Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4520555
label
Federal Election Commission - Tennessee Senate Election
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4520555
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Federal Election Commission - Tennessee Senate Election
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Tennessee
Congressional elections
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4520555
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1977-01-01
month
1
year
1977
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1977-01-01
month
1
year
1977
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
79c444e59b87c367
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 16, folder "Federal Election Commission -
Tennessee Senate Election" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential
Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 16 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
COMMUSSION
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
1325 K STREET N.W.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
WASHINGTON,D.C. 20463
January 4, 1977
Honorable Edward H. Levi
Attorney General of the United States
Department of Justice, Room #5111
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
The enclosed report of General Counsel John G. Murphy, Jr.
in MUR 298 (76) dated December 21, 1976, deals with apparent
violations of the confidentiality provisions of 2 U.S.C. $437g
in connection with the Commission's investigation of a complaint
relating to the U.S. Senatorial election in Tennessee.
The report summarizes an investigation which was conducted
by General Counsel Murphy and the Commission's Chief Investigator,
Mr. Michael Hershman. During the course of this investigation
it developed that the Commission's Chairman, Vernon W. Thomson,
may have been involved, among others. As you will appreciate,
this has presented the Commission with a problem of great
delicacy and difficulty.
The report was considered by the Commission on December 22,
1976, and again today, January 4, 1977, with Chairman Thomson
absenting himself-on both occasions. The five Commissioners
participating have now unanimously concluded that it would not
be appropriate for the Commission to handle this matter further.
We are accordingly referring the report to you as Attorney
General.
A copy of all statements taken during the investigation
of MUR 298 will be supplied to you as soon as duplication is
completed.
Copies of this letter and of General Counsel Murphy's
report are being transmitted to the Chairmen of the Senate
Rules and House Administration Committees, and will become
part of the public record.
Yours very truly,
Thomas E. Harris
REVOLUTION
THOMAS E. HARRIS
AMERICAN
BICENTENNIAL
Vice Chairman
GREAT FORD LIDRAR,
1776-1976
1-4-77
Cityline
BY TIM WYNGAARD
SCRIPPS-HOWARD STAFF WRITER
WASHINGTON, JAN. 4 THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (FEC) IS
PROBING CHARGES THAT ITS OWN CHAIRMAN LEAKED A STORY DESIGNED TO HELP
A REPUBLICAN SENATOR IN DEEP TROUBLE IN LAST FALL'S ELECTION.
SOURCES INVOLVED IN THE PROBE SAY FEC INVESTIGATORS ARE CONDUCTING
AN INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS THAT FORMER REPUBLICAN REF. VERNON W.
THOMSON, WIS., LEAKED A STORY DAMAGING TO DEMOCRAT JAMES SASSER, WHO
TWO NEEKS LATER BEAT GOP SEN. WILLIAM E. BROCK IN THE TENNESSEE
ELECTION.
THOMSON, UNAVAILABLE FOR COMMENT: ALLEGEDLY TOLD FORMER DEFENSE
SECRETARY MELVIN R. LAIRD, A REPUBLICAN THAT THE FEC WAS DEMANDING
SASSER'S CAMPAIGN FINANCE RECORDS.
AND LAIRD, WHO WOULD NOT COMMENT PASSED THE INFORMATION THROUGH
ASSOCIATES TO BROCK'S STAFF IN AN EFFORT TO BOOST BROCK'S SAGGING
CAMPAIGN IN THE CLOSING DAYS OF THE RACE, ACCORDING TO THE SOURCES.
UNDER FEDERAL LAW, IT IS ILLEGAL FOR FEC MEMBERS AND EMPLOYES TO
MAKE PUBLIC INFORMATION REGARDING CONTINUING AGENCY INVESTIGATIONS OF
FEDERAL ELECTIONS. PENALTIES, UNDER TWO SEPARATE SECTIONS OF THE LAW,
INVOLVE FINES OF UP TO $5,000.
