Response to Subpoena of Recordings and Documents The President's Letter to Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. Dated July 25, 1973. Released July 26, 1973 Dear Mr. Chairman: White House Counsel have received on my behalf the two subpoenas issued by you, on behalf of the Select Committee, on July 23rd. One of these calls on me to furnish to the Select Committee recordings of five meetings between Mr. John Dean and myself. For the reasons stated to you in my letters of July 6th and July 23rd, I must respectfully refuse to produce those recordings. The other subpoena calls on me to furnish all records of any kind relating directly or indirectly to the "activities, participation, responsibilities or involvement" of 25 named individuals "in any alleged criminal acts related to the Presidential election of 1972." Some of the records that might arguably fit within that subpoena are Presidential papers that must be kept confidential for reasons stated in my letter of July 6th. It is quite possible that there are other records in my custody that would be within the ambit of that subpoena and that I could, consistent with the public interest and my Constitutional responsibilities, provide to the Select Committee. All specific requests from the Select Committee will be carefully considered and my staff and I, as we have done in the past, will cooperate with the Select Committee by making available any information and documents that can appropriately be produced. You will understand, however, I am sure, that it would simply not be feasible for my staff and me to review thousands of documents to decide which do and which do not fit within the sweeping but vague terms of the subpoena. It continues to be true, as it was when I wrote you on July 6th, that my staff is under instructions to cooperate fully with yours in furnishing information pertinent to your inquiry. I have directed that executive privilege not be invoked with regard to testimony by present and former members of my staff concerning possible criminal conduct or discussions of possible criminal conduct. I have waived the attorney-client privilege with regard to my former Counsel. In my July 6th letter I described these acts of cooperation with the Select Committee as "genuine, extensive and, in the history of such matters, extraordinary." That cooperation has continued and it will continue. Executive privilege is being invoked only with regard to documents and recordings that cannot be made public consistent with the confidentiality essential to the func tioning of the Office of the President. I cannot and will not consent to giving any investigatory body private Presidential papers. To the extent that I have custody of other documents or information relevant to the work of the Select Committee and that can properly be made public, I will be glad to make these available in response to specific requests. Sincerely, Response to Subpoena of Recordings and Documents The President's Letter to Chief Judge John J. Sirica, Dear Judge Sirica: White House Counsel have received on my behalf a subpoena duces tecum issued out of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on July 23rd at the request of Archibald Cox. The subpoena calls on me to produce for a Grand Jury certain tape recordings as well as certain specified documents. With the utmost respect for the court of which you are Chief Judge, and for the branch of government of which it is a part, I must decline to obey the command of that subpoena. In doing so I follow the example of a long line of my predecessors as President of the United States who have consistently adhered to the position that the President is not subject to compulsory process from the courts. The independence of the three branches of our government is at the very heart of our Constitutional system. It would be wholly inadmissible for the President to seek to compel some particular action by the courts. It is equally inadmissible for the courts to seek to compel some particular action from the President. That the President is not subject to compulsory process from the other branches of government does not mean, of course, that all information in the custody of the President must forever remain unavailable to the courts. Like all of my predecessors, I have always made relevant material available to the courts except in those rare instances when to do so would be inconsistent with the public interest. The principle that guides my actions in this regard was well stated by Attorney General Speed in 1865: Toan princjaks of poble aoka shere ae same tinkĂ of evidence which the low exclude a dama The official transactions donen de heads of departmens of the Guenzen and chi subordinate offer an i gwai mand a leged communications" De Prescent of the Usivel States, the beads of the great dysremena of de cus ernment, and the Governor of the several Names & has been decidedd, are not bound as pradar prov disclose information communicated to then made it their own judgment, the dicksure would, on public considerations, be inexpedient. These are familiar miles laid down by every author on the law of eundone A similar principle has been stated by many othw Attorneys General, it has been recognised by the courts, and it has been acted upon by many Presidents. In the light of that principle, I am voluntarily trans mitting for the use of the Grand Jury the memorandum from W. Richard Howard to Bruce Kehrli in which they are interested as well as the described memoranda from Gordon Strachan to H. R. Haldeman. I have concluded, however, that it would be inconsistent with the public interest and with the Constitutional position of the Prest dency to make available recordings of meetings and tele phone conversations in which I was a participant and I must respectfully decline to do so. Sincerely, RICHARD NIXON [Honorable John J. Sirica, US. Court House, 3rd and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 2428, Washington, DC 200011 [cc: Honorable Archibald Cox, Special Prosecutor] 9 Presidential Documents 933 34 The President's Address to the Nation. August 15, 1973 Good evening: Now that most of the major witnesses in the Watergate phase of the Senate Committee hearings on campaign practices have been heard, the time has come for me to speak out about the charges made and to provide a perspective on the issue for the American people. For over 4 months, Watergate has dominated