The Robert Mueller Investigation

ShaggyBevo RIP · November 27, 2018

^^^

Someone trying to make it look like $75Million in donations weren't a single year event?

Edited November 27, 2018 by ShaggyBevo RIP

Captainant · November 27, 2018

By the way, in case anyone is lost on the timeline of events that's leading to this, here's a decent one (credit to /u/Pithong on reddit for doing the legwork on the links):

Chooky · November 27, 2018

The smart move for the NRA would be to shoot the people who stopped funding and definitely not shoot the people who continued funding.

Ted Lange · November 27, 2018

atomheartbevo · November 27, 2018

4 hours ago, retread said:

Many, many Rs in Congress are compromised imo. It's the only explanation for kissing the ring to this extent.

4 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

i cannot help but put on my tin foil and think this as well.

how many took nra money? that nra money is dirty.

i think we will never understand the depth of the problem, but i simply cannot understand why republican reps and senators are still lining up to tongue this president's asshole.

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

No, there is no other explanation. The GOP chose to go all-in as "the Party of Trump." Once you do that, his survival is your survival. The reason that this investigation has been attacked so relentlessly by the GOP as a whole is because it is an existential threat to the GOP as a whole. Shaking the whole "party of treason" label is gonna be tough.

The confusing thing is that the GOP is in deep shit.

Trump ain't winning in 2020. He's lost Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and there's nothing showing he can win them back (especially not when his trade war/tariffs truly kick in). Plus he lost Arizona - it flipped for a bisexual atheist over a decorated combat pilot. He's put other states in potential play as well.
The House will run a train on Trump and Co. next year, and many Rs in Congress will probably be caught in the crossfire. It doesn't have to end in impeachment to damage the GOP if Republican voters have to at least think twice when heading to the polls (assuming they do).
Trump can't stop the states from going after anybody and everybody.
The olds aren't feeling the full effect of Trump's little trade war just yet, but we are getting a preview with the GM fiasco.
Speaking of which, Trump declaring war on GM, and threatening to remove subsidies, etc., is not only going to cause more job losses in states he can't afford lose jobs in, it's going to drastically hurt a lot of stock prices, something plenty of Trumpkins will feel.
Everything the House committees discover next year is going to be made into campaign ads come 2020.

And this is all before Trump really gets going in January, when he will probably be ramping up his twitter commentaries that will damage the GOP more in the eyes of minorities, women, etc., not to mention Trump going to war against American companies he feels are wronging him (GM is only the first). Trump could not save the House in 2018, and I see no reason why he can save the Senate in 2020.

I get that maybe some in Congress feel the Trumpkins are powerful, but when we start seeing all of the Russian stuff truly exposed, and when prices start jumping at Walmart, and Dollar General and Dollar Tree and the other discount chains find themselves hurting, the Trumpkins will crawl back into the same holes they were hiding in when America's White House was occupied by a Muslim, Atheist, Gay, Marxist, Socialist, Kenyan, Community Organizer from Chicago by the name of Barrack Hussein Obama. Holy run-on sentences Batman.

My gut says that a bunch of these guys have been compromised. I don't think McCarthy was joking when he commented the Russians had bought off American politicians.

Trump may not be a lame-duck President right now, but he might as well be, given everything that's happening, and I don't know why so many in Congress are willing to kiss the mushroom, other than they are compromised.

These people only care about keeping their jobs, and linking themselves so closely to Trump is not going to help them or the GOP in 2020.

Edited November 27, 2018 by atomheartbevo

Mdhorn · November 27, 2018

Love it that DOTARD tweeted earlier that he answered Mueller's questions easily without the help of his lawyers. Dumb sob just got run over by his own bus.

triplehorn · November 27, 2018

WoW. Check out this interaction between Shep and Napolitano on Fox News today. Napolitano lays out that Manafort's response of denying Mueller's accusation that he was lying to investigators during his cooperation phase means that the Judge will decide the outcome based on a "mini-trial". The standard for the Judge to make the determination is not the same as a jury trial, but that is not the real issue here. It's the evidence provided by Mueller for the judge to review in making a determination about Manafort's alleged lying that has the potential to blow this thing wide open in public view and engulf Trump. This possibility has been discussed in previous posts here today, and now Fox's understanding is in line with this potential EF-5 shitstorm about to hit Trump. I'm not sure when this sentencing hearing "mini-trial" will occur, but possibly as early as next week (?)

Raw Story has the Fox video here

More Wheeler corroborating again what Napolitano is also talking about:

Captainant · November 27, 2018

1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

WoW. Check out this interaction between Shep and Napolitano on Fox News today. Napolitano lays out that Manafort's response of denying Mueller's accusation that he was lying to investigators during his cooperation phase means that the Judge will decide the outcome based on a "mini-trial". The standard for the Judge to make the determination is not the same as a jury trial, but that is not the real issue here. It's the evidence provided by Mueller for the judge to review in making a determination about Manafort's alleged lying that has the potential to blow this thing wide open in public view and engulf Trump. This possibility has been discussed in previous posts here today, and now Fox's understanding is in line with this potential EF-5 shitstorm about to hit Trump. I'm not sure when this sentencing hearing "mini-trial" will occur, but possibly as early as next week (?)

Raw Story has the Fox video here

More Wheeler corroborating again what Napolitano is also talking about:

Four. Dee. Fucking. Chess. I cannot wait to see this Manafucking.

Mdhorn · November 27, 2018

DOTARD is about to go into a spastic poo slinging bout. Wonder if he's going to hit the campaign trail with fervor.

Ted Lange · November 27, 2018

retread · November 27, 2018

Captainant · November 27, 2018

Seeing all of these reports of people frantically trying to clean up after they stepped in the anthill is really fascinating to me. Reminds me of “People who go along a treasonous path do not know they are on a treasonous path until it is too late.” Especially since trump had such a broad appeal to idiots who thought they were geniuses. *Cough cough Carter Page cough cough*

The Royal We · November 27, 2018

It is a little encouraging to see Napolitano speaking about this on Fox. Trumpkins will probably still dismiss it all as it was on Shep's show and we all know that he's really just a token liberal and can't be trusted.

shnsajax · November 27, 2018

Spoiler

Yeah, I need to stock up on some popcorn for this one.

DDD Dad · November 27, 2018

12 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

It is a little encouraging to see Napolitano speaking about this on Fox. Trumpkins will probably still dismiss it all as it was on Shep's show and we all know that he's really just a token liberal and can't be trusted.

And he's gay.

Lagunamadre · November 27, 2018

17 minutes ago, retread said:

Help out a tech novice here, is there a way that Mueller could get his hands on deleted emails? Are they ever really deleted, assuming they were on a gmail, yahoo type of service?

horncyclist · November 27, 2018

Help out a tech novice here, is there a way that Mueller could get his hands on deleted emails? Are they ever really deleted, assuming they were on a gmail, yahoo type of service?

Yes, and it depends. Easiest way would be to get them from the sender/receiver who never deleted them.

Asithappens · November 27, 2018

Very interesting. I wonder what Mueller gained by waiting for Trump to provide his written answers and how that tied into the charge of Manafort lying? (assuming I got those details somewhat right).

What if Trump provided an answer that was basically a "yes, I did that", but Manafort insisted "no, that didn't happen". Manny won't be too happy if that's the reason he will spend some more time in the clink. Lie for Trump and in the end Trump screws him over anyway.

David Dennison · November 27, 2018

6 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

8 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Help out a tech novice here, is there a way that Mueller could get his hands on deleted emails? Are they ever really deleted, assuming they were on a gmail, yahoo type of service?

Yes, and it depends. Easiest way would be to get them from the sender/receiver who never deleted them.

And that's why the crying about Hillary's emails was so disingenuous. They're all out there. Her emails were always nothing more than political props.

Edited November 27, 2018 by David Dennison

Hugo Stiglitz · November 27, 2018

I’m not sure what to make of the Manafort/Assange thing.

Luke Harding, the guy who reported it in the Guardian, has a very good record as a journalist and deep ties to foreign intelligence services including the UK.

Harding is one of the few journalists Christopher Steele trusted when the shit was hitting the fan in 2016.