THE STORY RECEIVED WIDESPREAD NEWSPAPER AND TELEVISION COVERAGE IN
TENNESSEE AND WHILE IT DID NOT DEFEAT SASSER WAS WIDELY USED BY
BROCK'S FORCES IN THE CLOSING DAYS OF THE RACE.
AN FEC SPOKESMAN SAID YESTERDAY (MONDAY) THAT THOMSON WHO SERVED
IN CONGRESS WITH LAIRD WHEN BOTH HERE MEMBERS OF WISCONSIN'S
DELEGATION WAS FORBIDDEN BY LAW FROM DISCUSSING ANY ASPECT OF AN
ON-GOING INVESTIGATION. AND AN INTERNAL PROBE OF HOW ANY SUCH STORY
LEAKED FROM THE FEC WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN EXTENSION" OF THE
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION AND CANNOT BE COMMENTED UPON, SAID FEC
SPOKESMAN DAVID H. FISKE.
SASSER WAS UNDER FEC INVESTIGATION AS A RESULT OF CHARGES BY AN
UNSUCCESSFUL PRIMARY OPPONENT THAT SASSER'S CAMPAIGN OBTAINED
IMPROPER LOANS AND ILLEGALLY USED CORPORATE AIRCRAFT. SASSER HAS
DENIED THOSE CHARGES.
THE ORIGINAL STORY BROKE IN TENNESSEE LAST OcT. 25 ONE WEEK BEFORE
THE GENERAL ELECTION. IT REPORTED THAT THE FEC HAD ACTED DAYS BEFORE
TO REQUIRE SASSER TO PRODUCE HIS CAMPAIGN FINANCE RECORDS. THE STORY
ALSO CONTAINED CONFIRMATION FROM A SASSER AIDE THAT THE MATERIAL HAD
BEEN 'OFFICIALLY REQUESTED'' BY THE AGENCY.
THE SOURCES FAMILIAR WITH THE INVESTIGATION OF THE LEAK SAID THOMSON
HAD TOLD LAIRD OF THE SASSER INQUIRY. LAIRD THEN REPORTEDLY PASSED
THE INFORMATION TO A FORMER AIDE: CARL S. WALLACE, NOW-A WASHINGTON
LOBBYIST.
STATE
THE
WALLACE, THE SOURCES SAID THEN TOLD FORMER TENNESSEE REPUBLICAN
REP. DAN H. KUYKENDALL, WHO ALSO IS NOW A WASHINGTON LOBBYIST.
KUYKENDALL RELAYED THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE FEC INQUIRY INTO
SASSER'S RECORDS TO BROCK'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER THOMAS BELL.
LESS THAN 72 HOURS AFTER BELL RECEIVED IT: THE STORY RECEIVED MAJOR
TREATMENT FROM TENNESSEENEWSPAPERS AND TELEVISION.
NONE OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION HOWEVER: CHARGE
THAT BROCK A CONTENDER FOR ELECTION AS REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CHAIRMAN
LATER THIS MONTH WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE TRANSMISSION OF THE
STORY.
MORE.
WYNGAARD 2
NOR HAS IT BEEN CHARGED DIRECTLY THAT THOMSON KNOWINGLY PASSED THE
INFORMATION FOR OVERTLY PARTISAN REASONS. WILLFULLY DIVULGING SUCH
INFORMATION COULD BRING AN FEC FINE OF UP TO $5,000 WHILE FINES FOR
SIMPLY MAKING INFORMATION PUBLIC DURING AN INVESTIGATION ARE LIMITED
TO $2,000.
THOMSON WAS NAMED TO THE SIX-MEMBER FEC - WHICH OVERSEES COMPLIANCE
WITH FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS - BY PRESIDENT FORD AFTER BEING DEFEATED
IN 1974 FOR AN EIGHTH TERM IN THE HOUSE.
SHNS
STATE FORD LIBRARY
TERMS ELECTION COMMISSION
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
1325 K STREET N.W.
UNITED STATES Of AMERICA
WASHINGTON,D.C. 20463
January 4, 1977
2:00 P. M.