the news media. During the past 3 months, the three major networks have devoted an average of over 22 hours of television time each week to this subject. The Senate committee has heard over 2 million words of testimony. This investigation began as an effort to discover the facts about the break-in and bugging of the Democratic National Headquarters and other campaign abuses. But as the weeks have gone by, it has become clear that both the hearings themselves and some of the commentaries on them have become increasingly absorbed in an effort to implicate the President personally in the illegal activities that took place. Because the abuses occurred during my Administration, and in the campaign for my re-election, I accept full responsibility for them. I regret that these events took place, and I do not question the right of a Senate committee to investigate charges made against the President to the extent that this is relevant to legislative duties. However, it is my Constitutional responsibility to defend the integrity of this great office against false charges. I also believe that it is important to address the overriding question of what we as a nation can learn from this experience and what we should now do. I intend to discuss both of these subjects tonight. The record of the Senate hearings is lengthy. The facts are complicated, the evidence conflicting. It would not be right for me to try to sort out the evidence, to rebut specific witnesses, or to pronounce my own judgments about their credibility. That is for the committee and for the courts. I shall not attempt to deal tonight with the various charges in detail. Rather, I shall attempt to put the events in perspective from the standpoint of the Presidency. Cn May before the majur witnesses had eschied, I issued a detailed statement accressing the charges that had been made against De President. I have rday issued another written statement, which addresses De charges that have been mace since then is they relate to my own conctact, and which describes the eforts that I made to discover the facts adOUL DE macker On May 11. I stated in very specifc terms-and I state again to every one of you istening tonight these facts-I had no prior knowledge of he Watergate break-in: I neither rock part in nor knew about any of the subsequent coverup activices: I neither authorized nor encouraged subordinates to engage in legal or improper campaign tactics. That was and that is the simple truth. In all of the milliers of werds of testimony, there is not the slightest suggestion that I had any knowledge of the planning for the Watergate break-in. As for the coverup, my statement has been challenged by way one of the 35 witnesses who appeared—a witness who offered no evidence beyond his own impressions, and whose testimony has been contradicted by every other witness in a position to know the fac Tonight, let me explain to you what I did about Watergate after thô break-in occurred, so that you can better understand the fact that I abo had no knowledge of the so-called coverup From the time when the break-in occurred, I pressed repeatedly do know the facts, and particularly whether there was any favolement of anyone in the White House. I considered two things essential First, that the investigation should be thorough and aboveboard, and second, that if there were any higher involvement, we should get the facts out first. As I said at my August 29 press conterence last year, "What realiv hurts in matters of this sort is not the fact that they occur, because overzealous people in campaigns do things that are wrong. What really hurtxis if you try to cover it up." I believed that then, and certainly the experience of this last year has proved that to be true. I knew that the Justice Department and the FBI were conducting intensive investigations-as I had insisted that they should. The White House Counsel, John Dean, was assigned to monitor these investigations, and particularly to check into any possible White House involvement. Throughout the summer of 1972, I continued to press the question, and I continued to get the same answer: I was told again and again that there was no indication that any persors were involved other than the seven who were known to have planned and carried out the operation, and who were subsequently indicted and convicted. On September 12 at a meeting that I held with the Cabinet, the senior White House Staff, and a number of legislative leaders, Attorney General Kleindienst reported on the investigation. He told us it had been the most extensive investigation since the assassination of President Kennedy and that it had established that only those seven were involved. On September 15, the day the seven were indicted, I met with John Dean, the White House Counsel. He gave me no reason whatever to believe that any others were guilty; I assumed that the indictments of only the seven by the grand jury confirmed the reports he had been giving to that effect throughout the summer. On February 16, I met with Acting Director 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 FBI's conduct of the Watergate investigation. I 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 before the committee. Because I trusted the agencies conducting the investigations, because I believed the reports I was getting, I did not believe the newspaper accounts that suggested a coverup. I was convinced there was no coverup, because I was convinced that no one had anything to cover up. It was not until March 21 of this year that I received new information from the White House Counsel that led me to conclude that the reports I had been getting for over 9 months were not true. On that day, I launched an intensive effort of my own to get the facts and to get the facts out. Whatever the facts might be, I wanted the White House to be the first to make them public. At first, I entrusted the task of getting me the facts to Mr. Dean. When, after spending a week at Camp David, he failed to produce the written report I had asked for, I turned to John Ehrlichman and to the Attorney General-while also making independent inquiries of my own. By mid-April, I had received Mr. Ehrlichman's report and also one from the Attorney General based on new information uncovered by the Justice Department. These reports made it clear to me that the situation was far more serious than I had imagined. It at once became evident to me that |