The real question I have is not so much if it’s true but who and why is leaking this now.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

SmokeyTheBear · November 27, 2018

4 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Help out a tech novice here, is there a way that Mueller could get his hands on deleted emails? Are they ever really deleted, assuming they were on a gmail, yahoo type of service?

Not to go all tin hat but there is an Area 51 type data centre built to intercept all traffic and store data. The legal grounds to use that data for anything like this is beyond my understanding.

https://www.wired.com/2012/03/ff-nsadatacenter/

Under construction by contractors with top-secret clearances, the blandly named Utah Data Center is being built for the National Security Agency. A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world's communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks. The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013. Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital "pocket litter." It is, in some measure, the realization of the "total information awareness" program created during the first term of the Bush administration—an effort that was killed by Congress in 2003 after it caused an outcry over its potential for invading Americans' privacy.

SKJ · November 27, 2018

14 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Very interesting. I wonder what Mueller gained by waiting for Trump to provide his written answers and how that tied into the charge of Manafort lying? (assuming I got those details somewhat right).

What if Trump provided an answer that was basically a "yes, I did that", but Manafort insisted "no, that didn't happen". Manny won't be too happy if that's the reason he will spend some more time in the clink. Lie for Trump and in the end Trump screws him over anyway.

From what I understand, the damage everyone suspects is that via their shared defense, Mueller set up manafort to answer with lies and then share those lies with Trump (shared defense). This is most likely why Mueller waited until Trump turned in his written answers to hammer manafort's lies.

Now they're both on record, both locked into a story, and now he gets to prosecute those lies in open court through the mini trial

Foosters · November 27, 2018

22 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Very interesting. I wonder what Mueller gained by waiting for Trump to provide his written answers and how that tied into the charge of Manafort lying? (assuming I got those details somewhat right).

What if Trump provided an answer that was basically a "yes, I did that", but Manafort insisted "no, that didn't happen". Manny won't be too happy if that's the reason he will spend some more time in the clink. Lie for Trump and in the end Trump screws him over anyway.

From Reddit:

The next question is now: Is this event one of the sources of Manafort's lies that were revealed yesterday and has Trump been tricked into telling those same lies?

Marcy Wheeler put forth a compelling argument last night that the sequence of events is related to the "Take Home Test" Trump just filled out:

Just about the only explanation for Manafort’s actions are that — as I suggested — Trump was happy to have Manafort serve as a mole in Mueller’s investigation.

But Mueller’s team appears to have no doubt that Manafort was lying to them. That means they didn’t really need his testimony, at all. It also means they had no need to keep secrets — they could keep giving Manafort the impression that he was pulling a fast one over the prosecutors, all while reporting misleading information to Trump that he could use to fill out his open book test. Which increases the likelihood that Trump just submitted sworn answers to those questions full of lies.

Manafort and Trump continued to hold a Joint Defense Agreement after his plea, likely up to the present day.

If Trump did this - he is in reasonably deep shit. Mueller will now inform the judge of precisely what Manafort lied about as part of his sentencing. This is a requirement of criminal procedure, and it will all be in the public record. Whitaker cannot do anything to suppress it, as he otherwise would with anything else related to Trump, under the argument sitting presidents cannot be indicted. If these lies were replicated in Trump's written responses....that's ballgame.

It's very, very difficult to perjure yourself on a take home test answered with a team of lawyers, but Trump just might have pulled it off

Forensicator · November 28, 2018

Help out a tech novice here, is there a way that Mueller could get his hands on deleted emails? Are they ever really deleted, assuming they were on a gmail, yahoo type of service?

It depends, but yes, the deleted ones can be recovered if he used an email client like Outlook, depending on what they mean by “scrubbed”. Also they can get the emails from the other participants and possibly other sources where they haven’t been deleted yet. With a multi million dollar investigative budget they have a lot of options.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hugo Stiglitz · November 28, 2018

Manafort was known to do emails without sending them. He would shared dummy email account logins and communicate via email drafts.

He would write a draft email but not send it and whoever the information was intended would log into the email account, read the draft and then delete it. Therefore, no email was technically sent.

Yuk · November 28, 2018

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Manafort was known to do emails without sending them. He would shared dummy email account logins and communicate via email drafts.

He would write a draft email but not send it and whoever the information was intended would log into the email account, read the draft and then delete it. Therefore, no email was technically sent.

That's called "foldering". And he even did this from prison.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/paul-manafort-didn-t-wear-uniform-had-phone-cell-vip-n890631

Although the jail does not allow prisoners to send or receive emails, Manafort appears to have developed a workaround. Manafort has revealed on the monitored phone calls that in order to exchange emails, he reads and composes emails on a second laptop that is shuttled in and out of the facility by his team. When the team takes the laptop from the jail, it reconnects to the internet and Manafort’s emails are transmitted

Hugo Stiglitz · November 28, 2018

One theory I’ve always had on the back burner was that Wikileaks got the hacked emails from someone on Trump’s side like Cambridge Analytica.

Mayhaps Assange got the emails from Manafort.

That puzzle piece would fit quite nicely with everything coming from Trump, Stone, and Assange since the election.

triplehorn · November 28, 2018

“Manafort was known to do emails without sending them. He would shared dummy email account logins and communicate via email drafts.

He would write a draft email but not send it and whoever the information was intended would log into the email account, read the draft and then delete it. Therefore, no email was technically sent.”

^^^ Correct, that’s what Mueller busted him for doing when he was under house arrest awaiting trial in Virginia that promptly landed him in jail pre-trial.

Now, how did they figure that out ?

Also, Maria Butina is reportedly back in solitary confinement without any contact 22hrs per day.

Apparently she gave her lawyers’ names to another inmate. Not sure what that’s about except perhaps the inmate she had contact with could serve some role for additional information passing. The official docs say it’s “for her safety”. So maybe it’s incoming mail that could pose a risk. Or threat of violent female prison sex? Who the hell knows.

Edited November 28, 2018 by triplehorn

Hugo Stiglitz · November 28, 2018

As far as international career criminals go, Manafort is certainly at the elite level.

He’s probably embarrassed by fucking amateurs like Papadopolous, Michael Cohen, Carter Page, Flynn, Kushner, Don jr, and Dotard.

Looking back, it’s becoming very clear why Mueller went straight for the jugular on Manafort and Gates. They’re the most competent of the criminals.

Francisco 2.0 · November 28, 2018

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/manafort-lawyer-trump-cooperation.html

Quote

A lawyer for Paul Manafort, the president’s onetime campaign chairman, repeatedly briefed President Trump’s lawyers on his client’s discussions with federal investigators after Mr. Manafort agreed to cooperate with the special counsel, according to one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers and two other people familiar with the conversations.

The arrangement was highly unusual and inflamed tensions with Mr. Mueller’s office when prosecutors discovered it after Mr. Manafort began cooperating two months ago, the people said. Some legal experts speculated that it was a bid by Mr. Manafort for a presidential pardon even as he worked with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in hopes of a lighter sentence.

Quote

Rudolph W. Giuliani, one of the president’s personal lawyers, acknowledged the arrangement on Tuesday and defended it as a source of valuable insights into the special counsel’s inquiry and where it was headed. Such information could help shape a legal defense strategy, and it also appeared to give Mr. Trump and his legal advisers ammunition in their public relations campaign against the special counsel’s office.

retread · November 28, 2018

It will be too bad if Manafort gave Cheeto the wrong answers to the take home test for Mueller.

bolverk · November 28, 2018

Well, that doesn't sound shady at all... Good on Mueller for setting the perjury trap.

Francisco 2.0 · November 28, 2018

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

“Manafort was known to do emails without sending them. He would shared dummy email account logins and communicate via email drafts.

Now, how did they figure that out ?

If they were using something like Gmail, and let's say Google had been subpoenaed over any/all accounts associated with Manafort....and they could log in at any time without leaving a trace....

Using Gmail as an example; the Google Admin suite has a product called Vault. Depending on the settings, one can keep everything associated with a Gmail account for discovery purposes. Our organization does that (I'm the admin of it) and when presented with a court order, it's pretty nifty what one can produce using this tool. Google chat sessions, deleted email....and even drafts.

I suspect Google has a higher-level tool that preserves everything for law enforcement as needed.

