitchell agreed he could leave the case, that the dnc civil suit, and he hired an outside lawyer, ken parkinson, and the favor that mardian did for hiring to parkinson to hankdz the case, about $150 an hour, led to ken parkinson to also be indicted. although there are some overt acts in the indictment involving mardian that did not relate to as i lawyer, but i think that ken parkinson, who was not politically involved at all only, only dealt with his role as a lawyer. he was found not guilty at the trial. all right? he was found not guilty at the trial, so the one

john ehrlichman didn't have a clue. rosemary woods did not have a clue. we just didn't run around talking about it. and -- well, you know. i think i'm right about that. i don't know. >> scott had a footnote for that. >> the footnote in general, because i made all of these insulting remarks about the process of legal inquiry being a good road to the truth. the fact of the matter is, the people had forgotten this. the cover-up worked. nixon had to resign. i mean, ultimately the tapes did him in that came out. but to this day, very few people know the extent to which we had established what is called the hughes theory, a wealthy person named howard hughes had given $100,000 to rebozo, the president's best friend, and this is the heart of what watergate was about. tracking it further, what you also don't remember is he also gave it to hubert humphrey. the democrat. we had hearings prepared on this we were going to have in cement september. one day, saturday on my way into the office late, 9:00 a.m., on the news they announced the hearings for the next monday

important elements of the cover-up and what was driving certainly my superiors bob haldaman and john ehrlichman was the fact that there had been a break-in by daniel -- into daniel elsberg's psychiatrist office by gordon liddy and howard hunt for the white house. some of the same men who were used in that break-in were now in the d.c. jail after watergate having participated in both. this is what brought the white house's concern. the cover-up might have been cut loose at the re-election committee level had there not been a link back to the white house. that's what's concerning everybody. nobody knows if it's so-called national security. nobody really knows all of the details of it. we do, of course, today. we didn't early on. so finding out what nixon knew and how he deals with the facts he is being told and also figuring out why he is not being told things and being manufactured of other things has been a fascinating process. i'm very early in it. i have to get this bed of basic information completed first where i listen to what my transcribers had prepared because i hear things nobody else h

so here the president is talking to john ehrlichman, his domestic adviser, about what jeb macgruder, is going to have to do to stop the investigation. at this point in july of '72, it's assumed he's going to have to take the fall. the president then suggests what he should say to investigators. >> well, the story basically is that -- so that macgruder when you say take a slide, he can't. >> no, i don't think so. i don't think so. >> because they'll convict him. >> oh, they'll convict him by somebody else's testimony. he doesn't gain anything. >> so what the hell, what does he do? >> no, he has to go in and say well, i did this and it was a bad thing to do and i got carried away, and i feel terrible about it. >> well, can't it state a little better? he could say he did but state it slightly that -- >> but it isn't going to change his legal plan. yeah, yeah, sure. >> for instance, can he in terms of i didn't expect to be this way. take responsibility for it. i think he can say that. i don't think it would be unfortunate to say i did wiretapping. >> that's the problem. >> so -- now, the

so here the president is talking to john ehrlichman, his domestic adviser, about what jeb macgruder, is going to have to do to stop the investigation. at this point in july of '72, it's assumed he's going to have to take the fall. the president then suggests what he should say to investigators. >> well, the story

so here the president is talking to john ehrlichman, his domestic adviser, about what jeb macgruder, is going to have to do to stop the investigation. at this point in july of '72, it's assumed he's going to have to take the fall. the president then suggests what he should say to investigators. >> well, the story basically is that -- so that macgruder when you say take a slide, he can't. >> no, i don't think so. i don't think so. >> because they'll convict him. >> oh, they'll convict him by somebody else's testimony.

in john's case, we point out that he would have had to report up the next highest authority. that would have been haldaman and ehrlichman, that he did talk to, and what the rule today gives him that he didn't have back then, and if warranted, if those guys don't do the right thing, which they didn't, all the way to the president then. then he gets to the president the first week after the break-in, and, you know, we're not trying to say this would have happened. counter factuals are always difficult. it's during that first week when, you know, positions are taken and the dye is cast. he needs to get all the way to nixon himself. not through a talking head, but himself and say, mr. president, what gordon liddy told me was they committed these past crimes. the elsberg break-in, which nixon will end up getting disbarred for. the watergate break-in. they want to pay hush money in the future to keep these guys quiet, and nixon then has the ability to deal with the situation directly rather than eight months later when he has to go in and say there's a cancer on your presidency. by then it is a cancer. it's not yet a cancer i

> i think there was -- i think ehrlichman was pushing most for it thought this would be a wonderful way to trap me, because the president -- his explanation to me was, john, the president could have your report in the drawer, pull it out, say this saul i know. i said, john, that isn't true. that isn't all he knows. he said i know, fwhaut would be a good defense. so, yes. >> if you have al question, please, wait for the microphone arrive so we can catch all the audio. >> question? here we go. >> this is a question from mr. butterfield. how was nixon so confident, able to be so confident in his ability to keep these tapes jit it seems maybe just with hindsight inevitable a scandal like this would arise these tapes would get out. was it hubris? did he think he had a much tighter grip on his inner circle than he ended up happening? why do you think he had confidence to keep this secret? >> i don't know but i was flattered by it, because the secret was well kept, until this -- and to answer the question earlier that someone mentioned, perhaps it was the dean. why he didn't burn the tapes. i always felt i knew why he didn't. it was simply because he could not