COMMISSION ACTION
It was moved by Vice Chairman Harris that:
The Federal Election Commission refer the General Counsel's report
in the matter of MUR 298 (76) to the Attorney General of the United
States, that the report be transmitted without recommendation, and
that a copy of the report and the letter of transmittal to the Attorney
General be sent to the President of the United States; Senator Howard
Cannon, Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee; and the Honorable
Frank Thompson, Chairman of the House Committee on Administration;
and that each of the aforenamed be contacted immediately by telephone
informing them that the report is being transmitted and that they are
asked to withhold judgment on the matter until they have had an
opportunity to receive the report, and
that Vernon W. Thomson, Chairman of the Federal Election Commission,
be personally informed of the above action at the same time the other
parties are contacted.
The vote on the motion carried unanimously. (5-0).
Marjorie Secretary to the Commission W. Emmons R. FORD
LIBRARY
AMERICAN REVOLUTION WEENTENNING
1776-1976
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT
In Re An Unknown Respondent
MUR 298 (76)
I.
Preface
MUR 298 (76) was opened by the Commission on Wednesday,
October 27, 1976 with a finding of reason to believe that
an unnamed respondent had violated the confidentiality
provisions of 2 U.S.C. $437g in connection with the
Commission's investigation of MUR 216(76), which involved
the Democratic Senatorial Campaign in Tennessee. Evidence
supporting the finding of reason to believe had been
supplied by an article appearing in the October 25, 1976
edition of The Nashville Banner, in which it was reported
that the Commission had subpoenaed records of the Democra-
tic senatorial candidate in that state. Because of the
importance and sensitivity of the apparent breach of
confidentiality reflected by that article, and because the
article had wholly arbitrarily and improperly injected the
Commission into a close senatorial race, the General
Counsel personally conducted the ensuing investigation
with the assistance of the Commission's Chief Investigator,
Mr. Michael Hershman. During the course of investigation
65 depositions were taken, 14 other interviews conducted,
and six subpoenas were served, five for records and one
for personal appearance. The results of that investigation
to date are set forth below.
- 2 -
II. Facts
On August 3, 1976, a formal complaint was filed against
Democratic senatorial primary candidate James Sasser of
Tennessee by a Democratic opponent, Harry Sadler, who alleged,
inter alia, that Mr. Sasser had received illegal bank loans
and was also benefiting from improper arrangements for the
use of corporate aircraft. The Commission notified Mr. Sasser
of the complaint in due course. Ensuing communications
between the Sasser campaign and the Commission failed to
produce information adequate to resolve the allegations in
the Sadler complaint. By mid-October 1976, the Commission
staff felt that the Commission should tolerate no further
delay in the production of requested data and should
therefore issue subpoenas.
On October 19, 1976, the Commission, acting in Executive
Session, voted unanimously (with Commissioner Staebler absent)
to issue three subpoenas in connection with the Sadler
complaint, which at that time was styled MUR 216 (76) / One
subpoena was for certain records maintained by the Sasser
campaign treasurer, Mr. Gary Blackburn. The other two
subpoenas were addressed respectively to the United American
Bank of Nashville Tennessee, and the First National Bank of
Tracy City, Tennessee, which allegedly made illegal loans to
the Sasser campaign. The subpoenaed parties were directed to
- 1/ A similar complaint styled MUR 239 (76), and involving the
same issues, was filed by a C.D. Hopkins on September 23, 1976,
and was consolidated with MUR 216 (76).
FORD LIBRARY
- 3 -
produce the described information by October 26 and 27, 1976.
The Commission adjourned at approximately 1:00 p.m. on
October 19, 1976.