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand · November 28, 2018

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/manafort-lawyer-trump-cooperation.html

A lawyer for Paul Manafort, the president’s onetime campaign chairman, repeatedly briefed President Trump’s lawyers on his client’s discussions with federal investigators after Mr. Manafort agreed to cooperate with the special counsel, according to one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers and two other people familiar with the conversations.
The arrangement was highly unusual and inflamed tensions with Mr. Mueller’s office when prosecutors discovered it after Mr. Manafort began cooperating two months ago, the people said. Some legal experts speculated that it was a bid by Mr. Manafort for a presidential pardon even as he worked with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in hopes of a lighter sentence.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, one of the president’s personal lawyers, acknowledged the arrangement on Tuesday and defended it as a source of valuable insights into the special counsel’s inquiry and where it was headed. Such information could help shape a legal defense strategy, and it also appeared to give Mr. Trump and his legal advisers ammunition in their public relations campaign against the special counsel’s office.

"I'm going to brief the president!"

Sent from my LM-X210CM using Tapatalk

Hugo Stiglitz · November 28, 2018

There’s no irony in Trump colluding with Manafort to obstruct justice.

ShaggyBevo RIP · November 28, 2018

3 hours ago, Lagunamadre said:

Help out a tech novice here, is there a way that Mueller could get his hands on deleted emails? Are they ever really deleted, assuming they were on a gmail, yahoo type of service?

Depends on how knowledge about scrubbing Corsi is, cyber forensics can recover a lot of 'deleted' info.

Brisketexan · November 28, 2018

Depends on how knowledge about scrubbing Corsi is, cyber forensics can recover a lot of 'deleted' info.

Have you seen Corsi? He probably scrubbed his computer with Dawn, because it softens your hands while you destroy evidence.

ShaggyBevo RIP · November 28, 2018

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

One theory I’ve always had on the back burner was that Wikileaks got the hacked emails from someone on Trump’s side like Cambridge Analytica.

Mayhaps Assange got the emails from Manafort.

That puzzle piece would fit quite nicely with everything coming from Trump, Stone, and Assange since the election.

The new reports of Manafort meeting with Assange before all this does bring up the question of did the GRU feed Wikileaks the the emails.

Francisco 2.0 · November 28, 2018

6 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

Depends on how knowledge about scrubbing Corsi is, cyber forensics can recover a lot of 'deleted' info.

If any of these hucksters used an email service, they are fucked.

But the deal is....email is a two way street. Just because Corsi may have successfully cleaned his shit....the receiver has a copy. And that person may not be techy. Or competent. Or has a subpoena on their email, so the feds have already hoovered up everything they need.

Hugo Stiglitz · November 28, 2018

4 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

The new reports of Manafort meeting with Assange before all this does bring up the question of did the GRU feed Wikileaks the the emails.

The previous indictments indicate Wikileaks coordinated with Guccifer

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

horncyclist · November 28, 2018

Could Manafort have set up that coordination? Meet with Asange to make sure he's on board, join campaign a short time later.

Longhorn_Fan68 · November 28, 2018

Have you seen Corsi? He probably scrubbed his computer with Dawn, because it softens your hands while you destroy evidence.

I imagine it looked something like this:

Hugo Stiglitz · November 28, 2018

1 minute ago, horncyclist said:

Could Manafort have set up that coordination? Meet with Asange to make sure he's on board, join campaign a short time later.

Very possible.

JimmyJames · November 28, 2018

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Well, that doesn't sound shady at all... Good on Mueller for setting the perjury trap.

No offense to you personally but I’m sick and tired of hearing the term “perjury trap.”

In order to get caught in one, you have to be both a criminal and a liar.

You could be the biggest criminal in the whole world. You know how you avoid a “perjury trap?” You tell the truth when asked about your crimes by the feds

You could be the biggest liar in the whole world. You know how your avoid the “perjury trap?” You tell the truth when asked about your crimes by the feds.

Or you could just invoke the 5th and not have to say shit. Easiest way ever invented to avoid the ole “perjury trap.”

Its actually real easy to avoid the perjury trap. Just don’t be a lying criminal and you’re good. Or take the 5th and take it to a jury.

Hugo Stiglitz · November 28, 2018

The big takeaway from today’s developments is just how desperate team Trump is to escape Mueller.

Most people would try to distance themselves from Manafort at this point, but not Trump. He wanted to move closer to him in an effort to save his own skin.

SAD!

Homercles · November 28, 2018

The confusing thing is that the GOP is in deep shit.
Trump ain't winning in 2020. He's lost Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and there's nothing showing he can win them back (especially not when his trade war/tariffs truly kick in). Plus he lost Arizona - it flipped for a bisexual atheist over a decorated combat pilot. He's put other states in potential play as well.

The House will run a train on Trump and Co. next year, and many Rs in Congress will probably be caught in the crossfire. It doesn't have to end in impeachment to damage the GOP if Republican voters have to at least think twice when heading to the polls (assuming they do).

Trump can't stop the states from going after anybody and everybody.

The olds aren't feeling the full effect of Trump's little trade war just yet, but we are getting a preview with the GM fiasco.

Speaking of which, Trump declaring war on GM, and threatening to remove subsidies, etc., is not only going to cause more job losses in states he can't afford lose jobs in, it's going to drastically hurt a lot of stock prices, something plenty of Trumpkins will feel.

Everything the House committees discover next year is going to be made into campaign ads come 2020.
And this is all before Trump really gets going in January, when he will probably be ramping up his twitter commentaries that will damage the GOP more in the eyes of minorities, women, etc., not to mention Trump going to war against American companies he feels are wronging him (GM is only the first). Trump could not save the House in 2018, and I see no reason why he can save the Senate in 2020.
I get that maybe some in Congress feel the Trumpkins are powerful, but when we start seeing all of the Russian stuff truly exposed, and when prices start jumping at Walmart, and Dollar General and Dollar Tree and the other discount chains find themselves hurting, the Trumpkins will crawl back into the same holes they were hiding in when America's White House was occupied by a Muslim, Atheist, Gay, Marxist, Socialist, Kenyan, Community Organizer from Chicago by the name of Barrack Hussein Obama. Holy run-on sentences Batman.
My gut says that a bunch of these guys have been compromised. I don't think McCarthy was joking when he commented the Russians had bought off American politicians.
Trump may not be a lame-duck President right now, but he might as well be, given everything that's happening, and I don't know why so many in Congress are willing to kiss the mushroom, other than they are compromised.
These people only care about keeping their jobs, and linking themselves so closely to Trump is not going to help them or the GOP in 2020.

imgur

Ted Lange · November 28, 2018

So how many weeks are we from Trump admitting to colluding with a foreign adversary to win the presidency, but that it was no big deal because he kept Hillary out of office? 4, 6, 8?

Thats trumps end play and it will resonate with a good 40% of the fucking morons in this country. Sad!

Francisco 2.0 · November 28, 2018

3 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

So how many weeks are we from Trump admitting to colluding with a foreign adversary to win the presidency, but that it was no big deal because he kept Hillary out of office? 4, 6, 8?

Thats trumps end play and it will resonate with a good 40% of the fucking morons in this country. Sad!

Not only that, he probably will have a prime-time televised announcement (honestly surprised he just hasn't gone that route yet) where he will state, while sitting in the Oval, that he did it to protect the country from Hillary.

Seriously. We are pretty close to a modern-day version of Nixon's third Watergate address:

Here's the text of Nixon's address. Just substitute the names and whatnot with present day characters and whatnot, and it's easy to picture Trump doing the same:

Spoiler

Good evening:

I have asked for this time tonight in order to announce my answer to the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for additional Watergate tapes, and to tell you something about the actions I shall be taking tomorrow—about what I hope they will mean to you and about the very difficult choices that were presented to me.

These actions will at last, once and for all, show that what I knew and what I did with regard to the Watergate break-in and coverup were just as I have described them to you from the very beginning.

I have spent many hours during the past few weeks thinking about what I would say to the American people if I were to reach the decision I shall announce tonight. And so, my words have not been lightly chosen; I can assure you they are deeply felt.

It was almost 2 years ago, in June 1972 that five men broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington. It turned out that they were connected with my reelection committee, and the Watergate break-in became a major issue in the campaign.

The full resources of the FBI and the Justice Department were used to investigate the incident thoroughly. I instructed my staff and campaign aides to cooperate fully with the investigation. The FBI conducted nearly 1,500 interviews. For 9 months—until March 1973—I was assured by those charged with conducting and monitoring the investigations that no one in the White House was involved.

