Nixon's letter to Judge Sirica, rejecting subpoena. (It didn't end well for Nixon)
https://law.duke.edu/features/2005/siricanixon/
"In the summer of 1973, faced with a grand jury subpoena demanding that he turn over tapes of Oval Office conversations thought to relate to the Watergate investigation, President Richard Nixon L 37 responded with a personal letter to the presiding judge, John J. Sirica of the District of Columbia district court.
I must decline to obey the command of that subpoena. In so doing I follow the example of a long line of my predecessors who have consistently adhered to the position that the president is not subject to compulsory process from the courts, the president wrote in his letter dated July 23, 1973. He claimed that all communications he had with his aides were privileged, and that executive privilege was absolute.
.....
By July 1973, Schroeder said, the investigation into the 1972 break-in at the Watergate Hotel headquarters of the Democratic National Committee had intensified, in spite of the burglary convictions of seven relatively low-level operatives of the committee to reelect the president. When a White House employee, Alexander Butterfield, disclosed to a Senate committee on July 16, 1973, that the White House had a taping system, the investigation really began honing in on what the president knew and when he knew it, said Schroeder.
At that point, the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, went to the grand jury and quickly obtained from Judge Sirica a subpoena asking the president to turn over tape recordings of particular conversations in the Oval Office.
Following the delivery of his letter to Judge Sirica, the president mounted a formal court challenge. The judges refusal of a motion to quash the subpoena was upheld on appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court convened a special summer session to hear the matter on an expedited basisthough not before the president had notoriously ordered the firing of Special Prosecutor Cox for refusing an offer to have a senator provide transcripts of the tape. That move, Schroeder said, was fully in keeping with the presidents view that all the powers of the executive branch were held by the president alone; Cox was his subordinate who had to follow his orders or be terminated.
While the Supreme Court recognized the presidents claim of executive privilege in a unanimous decision, it did not find it absolute, Schroeder pointed out. In the circumstances, the privilege gave way to the superior constitutional claim of the district court and the criminal trial proceeding there. The Court also left many other questions open, many of them being debated today, using the basic frameworks on the one hand that President Nixon laid out in his letter, and on the other hand, that the special prosecutor defended in his briefs and arguments, he said.".....(more)