At approximately 5:30 p.m., October 19, 1976, Federal
Election Commission Chairman Vernon W. Thomson attended a
reception at the University Club for Mr. Robert Spitzer, a
long-time Wisconsin acquaintance. He states that he remained
at the reception for a relatively brief time, since he had a
dinner to attend. At one point he was approached by Mr. Melvin
Laird. Both Mr. Thomson and Mr. Laird have testified that
Mr. Laird addressed Thomson very aggressively from the outset,
and that the subject matter of their discussion was whether
the Commission was acting with adequate expedition in compliance
matters. Mr. Thomson vigorously defended the Commission
against Laird's challenge that the Commission was not acting
effectively. Both men stated, prior to deposition, that
Thomson may have "over reacted" to Laird's attack. Laird
specifically referred to Commission postponement of action
on complaints regarding illegal bank loans to candidates and,
in this context, he testified to the best of his recollection
that the states of Tennessee, Minnesota and Maryland were
mentioned. 1/ Laird testified that Thomson used the terminology
"investigation of the records" in connection with "these
complaints Mr. Thomson does not agree that this termino-
logy was used.
1/
Laird Tr. p.9.
FORD LIBRARY
2/ Laird Tr. PP 15-16.
3/ Both the Laird and Thomson transcripts of depositions are
attached hereto and should be read in toto.
- 4 -
Melvin Laird testifies emphatically that Thomson was
the only person with whom he spoke about the Tennessee
matter until the following Friday, October 22, 1976, and
that he had no other source for the information regarding
1/
Tennessee. He states that his conversation at the Univer-
sity Club with Thomson lasted approximately five to ten
minutes. He testified that since late Spring he has had
an interest in a possible article about various campaign
law abuses, including loan abuses. And he had earlier
stated that he was aware from general discussion on Capitol
Hill that Mr. Sasser's Democratic opponent in the primary
had complained that Mr. Sasser has been the beneficiary of
an improper campaign loan.
After Mr. Laird left the University Club at approximately
6:30 p.m. on October 19, 1976, he went home. On Wednesday,
October 20 he testifies that he was in his office all day.
On Thursday, October 21, his schedule was as follows:
He attended the inauguration of the new American University
President in the morning, then went to a George Washington
University Board of Trustees luncheon about noon, after which
the Board met. He went from the Board meeting to the Airport.
At 3:30 p.m. he took Northwest Airlines flight 375 to Milwaukee.
He flew on to Green Bay, Wisconsin that same evening, and stayed
at a motel in Appleton. The purpose of his trip to Wisconsin
was largely political; he made several appearances on behalf
of the Ford Committee through the course of the weekend, and
also appeared with a local Republican candidate.
1/
Laird Tr. PP 20, 28, 43.
FORD i LIBRARY 9ERALD
- 5 -
He states that while in Wisconsin, he heard
allegations that improper campaign loans were involved in
Republican candidate Harold Froehlich's campaign, and
that this, as well as perhaps just preparing for political
appearances, recalled for him his conversation with Thomson.
On Friday morning, October 22, he telephoned his secretary,
Laurie Hawley in Washington, D.C. to arrange, among other
things, for some upcoming appointments in New York. He said
to her, in what he characterizes as an afterthought, that he
had a "rumor" which "might be of interest to our friends in
Tennessee" and that she should attempt to get the information
to Carl Wallace who might know someone in the Brock campaign.
He told her that his information was to the effect that the
Commission had taken or was about to take action to obtain
records from the Sasser campaign. He stated that he does not
recall using the word "subpoenas" 3/ He does not recall
receiving specific information from Mr. Thomson about a
Commission vote, such as a unanimous vote, but in a pre-
deposition interview he did say Thomson gave him the impression
that the Commission was "working together" effectively on a
number of cases.
Laurie Hawley, Laird's Executive Secretary, has been
associated with him for ten years, including time with him
in the Congress, at the Pentagon, and now at the Readers Digest.
1/
The investigators have confirmed that there had been
BERALD FORD LIBRART
such an allegation regarding Mr. Froehlich's campaign
2/
Laird Tr. PP. 24, 25, 29
3/
Neither does Ms. Hawley. Hawley tr. p.5.
- 6 -
Upon receiving the above information she called Carl Wallace,
who has also worked for years with Melvin Laird, both in the
legislature and executive branch, and who is now a Vice
President of the Purolator Corporation, with offices in
Washington, D.C. She found Mr. Wallace on the golf course
at the Burning Tree Country Club and in a brief conversation
told him that Laird had asked her to pass on to him the rumor
1/
that the Commission was investigating Sasser's campaign records.