Nevertheless, for more than a year, there have been allegations and insinuations that I knew about the planning of the Watergate break-in and that I was involved in an extensive plot to cover it up. The House Judiciary Committee is now investigating these charges.

On March 6, I ordered all materials that I had previously furnished to the Special Prosecutor turned over to the committee. These included tape recordings of 19 Presidential conversations and more than 700 documents from private White House files.

On April 11, the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for 42 additional tapes of conversations which it contended were necessary for its investigation. I agreed to respond to that subpoena by tomorrow.

In these folders that you see over here on my left are more than 1,200 pages of transcripts of private conversations I participated in between September 15, 1972, and April 27 of 1973 with my principal aides and associates with regard to Watergate. They include all the relevant portions of all of the subpoenaed conversations that were recorded, that is, all portions that relate to the question of what I knew about Watergate or the coverup and what I did about it.

They also include transcripts of other conversations which were not subpoenaed, but which have a significant bearing on the question of Presidential actions with regard to Watergate. These will be delivered to the committee tomorrow.

In these transcripts, portions not relevant to my knowledge or actions with regard to Watergate are not included, but everything that is relevant is included—the rough as well as the smooth—the strategy sessions, the exploration of alternatives, the weighing of human and political costs.

As far as what the President personally knew and did with regard to Watergate and the coverup is concerned, these materials—together with those already made available—will tell it all.

I shall invite Chairman Rodino and the committee’s ranking minority member, Congressman Hutchinson of Michigan, to come to the White House and listen to the actual, full tapes of these conversations, so that they can determine for themselves beyond question that the transcripts are accurate and that everything on the tapes relevant to my knowledge and my actions on Watergate is included. If there should be any disagreement over whether omitted material is relevant, I shall meet with them personally in an effort to settle the matter. I believe this arrangement is fair, and I think it is appropriate.

For many days now, I have spent many hours of my own time personally reviewing these materials and personally deciding questions of relevancy. I believe it is appropriate that the committee’s review should also be made by its own senior elected officials, and not by staff employees.

The task of Chairman Rodino and Congressman Hutchinson will be made simpler than was mine by the fact that the work of preparing the transcripts has been completed. All they will need to do is to satisfy themselves of their authenticity and their completeness.

Ever since the existence of the White House taping system was first made known last summer, I have tried vigorously to guard the privacy of the tapes. I have been well aware that my effort to protect the confidentiality of Presidential conversations has heightened the sense of mystery about Watergate and, in fact, has caused increased suspicions of the President. Many people assume that the tapes must incriminate the President, or that otherwise, he would not insist on their privacy.

But the problem I confronted was this: Unless a President can protect the privacy of the advice he gets, he cannot get the advice he needs.

This principle is recognized in the constitutional doctrine of executive privilege, which has been defended and maintained by every President since Washington and which has been recognized by the courts, whenever tested, as inherent in the Presidency. I consider it to be my constitutional responsibility to defend this principle.

Three factors have now combined to persuade me that a major unprecedented exception to that principle is now necessary:

First, in the present circumstances, the House of Representatives must be able to reach an informed judgment about the President’s role in Watergate.

Second, I am making a major exception to the principle of confidentiality because I believe such action is now necessary in order to restore the principle itself, by clearing the air of the central question that has brought such pressures upon it—and also to provide the evidence which will allow this matter to be brought to a prompt conclusion.

Third, in the context of the current impeachment climate, I believe all the American people, as well as their representatives in Congress, are entitled to have not only the facts but also the evidence that demonstrates those facts.

I want there to be no question remaining about the fact that the President has nothing to hide in this matter.

The impeachment of a President is a remedy of last resort; it is the most solemn act of our entire constitutional process. Now, regardless of whether or not it succeeded, the action of the House, in voting a formal accusation requiring trial by the Senate, would put the Nation through a wrenching ordeal it has endured only once in its lifetime, a century ago, and never since America has become a world power with global responsibilities.

The impact of such an ordeal would be felt throughout the world, and it would have its effect on the lives of all Americans for many years to come.

Because this is an issue that profoundly affects all the American people, in addition to turning over these transcripts to the House Judiciary Committee, I have directed that they should all be made public—all of these that you see here.

To complete the record, I shall also release to the public transcripts of all those portions of the tapes already turned over to the Special Prosecutor and to the committee that relate to Presidential actions or knowledge of the Watergate affair.

During the past year, the wildest accusations have been given banner headlines and ready credence as well. Rumor, gossip, innuendo, accounts from unnamed sources of what a prospective witness might testify to, have filled the morning newspapers and then are repeated on the evening newscasts day after day.

Time and again, a familiar pattern repeated itself. A charge would be reported the first day as what it was—just an allegation. But it would then be referred back to the next day and thereafter as if it were true.

The distinction between fact and speculation grew blurred. Eventually, all seeped into the public consciousness as a vague general impression of massive wrongdoing, implicating everybody, gaining credibility by its endless repetition.

The basic question at issue today is whether the President personally acted improperly in the Watergate matter. Month after month of rumor, insinuation, and charges by just one Watergate witness—John Dean—suggested that the President did act improperly.

This sparked the demands for an impeachment inquiry. This is the question that must be answered. And this is the question that will be answered by these transcripts that I have ordered published tomorrow.

These transcripts cover hour upon hour of discussions that I held with Mr. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Dean, John Mitchell, former Attorney General Kleindienst, Assistant Attorney General Petersen, and others with regard to Watergate.

They were discussions in which I was probing to find out what had happened, who was responsible, what were the various degrees of responsibilities, what were the legal culpabilities, what were the political ramifications, and what actions were necessary and appropriate on the part of the President.

I realize that these transcripts will provide grist for many sensational stories in the press. Parts will seem to be contradictory with one another, and parts will be in conflict with some of the testimony given in the Senate Watergate committee hearings.

I have been reluctant to release these tapes, not just because they will embarrass me and those with whom I have talked— which they will—and not just because they will become the subject of speculation and even ridicule—which they will— and not just because certain parts of them will be seized upon by political and journalistic opponents—which they will.

I have been reluctant because, in these and in all the other conversations in this office, people have spoken their minds freely, never dreaming that specific sentences or even parts of sentences would be picked out as the subjects of national attention and controversy.

I have been reluctant because the principle of confidentiality is absolutely essential to the conduct of the Presidency. In reading the raw transcripts of these conversations, I believe it will be more readily apparent why that principle is essential and must be maintained in the future. These conversations are unusual in their subject matter, but the same kind of uninhibited discussion—and it is that—the same brutal candor is necessary in discussing how to bring warring factions to the peace table or how to move necessary legislation through the Congress.

Names are named in these transcripts. Therefore, it is important to remember that much that appears in them is no more than hearsay or speculation, exchanged as I was trying to find out what really had happened, while my principal aides were reporting to me on rumors and reports that they had beard, while we discussed the various, often conflicting stories that different persons were telling.

As the transcripts will demonstrate, my concerns during this period covered a wide range. The first and obvious one was to find out just exactly what had happened and who was involved.

A second concern was for the people who had been, or might become, involved in Watergate. Some were close advisers, valued friends, others whom I had trusted. And I was also concerned about the human impact on others, especially some of the young people and their families who had come to Washington to work in my Administration, whose lives might be suddenly ruined by something they had done in an excess of loyalty or in the mistaken belief that it would serve the interests of the President.

And then, I was quite frankly concerned about the political implications. This represented potentially a devastating blow to the Administration and to its programs, one which I knew would be exploited for all it was worth by hostile elements in the Congress as well as in the media. I wanted to do what was right, but I wanted to do it in a way that would cause the least unnecessary damage in a highly charged political atmosphere to the Administration.

And fourth, as a lawyer, I felt very strongly that I had to conduct myself in a way that would not prejudice the rights of potential defendants.

And fifth, I was striving to sort out a complex tangle, not only of facts but also questions of legal and moral responsibility. I wanted, above all, to be fair. I wanted to draw distinctions, where those were appropriate, between persons who were active and willing participants on the one hand, and on the other, those who might have gotten inadvertently caught up in the web and be technically indictable but morally innocent.

