http:\/\/youtu.be\/zuzMG77_Arg<\/p>\n
John Dean explains the origins of Watergate to President Nixon.<\/p>\n
There’s no doubt about the seriousness of the
\nproblem we’ve got. We have a cancer–within, close
\nto the Presidency, that’s growing. It’s
\ngrowing daily. It’s compounding, it grows
\ngeometrically now because it compounds
\nitself. Uh, that’ll be clear as I explain
\nyou know, some of the details, uh, of why it
\nis, and it basically is because (1) we’re
\nbeing blackmailed; (2) uh, people are going
\nto start perjuring themself very quickly
\nthat have not had to perjure themselves to
\nprotect other people and the like. And that
\nis just–and there is no assurance–<\/p>\n
PRESIDENT: That it won’t bust.<\/p>\n
DEAN: That, that won’t bust.<\/p>\n
PRESIDENT: True.<\/p>\n
DEAN: So, let me give you the sort of basic facts’
\ntalking first about the Watergate; and then
\nabout Segretti; and then about some of the
\nperipheral items that, uh, have come up.
\nFirst of all, on, on the Watergate: How did
\nit all start, where did it start? It
\nstarted with an instruction to me from Bob
\nHaldeman to see if we couldn’t set up a
\nperfectly legitimate campaign intelligence
\noperation over at the Re-election Committee.
\nNot being in this business, I turned to
\nsomebody who had been in this business, Jack
\nCaulfield, who is, I don’t know if you
\nremember Jack or not. He was your original
\nbodyguard before<\/p>\n
PRESIDENT: Yeah.<\/p>\n
DEAN: …they had…<\/p>\n
PRESIDENT: Yeah.<\/p>\n
DEAN: …candidate, candidate…<\/p>\n
PRESIDENT: Yeah.<\/p>\n
DEAN: …protection, an old New York City
\npoliceman.<\/p>\n
PRESIDENT: Right, I know, I know him.<\/p>\n
DEAN: Uh, Jack had worked for John and then was
\ntransferred to my office. I said, “Jack,
\ncome up with a plan that, you know, is a
\nnormal infiltration, I mean, you know,
\nbuying information from secretaries and
\nall that sort of thing.” He did, he put
\ntogether a plan. It was kicked around, and,
\nuh, I went to Ehrlichman with it. I went to
\nMitchell with it, and the consensus was that
\nCaulfield wasn’t the man to do this. Uh, in
\nretrospect, that might have been a bad call,
\n’cause he is an incredibly cautious person
\nand, and wouldn’t have put the situation to
\nwhere it is today.<\/p>\n