The Mack Printz Decision: Richard Mack Talks States Rights in Historic G. Gordon Liddy Interview

Their questions to our attorney were very appropriate to the point. Can you remember any particular questions that they asked? All of it, yeah, on both sides. Most of their questions centered on and focused on the very heart of our case, which is, you know, based on federalism. Does the federal government have the authority to be this big, intervening monster and just do whatever they feel like they can do any time they want to do it? And so their questions centered on that particular principle. How about the question of whether, you know, they mandated that you expend your time and your energy and the resources of your department to help enforce this federal statute.

But there was no appropriation of any funds for you to do that. In other words, the taxpayers of Graham County are supposed to foot the bill for the federal government here. And that was made clear in the case that this was indeed an unfunded mandate. Now, the justices were solid on that point. And then they asked both attorneys on both sides, and I believe it was the Assistant Solicitor General, Dullinger, who represented the federal government on this issue. And it said, does the federal government have the authority to do this? And Scalia spoke up. What a great man.

Oh, yeah. And he says, if the Congress can do this, then they could balance the budget tomorrow. All they have to do is tell the states to do it, just like they’re telling Sheriff Mack to do this. Yeah. By the way, it’s Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County, Arizona. I’ve just gotten a sign that tells you who you are. See, you didn’t know who you were before John gave you this sign. We appreciate John’s efforts. Which way to think on one side says Richard Mack, and the others is Sheriff Graham County. John writes it down so we’ll know.

Quite miraculously, I have Lucy and Rich here with me. They got to go to the court case with me, my son and daughter. Oh, that’s great. Good to see you. Let me tell you. John, by the way, we lose with us. Lucy’s hiding. Lucy’s hiding. You’ve got a dad to be proud of. In fact, Lucy has to ask you some questions for her high school class. Okay. All right. Does she want to ask me now? That’s all right. Sure. Come on over, Lucy. Come on over. All right. But she’s been studying some key questions from her class, and she wanted to ask you personally.

Okay. To particular Watergate. Is that all right? Okay. That’s fine. Sure. Absolutely. Okay. I just wanted to ask you whose idea was Watergate, and who brought it on. John Dean. John Dean recruited me for Watergate. And he recruited me in the office of Bud Crow in the White House for Watergate. And actually, what he specifically recruited me for was for an all-out offensive, as well as defensive intelligence operation, covert, the whole thing. And then, when John Dean testified, he lied under oath repeatedly. He’s a serial perjurer. There’s a big lawsuit going on about it right now.

And he wrote a book that your teacher may recall called Blind Ambition. That’s John Dean’s book. And in it, he says how carefully he prepared and how he did all of this and everything. He said he prepared for that book just as carefully as he did for his testimony. Well, when he was deposed under oath recently, he admitted he didn’t even write the book. He didn’t even read it all. And, you know, because we caught him in all these lies. Okay. And why did you do it, even though you knew it was wrong? For the same reason.

They didn’t know it was wrong. It was illegal. You can have a distinction between something that is morally wrong and something that is illegal. For example, it is illegal to go through a stop sign. And that is because the laws of the state of Arizona, let us say, say that you must not go through a stop sign. Other than that, if there weren’t any law that said that, it would be morally and legally indifferent. Now, even if there were no law and there were no sign, if you came rushing at an intersection and you didn’t look both ways, then you would be acting recklessly and then you’d be recklessly endangering somebody’s lives.

And that would be wrong even without a law. Okay. And how much was Nixon really involved? He wasn’t involved at all. At all? No. Matter of fact, on the 19th, the morning of the 19th, I told John Dean exactly what had happened and everything, because John Dean had recruited me for this, and he had asked to see me about it. And I had every expectation that he was the counsel of the president, that he would go tell his client, the president. You know, here’s exactly what happened, and now you know the worst, and you can take whatever action is appropriate.

Dean withheld a whole lot of critical information from the president. Most especially, anything that would indicate to the president that John Dean had anything to do with it. So when Nixon said that, he didn’t know anything about it, he really didn’t know anything about it? Not beforehand. Not beforehand. Okay. Thank you. You’re welcome. You’re welcome. Well, those were good questions. They were very good questions. I wish everybody was going to a high school that prepared someone well enough in history as that. That’s very good. By the way, John, we need that on tape, so if you could get us that.

Gordon, if I could make a suggestion, too. Yes. She should listen on Friday, because we’re doing a show all about that while you’re being deposed. That’s right. I’m going to be deposed in that case, and so we’re going to do a Watergate show, and all kinds of stuff is going to be on Friday. Well, we get your show now. Great. I’m delighted. In Safford, Arizona. You’re on. Boy, that’s wonderful. Yeah, K-8-0 in Safford, Arizona. Thank you very, very much. What does this mean? Well, this has to do with what you’re just talking about. This is from the Associated Press, the White House.

President Clinton says that he has no doubts the Brady law is constitutional. Oh, well, that settles it. You’ve got to stop there. This issue settled. That’s right. He has no doubts that all his contributions were legal and everything else. Clinton spoke as the Supreme Court prepared to hear arguments about the gun control law, which mandates a waiting period before handgun purchases. Speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, the president said he hopes the justices uphold the measure. He says it does not infringe on constitutional right to bear arms. That’s not the point, is it? Clinton adds the Brady law has made America a safer place.

He contends it’s prevented tens of thousands of convicted criminals and mentally ill people from getting guns. Well, so far as we know, it has prevented four criminals from getting guns. The rest of these things were all mistakes. They made a check and there was, let us say, there was no record of the resolution of a case and they denied a firearm to somebody. And the guy went and said, you know, you’re denying me the wrong way. And these tens of thousands of things are just mistakes that they’ve had to rectify. Yes. As a police officer and as a sheriff, I tend to deal with reality.

Don’t tell me how many numbers you can make up and say how many people were denied guns. That’s ridiculous. No one can be denied a gun in this country. That’s true. The government cannot guarantee that. So tell me how many people went to jail. How many people were prosecuted? You’re not going to have an impact on law enforcement until you tell me how many people you put to jail on this bill. And it’s only been four or five people. That’s ridiculous. What a waste of time. Absolutely. Absolutely waste of time. And a huge amount of the money of the people of your county, which has not been appropriated by President Clinton.

Well, it’s going to be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does. Have you gotten any kind of an inkling from your counsel as to approximately when they expect a decision from the Supreme Court? Anywhere from two to three months from now. Two to three months from now. Okay. So sometime next spring? Probably March. Probably March. Okay. Which would be, I think, a turning point for this country. It would be wonderful. It would be wonderful. Ladies and gentlemen, that little music cue means that, unfortunately, we have run out of time. I want to particularly thank Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County, Arizona, who came all the way from downtown Washington at the Supreme Court.

And I know where that is. That’s about as far away from this station as you can get in Washington, D.C. And still be in Washington, D.C. He came all the way out here, and he brought his two fine children, his son and his daughter here. And I can tell you that his daughter, when she goes to school, pays attention. [tr:trw].