Despite the confusions and contradictions, what does come through clearly is this:

John Dean charged in sworn Senate testimony that I was “fully aware of the coverup” at the time of our first meeting on September 15, 1972. These transcripts show clearly that I first learned of it when Mr. Dean himself told me about it in this office on March 21—some 6 months later.

Incidentally, these transcripts—covering hours upon hours of conversations— should place in somewhat better perspective the controversy over the 18 1/2 minute gap in the tape of a conversation I had with Mr. Haldeman back in June of 1972.

Now, how it was caused is still a mystery to me and, I think, to many of the experts as well. But I am absolutely certain, however, of one thing: that it was not caused intentionally by my secretary, Rose Mary Woods, or any of my White House assistants. And certainly, if the theory were true that during those 18 1/2 minutes, Mr. Haldeman and I cooked up some sort of a Watergate coverup scheme, as so many have been quick to surmise, it hardly seems likely that in all of our subsequent conversations—many of them are here— which neither of us ever expected would see the light of day, there is nothing remotely indicating such a scheme; indeed, quite the contrary.

From the beginning, I have said that in many places on the tapes there were ambiguities—a statement and comments that different people with different perspectives might interpret in drastically different ways—but although the words may be ambiguous, though the discussions may have explored many alternatives, the record of my actions is totally clear now, and I still believe it was totally correct then.

A prime example is one of the most controversial discussions, that with Mr. Dean on March 21—the one in which he first told me of the coverup, with Mr. Haldeman joining us midway through the conversation.

His revelations to me on March 21 were a sharp surprise, even though the report he gave to me was far from complete, especially since he did not reveal at that time the extent of his own criminal involvement.

I was particularly concerned by his report that one of the Watergate defendants, Howard Hunt, was threatening blackmail unless he and his lawyer were immediately given $120,000 for legal fees and family support, and that he was attempting to blackmail the White House, not by threatening exposure on the Watergate matter, but by threatening to reveal activities that would expose extremely sensitive, highly secret national security matters that he had worked on before Watergate.

I probed, questioned, tried to learn all Mr. Dean knew about who was involved, what was involved. I asked more than 150 questions of Mr. Dean in the course of that conversation.

He said to me, and I quote from the transcripts directly: “I can just tell from our conversation that these are things that you have no knowledge of.”

It was only considerably later that I learned how much there was that he did not tell me then—for example, that he himself had authorized promises of clemency, that he had personally handled money for the Watergate defendants, and that he had suborned perjury of a witness.

I knew that I needed more facts. I knew that I needed the judgments of more people. I knew the facts about the Watergate coverup would have to be made public, but I had to find out more about what they were before I could decide how they could best be made public.

I returned several times to the immediate problem loosed by Mr. Hunt’s blackmail threat, which to me was not a Watergate problem, but one which I regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a potential national security problem of very serious proportions. I considered long and hard whether it might in fact be better to let the payment go forward, at least temporarily, in the hope that this national security matter would not be exposed in the course of uncovering the Watergate coverup.

I believed then, and I believe today, that I had a responsibility as President to consider every option, including this one, where production of sensitive national security matters was at issue—protection of such matters. In the course of considering it and of “just thinking out loud,” as I put it at one point, I several times suggested that meeting Hunt’s demands might be necessary.

But then I also traced through where that would lead. The money could be raised. But money demands would lead inescapably to clemency demands, and clemency could not be granted. I said, and I quote directly from the tape: “It is wrong, that’s for sure.” I pointed out, and I quote again from the tape: “But in the end we are going to be bled to death. And in the end it is all going to come out anyway. Then you get the worst of both worlds. We are going to lose, and people are going to—”

And Mr. Haldeman interrupts me and says: “And look like dopes!”

And I responded, “And in effect look like a coverup. So that we cannot do.”

Now, I recognize that this tape of March 21 is one which different meanings could be read in by different people. But by the end of the meeting, as the tape shows, my decision was to convene a new grand jury and to send everyone before the grand jury with instructions to testify.

Whatever the potential for misinterpretation there may be as a result of the different options that were discussed at different times during the meeting, my conclusion at the end of the meeting was dear. And my actions and reactions as demonstrated on the tapes that follow that date show clearly that I did not intend the further payment to Hunt or anyone else be made. These are some of the actions that I took in the weeks that followed in my effort to find the truth, to carry out my responsibilities to enforce the law:

As a tape of our meeting on March 22, the next day, indicates, I directed Mr. Dean to go to Camp David with instructions to put together a written report. I learned 5 days later, on March 26, that he was unable to complete it. And so on March 27, I assigned John Ehrlichman to try to find out what had happened, who was at fault, and in what ways and to what degree.

One of the transcripts I am making public is a call that Mr. Ehrlichman made to the Attorney General on March 28, in which he asked the Attorney General to report to me, the President, directly, any information he might find indicating possible involvement of John Mitchell or by anyone in the White House. I had Mr. Haldeman separately pursue other, independent lines of inquiry.

Throughout, I was trying to reach determinations on matters of both substance and procedure on what the facts were and what was the best way to move the case forward. I concluded that I wanted everyone to go before the grand jury and testify freely and fully. This decision, as you will recall, was publicly announced on March 30, 1973, I waived executive privilege in order to permit everybody to testify. I specifically waived executive privilege with regard to conversations with the President, and I waived the attorney-client privilege with John Dean in order to permit him to testify fully and, I hope, truthfully.

Finally, on April 14—3 weeks after I learned of the coverup from Mr. Dean— Mr. Ehrlichman reported to me on the results of his investigation. As he acknowledged, much of what he had gathered was hearsay, but he had gathered enough to make it clear that the next step was to make his findings completely available to the Attorney General, which I instructed him to do.

And the next day, Sunday, April 15, Attorney General Kleindienst asked to see me, and he reported new information which had come to his attention on this matter. And although he was in no way whatever involved in Watergate, because of his close personal ties, not only to John Mitchell but to other potential people who might be involved, he quite properly removed himself from the case.

We agreed that Assistant Attorney General Henry Petersen, the head of the Criminal Division, a Democrat and career prosecutor, should be placed in complete charge of the investigation.

Later that day, I met with Mr. Petersen. I continued to meet with him, to talk with him, to consult with him, to offer him the full cooperation of the White House—as you will see from these transcripts—even to the point of retaining John Dean on the White House Staff for an extra 2 weeks after he admitted his criminal involvement, because Mr. Petersen thought that would make it easier for the prosecutor to get his cooperation in breaking the case if it should become necessary to grant Mr. Dean’s demand for immunity.

On April 15, when I heard that one of the obstacles to breaking the case was Gordon Liddy’s refusal to talk, I telephoned Mr. Petersen and directed that he should make clear not only to Mr. Liddy but to everyone that—and now I quote directly from the tape of that telephone call—”As far as the President is concerned, everybody in this case is to talk and to tell the truth.” I told him if necessary I would personally meet with Mr. Liddy’s lawyer to assure him that I wanted Liddy to talk and to tell the truth.

From the time Mr. Petersen took charge, the case was solidly within the criminal justice system, pursued personally by the Nation’s top professional prosecutor with the active, personal assistance of the President of the United States. I made clear there was to be no coverup. Let me quote just a few lines from the transcripts—you can read them to verify them—so that you can hear for yourself the orders I was giving in this period.

Speaking to Haldeman and Ehrlichman, I said: “… It is ridiculous to talk about clemency. They all knew that.”

Speaking to Ehrlichman, I said: “We all have to do the right thing… We just cannot have this kind of a business…”

Speaking to Haldeman and Ehrlichman, I said: “The boil had to be pricked … We have to prick the boil and take the heat. Now that’s what we are doing here.”

Speaking to Henry Petersen, I said: “I want you to be sure to understand that you know we am going to get to the bottom of this thing.”

Speaking to John Dean, I said: “Tell the truth. That is the thing I have told everybody around here.”

And then speaking to Haldeman: “And you tell Magruder, ‘now Jeb, this evidence is coming in, you ought to go to the grand jury. Purge yourself if you’re perjured and tell this whole story.'”

I am confident that the American people will see these transcripts for what they are, fragmentary records from a time more than a year ago that now seems very distant, the records of a President and of a man suddenly being confronted and having to cope with information which, if true, would have the most far-reaching consequences, not only for his personal reputation but, more important, for his hopes, his plans, his goals for the people who had elected him as their leader.

