Editing Archibald Cox (section)

===Joining issue===
The Special Prosecutor's office had to catch up with the federal prosecutors. The Senate Watergate committee was in competition for Dean's testimony,{{sfn|Dash|2002|pp=174–175}} and leaks suggested they were about to get it. On June 3, published reports said that Dean would testify that he had spoken to the president about Watergate 35 times. On the next day the Deputy White House spokesman admitted that the two spoke frequently, but insisted that the discussions were in furtherance of the president's new determination to get to the bottom of the scandal. The spokesman admitted there were logs of all such conversations, but that they would not be turned over on the ground that they were covered by "executive privilege."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/06/05/archives/nixondean-talks-on-case-conceded-by-white-house.html|last=Herbers|first=John|title=Nixon-Dean Talks on Case Conceded by White House|work=New York Times|date=June 5, 1973|page=1|access-date=April 22, 2016|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170909054749/http://www.nytimes.com/1973/06/05/archives/nixondean-talks-on-case-conceded-by-white-house.html|archive-date=September 9, 2017|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Before Cox could litigate the issue of executive privilege and his entitlement to the documents, he had to fashion a reasonably specific subpoena that might be enforced in court. But he had no idea how the White House files were organized, so he scheduled a meeting with the president's counsel on June 6 to discuss his documents request.

The president's new defense team was made up of one-time Democrat [[Leonard Garment]], University of Texas constitutional law professor [[Charles Alan Wright]], and Nixon true believer [[J. Fred Buzhardt]]. Cox made three requests: the Petersen document concerning his meeting with Nixon; Petersen's memorandum to Haldeman summarizing the same meeting; and the tape of the conversation between Nixon and Dean mentioned by Petersen from the same meeting. Vorenberg added a request for all logs between the president and key aides from June 1972 to May 1973. Buzhardt said that only the president could determine what he would produce. Garment and Wright argued about executive privilege, which Wright said applied not only to presidential documents but ones of his aides such as Haldeman and Ehrlichman. As for the tape of the April 15 Dean meeting, Buzhardt (falsely) suggested it was not a tape ''of'' the meeting but rather the president's later dictated tape ''about'' the meeting. No resolution was arrived at, but the president's lawyers did not reject the requests outright.{{sfn|Gormley|1997|pp=274–277}}

The president's legal team employed an approach that would become familiar: state an overly broad position, equivocate, delay, and then abruptly make partial concessions in the face of perceived popular disapproval. Shortly after their meeting, Cox announced a sudden press conference (unrelated to the discovery dispute). Buzhardt, thinking that Cox planned to go public with the dispute over the documents, called Vorenberg. Instead of discussing the press conference Vorenberg reminded Buzhardt of the documents requests. Buzhardt assured Vorenberg that a package would soon be delivered. Twenty minutes before the press conference, the package arrived containing the logs of presidential meetings and telephone conferences with key aides, including Dean, Haldeman, and Ehrlichman.<ref>{{harvnb|Gormley|1997|p=278}}; {{harvnb|Doyle|1977|pp=91–92}}.</ref> The press conference took place and involved (as was originally planned) only an introduction to several new attorneys. The documents, however, together with the logs of Haldeman and Ehrlichman themselves proved essential to draft subpoenas sufficiently specific to elicit documents, and more crucially when their existence would later become known, the tapes.

By mid-June the office was fully functioning. Silbert's U.S. attorney's team was finally eased out on June 29, much to the chagrin of the federal prosecutors.{{efn|The prosecutors were broadsided on June 21 by an ''amicus'' brief of the [[American Civil Liberties Union|ACLU]] in support of McCord's motion to vacate his conviction. The ACLU brief urged the court to vacate all the convictions based on multiple frauds perpetrated on the court by prosecutors who had engaged in a "sham prosecution."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/06/21/archives/aclu-urges-a-new-watergate-trial-charging-all-of-those-responsible.html|last=Rugaber|first=Walter|title=A.C.L.U. Urges a New Watergate Trial Charging 'All of Those Responsible'|work=New York Times|date=June 21, 1973|access-date=April 22, 2016|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170909052543/http://www.nytimes.com/1973/06/21/archives/aclu-urges-a-new-watergate-trial-charging-all-of-those-responsible.html|archive-date=September 9, 2017|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Silbert's diaries showed that he was frustrated by the allegations of people who believed he was not zealous enough and resented the appointment of Cox. He requested a vindication of his teams' proceedings. Cox replied that he saw nothing that showed they acted other than pursuant to the "honest judgment" and in "complete good faith."{{sfn|Gormley|1997|pp=280–283}}}} The task force that was to show the first results was McBridge's campaign finance group. On July 6, American Airlines admitted that it made an illegal $55,000 campaign contribution to Nixon's personal lawyer [[Herbert W. Kalmbach|Herb Kalmbach]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/07/archives/airline-discloses-illegal-donation-to-72-nixon-drive-american-says.html|last=Hersh|first=Seymour M.|title=Airline Discloses Illegal Donation to '72 Nixon Drive|work=New York Times|date=July 7, 1973|page=1|access-date=April 22, 2016|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170909053321/http://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/07/archives/airline-discloses-illegal-donation-to-72-nixon-drive-american-says.html|archive-date=September 9, 2017|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Within two months the Special Prosecutor would uncover illegal contributions by Ashland Oil, Gulf Oil, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Phillips Petroleum, and Braniff Airlines.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/09/16/archives/the-corporate-political-squeeze-illegal-contributions-raise.html|last=Jensen|first=Michael C.|title=The Corporate Political Squeeze: Illegal Contributions Raise Morality Issue|work=New York Times|date=September 16, 1973|pages=BF1, BF2|access-date=April 22, 2016|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170909054726/http://www.nytimes.com/1973/09/16/archives/the-corporate-political-squeeze-illegal-contributions-raise.html|archive-date=September 9, 2017|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> While the center of media attention was on the cover up, by January, according to a Harris survey, 81% of Americans believed "illegal corporate money-givers" were "harmful to the country."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1974/01/06/archives/watergate-raises-new-problems-of-giving-and-getting-for-businessmen.html|last=Jensen|first=Michael C.|title=Watergate Raises New Problems of Giving and Getting for Businessmen|work=New York Times|date=January 6, 1974|access-date=April 22, 2016|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170909054719/http://www.nytimes.com/1974/01/06/archives/watergate-raises-new-problems-of-giving-and-getting-for-businessmen.html|archive-date=September 9, 2017|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>