If read with an open and a fair mind and read together with the record of the actions I took, these transcripts will show that what I have stated from the beginning to be the truth has been the truth: that I personally had no knowledge of the break-in before it occurred, that I had no knowledge of the coverup until I was informed of it by John Dean on March 21, that I never offered clemency for the defendants, and that after March 21, my actions were directed toward finding the facts and seeing that justice was done, fairly and according to the law.

The facts are there. The conversations are there. The record of actions is there.

To anyone who reads his way through this mass of materials I have provided, it will be totally, abundantly clear that as far as the President’s role with regard to Watergate is concerned, the entire story is there.

As you will see, now that you also will have this mass of evidence I have provided, I have tried to cooperate with the House Judiciary Committee. And I repeat tonight the offer that I have made previously: to answer written interrogatories under oath and, if there are then issues still unresolved, to meet personally with the chairman of the committee and with Congressman Hutchinson to answer their questions under oath.

As the committee conducts its inquiry, I also consider it only essential and fair that my counsel, Mr. St. Clair, should be present to cross-examine witnesses and introduce evidence in an effort to establish the truth.

I am confident that for the overwhelming majority of those who study the evidence that I shall release tomorrow— those who are willing to look at it fully, fairly, and objectively—the evidence will be persuasive and, I hope, conclusive.

We live in a time of very great challenge and great opportunity for America.

We live at a time when peace may become possible in the Middle East for the first time in a generation.

We are at last in the process of fulfilling the hope of mankind for a limitation on nuclear arms—a process that will continue when I meet with the Soviet leaders in Moscow in a few weeks.

We are well on the way toward building a peace that can last, not just for this but for other generations as well.

And here at home, there is vital work to be done in moving to control inflation, to develop our energy resources, to strengthen our economy so that Americans can enjoy ,what they have not had since 1956: full prosperity without war and without inflation.

Every day absorbed by Watergate is a day lost from the work that must be done—by your President and by your Congress—work that must be done in dealing with the great problems that affect your prosperity, affect your security, that could affect your lives.

The materials I make public tomorrow will provide all the additional evidence needed to get Watergate behind us and to get it behind us now.

Never before in the history of the Presidency have records that are so private been made so public.

In giving you these records—blemishes and all—I am placing my trust in the basic fairness of the American people.

I know in my own heart that through the long, painful, and difficult process revealed in these transcripts, I was trying in that period to discover what was right and to do what was right.

I hope and I trust that when you have seen the evidence in its entirety, you will see the truth of that statement.

As for myself, I intend to go forward, to the best of my ability, with the work that you elected me to do. I shall do so in a spirit perhaps best summed up a century ago by another President when he was being subjected to unmerciful attack. Abraham Lincoln said:

Thank you and good evening.

lemonlime · November 28, 2018

21 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Not only that, he probably will have a prime-time televised announcement (honestly surprised he just hasn't gone that route yet) where he will state, while sitting in the Oval, that he did it to protect the country from Hillary.

Seriously. We are pretty close to a modern-day version of Nixon's third Watergate address:

Here's the text of Nixon's address. Just substitute the names and whatnot with present day characters and whatnot, and it's easy to picture Trump doing the same:

Reveal hidden contents

Good evening:

I have asked for this time tonight in order to announce my answer to the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for additional Watergate tapes, and to tell you something about the actions I shall be taking tomorrow—about what I hope they will mean to you and about the very difficult choices that were presented to me.

These actions will at last, once and for all, show that what I knew and what I did with regard to the Watergate break-in and coverup were just as I have described them to you from the very beginning.

I have spent many hours during the past few weeks thinking about what I would say to the American people if I were to reach the decision I shall announce tonight. And so, my words have not been lightly chosen; I can assure you they are deeply felt.

It was almost 2 years ago, in June 1972 that five men broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington. It turned out that they were connected with my reelection committee, and the Watergate break-in became a major issue in the campaign.

The full resources of the FBI and the Justice Department were used to investigate the incident thoroughly. I instructed my staff and campaign aides to cooperate fully with the investigation. The FBI conducted nearly 1,500 interviews. For 9 months—until March 1973—I was assured by those charged with conducting and monitoring the investigations that no one in the White House was involved.

Nevertheless, for more than a year, there have been allegations and insinuations that I knew about the planning of the Watergate break-in and that I was involved in an extensive plot to cover it up. The House Judiciary Committee is now investigating these charges.

On March 6, I ordered all materials that I had previously furnished to the Special Prosecutor turned over to the committee. These included tape recordings of 19 Presidential conversations and more than 700 documents from private White House files.

On April 11, the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for 42 additional tapes of conversations which it contended were necessary for its investigation. I agreed to respond to that subpoena by tomorrow.

In these folders that you see over here on my left are more than 1,200 pages of transcripts of private conversations I participated in between September 15, 1972, and April 27 of 1973 with my principal aides and associates with regard to Watergate. They include all the relevant portions of all of the subpoenaed conversations that were recorded, that is, all portions that relate to the question of what I knew about Watergate or the coverup and what I did about it.

They also include transcripts of other conversations which were not subpoenaed, but which have a significant bearing on the question of Presidential actions with regard to Watergate. These will be delivered to the committee tomorrow.

In these transcripts, portions not relevant to my knowledge or actions with regard to Watergate are not included, but everything that is relevant is included—the rough as well as the smooth—the strategy sessions, the exploration of alternatives, the weighing of human and political costs.

As far as what the President personally knew and did with regard to Watergate and the coverup is concerned, these materials—together with those already made available—will tell it all.

I shall invite Chairman Rodino and the committee’s ranking minority member, Congressman Hutchinson of Michigan, to come to the White House and listen to the actual, full tapes of these conversations, so that they can determine for themselves beyond question that the transcripts are accurate and that everything on the tapes relevant to my knowledge and my actions on Watergate is included. If there should be any disagreement over whether omitted material is relevant, I shall meet with them personally in an effort to settle the matter. I believe this arrangement is fair, and I think it is appropriate.

For many days now, I have spent many hours of my own time personally reviewing these materials and personally deciding questions of relevancy. I believe it is appropriate that the committee’s review should also be made by its own senior elected officials, and not by staff employees.

The task of Chairman Rodino and Congressman Hutchinson will be made simpler than was mine by the fact that the work of preparing the transcripts has been completed. All they will need to do is to satisfy themselves of their authenticity and their completeness.

Ever since the existence of the White House taping system was first made known last summer, I have tried vigorously to guard the privacy of the tapes. I have been well aware that my effort to protect the confidentiality of Presidential conversations has heightened the sense of mystery about Watergate and, in fact, has caused increased suspicions of the President. Many people assume that the tapes must incriminate the President, or that otherwise, he would not insist on their privacy.

But the problem I confronted was this: Unless a President can protect the privacy of the advice he gets, he cannot get the advice he needs.

This principle is recognized in the constitutional doctrine of executive privilege, which has been defended and maintained by every President since Washington and which has been recognized by the courts, whenever tested, as inherent in the Presidency. I consider it to be my constitutional responsibility to defend this principle.

Three factors have now combined to persuade me that a major unprecedented exception to that principle is now necessary:

First, in the present circumstances, the House of Representatives must be able to reach an informed judgment about the President’s role in Watergate.

Second, I am making a major exception to the principle of confidentiality because I believe such action is now necessary in order to restore the principle itself, by clearing the air of the central question that has brought such pressures upon it—and also to provide the evidence which will allow this matter to be brought to a prompt conclusion.

Third, in the context of the current impeachment climate, I believe all the American people, as well as their representatives in Congress, are entitled to have not only the facts but also the evidence that demonstrates those facts.

I want there to be no question remaining about the fact that the President has nothing to hide in this matter.

The impeachment of a President is a remedy of last resort; it is the most solemn act of our entire constitutional process. Now, regardless of whether or not it succeeded, the action of the House, in voting a formal accusation requiring trial by the Senate, would put the Nation through a wrenching ordeal it has endured only once in its lifetime, a century ago, and never since America has become a world power with global responsibilities.

The impact of such an ordeal would be felt throughout the world, and it would have its effect on the lives of all Americans for many years to come.

Because this is an issue that profoundly affects all the American people, in addition to turning over these transcripts to the House Judiciary Committee, I have directed that they should all be made public—all of these that you see here.

To complete the record, I shall also release to the public transcripts of all those portions of the tapes already turned over to the Special Prosecutor and to the committee that relate to Presidential actions or knowledge of the Watergate affair.

During the past year, the wildest accusations have been given banner headlines and ready credence as well. Rumor, gossip, innuendo, accounts from unnamed sources of what a prospective witness might testify to, have filled the morning newspapers and then are repeated on the evening newscasts day after day.

Time and again, a familiar pattern repeated itself. A charge would be reported the first day as what it was—just an allegation. But it would then be referred back to the next day and thereafter as if it were true.

The distinction between fact and speculation grew blurred. Eventually, all seeped into the public consciousness as a vague general impression of massive wrongdoing, implicating everybody, gaining credibility by its endless repetition.

The basic question at issue today is whether the President personally acted improperly in the Watergate matter. Month after month of rumor, insinuation, and charges by just one Watergate witness—John Dean—suggested that the President did act improperly.

This sparked the demands for an impeachment inquiry. This is the question that must be answered. And this is the question that will be answered by these transcripts that I have ordered published tomorrow.

These transcripts cover hour upon hour of discussions that I held with Mr. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Dean, John Mitchell, former Attorney General Kleindienst, Assistant Attorney General Petersen, and others with regard to Watergate.

They were discussions in which I was probing to find out what had happened, who was responsible, what were the various degrees of responsibilities, what were the legal culpabilities, what were the political ramifications, and what actions were necessary and appropriate on the part of the President.

I realize that these transcripts will provide grist for many sensational stories in the press. Parts will seem to be contradictory with one another, and parts will be in conflict with some of the testimony given in the Senate Watergate committee hearings.

I have been reluctant to release these tapes, not just because they will embarrass me and those with whom I have talked— which they will—and not just because they will become the subject of speculation and even ridicule—which they will— and not just because certain parts of them will be seized upon by political and journalistic opponents—which they will.

I have been reluctant because, in these and in all the other conversations in this office, people have spoken their minds freely, never dreaming that specific sentences or even parts of sentences would be picked out as the subjects of national attention and controversy.

I have been reluctant because the principle of confidentiality is absolutely essential to the conduct of the Presidency. In reading the raw transcripts of these conversations, I believe it will be more readily apparent why that principle is essential and must be maintained in the future. These conversations are unusual in their subject matter, but the same kind of uninhibited discussion—and it is that—the same brutal candor is necessary in discussing how to bring warring factions to the peace table or how to move necessary legislation through the Congress.

Names are named in these transcripts. Therefore, it is important to remember that much that appears in them is no more than hearsay or speculation, exchanged as I was trying to find out what really had happened, while my principal aides were reporting to me on rumors and reports that they had beard, while we discussed the various, often conflicting stories that different persons were telling.

As the transcripts will demonstrate, my concerns during this period covered a wide range. The first and obvious one was to find out just exactly what had happened and who was involved.

A second concern was for the people who had been, or might become, involved in Watergate. Some were close advisers, valued friends, others whom I had trusted. And I was also concerned about the human impact on others, especially some of the young people and their families who had come to Washington to work in my Administration, whose lives might be suddenly ruined by something they had done in an excess of loyalty or in the mistaken belief that it would serve the interests of the President.

And then, I was quite frankly concerned about the political implications. This represented potentially a devastating blow to the Administration and to its programs, one which I knew would be exploited for all it was worth by hostile elements in the Congress as well as in the media. I wanted to do what was right, but I wanted to do it in a way that would cause the least unnecessary damage in a highly charged political atmosphere to the Administration.

And fourth, as a lawyer, I felt very strongly that I had to conduct myself in a way that would not prejudice the rights of potential defendants.

And fifth, I was striving to sort out a complex tangle, not only of facts but also questions of legal and moral responsibility. I wanted, above all, to be fair. I wanted to draw distinctions, where those were appropriate, between persons who were active and willing participants on the one hand, and on the other, those who might have gotten inadvertently caught up in the web and be technically indictable but morally innocent.

Despite the confusions and contradictions, what does come through clearly is this:

John Dean charged in sworn Senate testimony that I was “fully aware of the coverup” at the time of our first meeting on September 15, 1972. These transcripts show clearly that I first learned of it when Mr. Dean himself told me about it in this office on March 21—some 6 months later.

Incidentally, these transcripts—covering hours upon hours of conversations— should place in somewhat better perspective the controversy over the 18 1/2 minute gap in the tape of a conversation I had with Mr. Haldeman back in June of 1972.

Now, how it was caused is still a mystery to me and, I think, to many of the experts as well. But I am absolutely certain, however, of one thing: that it was not caused intentionally by my secretary, Rose Mary Woods, or any of my White House assistants. And certainly, if the theory were true that during those 18 1/2 minutes, Mr. Haldeman and I cooked up some sort of a Watergate coverup scheme, as so many have been quick to surmise, it hardly seems likely that in all of our subsequent conversations—many of them are here— which neither of us ever expected would see the light of day, there is nothing remotely indicating such a scheme; indeed, quite the contrary.

From the beginning, I have said that in many places on the tapes there were ambiguities—a statement and comments that different people with different perspectives might interpret in drastically different ways—but although the words may be ambiguous, though the discussions may have explored many alternatives, the record of my actions is totally clear now, and I still believe it was totally correct then.

A prime example is one of the most controversial discussions, that with Mr. Dean on March 21—the one in which he first told me of the coverup, with Mr. Haldeman joining us midway through the conversation.

His revelations to me on March 21 were a sharp surprise, even though the report he gave to me was far from complete, especially since he did not reveal at that time the extent of his own criminal involvement.

I was particularly concerned by his report that one of the Watergate defendants, Howard Hunt, was threatening blackmail unless he and his lawyer were immediately given $120,000 for legal fees and family support, and that he was attempting to blackmail the White House, not by threatening exposure on the Watergate matter, but by threatening to reveal activities that would expose extremely sensitive, highly secret national security matters that he had worked on before Watergate.

I probed, questioned, tried to learn all Mr. Dean knew about who was involved, what was involved. I asked more than 150 questions of Mr. Dean in the course of that conversation.

He said to me, and I quote from the transcripts directly: “I can just tell from our conversation that these are things that you have no knowledge of.”

It was only considerably later that I learned how much there was that he did not tell me then—for example, that he himself had authorized promises of clemency, that he had personally handled money for the Watergate defendants, and that he had suborned perjury of a witness.

I knew that I needed more facts. I knew that I needed the judgments of more people. I knew the facts about the Watergate coverup would have to be made public, but I had to find out more about what they were before I could decide how they could best be made public.

I returned several times to the immediate problem loosed by Mr. Hunt’s blackmail threat, which to me was not a Watergate problem, but one which I regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a potential national security problem of very serious proportions. I considered long and hard whether it might in fact be better to let the payment go forward, at least temporarily, in the hope that this national security matter would not be exposed in the course of uncovering the Watergate coverup.

I believed then, and I believe today, that I had a responsibility as President to consider every option, including this one, where production of sensitive national security matters was at issue—protection of such matters. In the course of considering it and of “just thinking out loud,” as I put it at one point, I several times suggested that meeting Hunt’s demands might be necessary.

But then I also traced through where that would lead. The money could be raised. But money demands would lead inescapably to clemency demands, and clemency could not be granted. I said, and I quote directly from the tape: “It is wrong, that’s for sure.” I pointed out, and I quote again from the tape: “But in the end we are going to be bled to death. And in the end it is all going to come out anyway. Then you get the worst of both worlds. We are going to lose, and people are going to—”

And Mr. Haldeman interrupts me and says: “And look like dopes!”

And I responded, “And in effect look like a coverup. So that we cannot do.”

Now, I recognize that this tape of March 21 is one which different meanings could be read in by different people. But by the end of the meeting, as the tape shows, my decision was to convene a new grand jury and to send everyone before the grand jury with instructions to testify.

Whatever the potential for misinterpretation there may be as a result of the different options that were discussed at different times during the meeting, my conclusion at the end of the meeting was dear. And my actions and reactions as demonstrated on the tapes that follow that date show clearly that I did not intend the further payment to Hunt or anyone else be made. These are some of the actions that I took in the weeks that followed in my effort to find the truth, to carry out my responsibilities to enforce the law:

As a tape of our meeting on March 22, the next day, indicates, I directed Mr. Dean to go to Camp David with instructions to put together a written report. I learned 5 days later, on March 26, that he was unable to complete it. And so on March 27, I assigned John Ehrlichman to try to find out what had happened, who was at fault, and in what ways and to what degree.

One of the transcripts I am making public is a call that Mr. Ehrlichman made to the Attorney General on March 28, in which he asked the Attorney General to report to me, the President, directly, any information he might find indicating possible involvement of John Mitchell or by anyone in the White House. I had Mr. Haldeman separately pursue other, independent lines of inquiry.

Throughout, I was trying to reach determinations on matters of both substance and procedure on what the facts were and what was the best way to move the case forward. I concluded that I wanted everyone to go before the grand jury and testify freely and fully. This decision, as you will recall, was publicly announced on March 30, 1973, I waived executive privilege in order to permit everybody to testify. I specifically waived executive privilege with regard to conversations with the President, and I waived the attorney-client privilege with John Dean in order to permit him to testify fully and, I hope, truthfully.

Finally, on April 14—3 weeks after I learned of the coverup from Mr. Dean— Mr. Ehrlichman reported to me on the results of his investigation. As he acknowledged, much of what he had gathered was hearsay, but he had gathered enough to make it clear that the next step was to make his findings completely available to the Attorney General, which I instructed him to do.

And the next day, Sunday, April 15, Attorney General Kleindienst asked to see me, and he reported new information which had come to his attention on this matter. And although he was in no way whatever involved in Watergate, because of his close personal ties, not only to John Mitchell but to other potential people who might be involved, he quite properly removed himself from the case.

We agreed that Assistant Attorney General Henry Petersen, the head of the Criminal Division, a Democrat and career prosecutor, should be placed in complete charge of the investigation.

Later that day, I met with Mr. Petersen. I continued to meet with him, to talk with him, to consult with him, to offer him the full cooperation of the White House—as you will see from these transcripts—even to the point of retaining John Dean on the White House Staff for an extra 2 weeks after he admitted his criminal involvement, because Mr. Petersen thought that would make it easier for the prosecutor to get his cooperation in breaking the case if it should become necessary to grant Mr. Dean’s demand for immunity.

On April 15, when I heard that one of the obstacles to breaking the case was Gordon Liddy’s refusal to talk, I telephoned Mr. Petersen and directed that he should make clear not only to Mr. Liddy but to everyone that—and now I quote directly from the tape of that telephone call—”As far as the President is concerned, everybody in this case is to talk and to tell the truth.” I told him if necessary I would personally meet with Mr. Liddy’s lawyer to assure him that I wanted Liddy to talk and to tell the truth.

From the time Mr. Petersen took charge, the case was solidly within the criminal justice system, pursued personally by the Nation’s top professional prosecutor with the active, personal assistance of the President of the United States. I made clear there was to be no coverup. Let me quote just a few lines from the transcripts—you can read them to verify them—so that you can hear for yourself the orders I was giving in this period.

Speaking to Haldeman and Ehrlichman, I said: “… It is ridiculous to talk about clemency. They all knew that.”

Speaking to Ehrlichman, I said: “We all have to do the right thing… We just cannot have this kind of a business…”

Speaking to Haldeman and Ehrlichman, I said: “The boil had to be pricked … We have to prick the boil and take the heat. Now that’s what we are doing here.”

Speaking to Henry Petersen, I said: “I want you to be sure to understand that you know we am going to get to the bottom of this thing.”

Speaking to John Dean, I said: “Tell the truth. That is the thing I have told everybody around here.”

And then speaking to Haldeman: “And you tell Magruder, ‘now Jeb, this evidence is coming in, you ought to go to the grand jury. Purge yourself if you’re perjured and tell this whole story.'”

I am confident that the American people will see these transcripts for what they are, fragmentary records from a time more than a year ago that now seems very distant, the records of a President and of a man suddenly being confronted and having to cope with information which, if true, would have the most far-reaching consequences, not only for his personal reputation but, more important, for his hopes, his plans, his goals for the people who had elected him as their leader.

If read with an open and a fair mind and read together with the record of the actions I took, these transcripts will show that what I have stated from the beginning to be the truth has been the truth: that I personally had no knowledge of the break-in before it occurred, that I had no knowledge of the coverup until I was informed of it by John Dean on March 21, that I never offered clemency for the defendants, and that after March 21, my actions were directed toward finding the facts and seeing that justice was done, fairly and according to the law.

The facts are there. The conversations are there. The record of actions is there.

To anyone who reads his way through this mass of materials I have provided, it will be totally, abundantly clear that as far as the President’s role with regard to Watergate is concerned, the entire story is there.

As you will see, now that you also will have this mass of evidence I have provided, I have tried to cooperate with the House Judiciary Committee. And I repeat tonight the offer that I have made previously: to answer written interrogatories under oath and, if there are then issues still unresolved, to meet personally with the chairman of the committee and with Congressman Hutchinson to answer their questions under oath.

As the committee conducts its inquiry, I also consider it only essential and fair that my counsel, Mr. St. Clair, should be present to cross-examine witnesses and introduce evidence in an effort to establish the truth.

I am confident that for the overwhelming majority of those who study the evidence that I shall release tomorrow— those who are willing to look at it fully, fairly, and objectively—the evidence will be persuasive and, I hope, conclusive.

We live in a time of very great challenge and great opportunity for America.

We live at a time when peace may become possible in the Middle East for the first time in a generation.

We are at last in the process of fulfilling the hope of mankind for a limitation on nuclear arms—a process that will continue when I meet with the Soviet leaders in Moscow in a few weeks.

We are well on the way toward building a peace that can last, not just for this but for other generations as well.

And here at home, there is vital work to be done in moving to control inflation, to develop our energy resources, to strengthen our economy so that Americans can enjoy ,what they have not had since 1956: full prosperity without war and without inflation.

Every day absorbed by Watergate is a day lost from the work that must be done—by your President and by your Congress—work that must be done in dealing with the great problems that affect your prosperity, affect your security, that could affect your lives.

The materials I make public tomorrow will provide all the additional evidence needed to get Watergate behind us and to get it behind us now.

Never before in the history of the Presidency have records that are so private been made so public.

In giving you these records—blemishes and all—I am placing my trust in the basic fairness of the American people.

I know in my own heart that through the long, painful, and difficult process revealed in these transcripts, I was trying in that period to discover what was right and to do what was right.

I hope and I trust that when you have seen the evidence in its entirety, you will see the truth of that statement.

As for myself, I intend to go forward, to the best of my ability, with the work that you elected me to do. I shall do so in a spirit perhaps best summed up a century ago by another President when he was being subjected to unmerciful attack. Abraham Lincoln said:

Thank you and good evening.

The sad part is that speech primarily makes me miss having a president who can talk I’m coherent and complete sentences

shnsajax · November 28, 2018

So how many weeks are we from Trump admitting to colluding with a foreign adversary to win the presidency, but that it was no big deal because he kept Hillary out of office? 4, 6, 8?
Thats trumps end play and it will resonate with a good 40% of the fucking morons in this country. Sad!

He basically admitted it yesterday in mentioning how many of his associates didn’t collude.

Sign In

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Recommended Posts

ShaggyBevo RIP 3873

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Goredho

Incredulity

Chooky

Posted Images

Captainant 28589

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Chooky 13341

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ted Lange 16433

Link to comment

Share on other sites

atomheartbevo 90665

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mdhorn 6166

Link to comment

Share on other sites

triplehorn 2664

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Captainant 28589

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mdhorn 6166

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ted Lange 16433

Link to comment

Share on other sites

retread 2951

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Captainant 28589

Link to comment

Share on other sites

The Royal We 3100

Link to comment

Share on other sites

shnsajax 3607

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DDD Dad 14661

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Lagunamadre 1975

Link to comment

Share on other sites

horncyclist 1391

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Asithappens 978

Link to comment

Share on other sites

David Dennison 19567

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SmokeyTheBear 5569

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SKJ 1324

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Foosters 18286

Link to comment