She indicated that Laird wanted Mr. Wallace to pass the infor-
mation on to the Brock people and have them investigate it.
She testifies that Laird did not ask that Wallace get back to
/
her or Laird with any form of confirmation of the rumor.
Early on the evening of October 22, 1976, Mr. Wallace
looked up the home telephone number of Mr. Dan Kuykendall, a
Republican ex-Congressman from Tennessee who currently does
consulting work in Washington, D.C. He called Mr. Kuykendall
at home at approximately 6:30 p.m. and related the information
which Ms. Hawley had given him. Kuykendall testifies Wallace
told him of a rumor that the Commission had unanimously voted
to issue subpoenas for Sasser's records within the last couple
of days and that Kuykendall should attempt to have the Brock
campaign people "check it out. /
Mr. Kuykendall then called his Executive Secretary,
Elizabeth Powell, at her home, and asked that she obtain a
phone number for Thomas Bell, Brock's campaign manager in
Nashville. Miss Powell telephoned Senator Brock's Senate
STATE TORD LIBRARY
1/ Hawley Tr. PP 7-8.
2/ Hawley Tr. PP 8-9.
3/
Wallace testified that Kuykendall was the only person to whom
he spoke about this matter within the relevant time frame.
Wallace Tr. p.8.
4/ Wallace confirms only that he told kuykendall that subpoenas
had been issued and that should be checked out, but not that
thm was unanimous or recent. Wallace Tr. PP 5-7.
- 7 -
office around 7:00 p.m. and obtained Bell's Tennessee phone
number from Senator Brock's secretary. She called Bell in
Nashville and told him that he should call Mr. Kuykendall
who had some information for the Brock campaign. Later
in the evening she telephoned Mr. Kuykendall to satisfy
her curiosity as to what the information was. Mr. Kuykendall
told her at that time that the Commission had voted to issue
subpoenas for Sasser's records. She does not recall whether
Mr. Kuykendall said the vote was unanimous but she gleaned
from the conversation that the vote was "for sure."
Thomas Bell formerly worked as Senator Brock's
Administrative Assistant in the Senate, and became the
Senator's Campaign Manager in February of 1976, at which
time he moved to Nashville. He testified that he spoke
by telephone with Kuykendall on the evening of Friday,
October 22, 1976. In that conversation he states that
Kuykendall told him the Commission had voted unanimously
to issue subpoenas for Sasser's records. Bell testified
that Kuykendall indicated that his source was a person
named "Carl", but Bell was unable under deposition to recall
Carl's last name. Bell testified that Kuykendall represented
that this information was a matter of public record and had
been found by "Carl" in the course of doing some research
at the Commission. Bell states that he told Kuykendall he
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
did not know the procedures for confirming this information
1/
In an informal re-examination on December 15, 1976
Kuykendall reaffirmed that Wallace had told him the
vote for subpoenas was unanimous. He pointed out
that he had told Bell this within 30 minutes of having
heard it from Wallace.
- 8 -
and asked for advice as to how he should proceed. Kuykendall
recalls nothing of this portion of the conversation. Wallace
has never done any research at the Commission.
It is unclear whether Bell was able to transmit the
information further on the evening of Friday, October 22, 1976.
It is unequivocally clear that he did transmit it at approxi-
mately 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 23, 1976, when he gave it
by telephone to Mr. Robert Perkins, the Executive Director of
the Tennessee Republican Party, and at that time, a half-time
worker for the Brock campaign. Perkins had been on Senator
Brock's Washington staff until the summer of 1976, when he
moved to Nashville to assume his new post with the Tennessee
Republicans, and to aid the Senator's re-election campaign.
Prior to that move, Perkins had worked extensively on the
Federal Election Campaign Act amendments of 1976, was
thoroughly familiar with the law, and had come to know many
Commission staff people.
Perkins had spent the day of Saturday, October 23, 1976
in Tunica, Mississippi and was on his way to a Brock fund-
raiser in Jackson, Tennessee, when he stopped at a gas
station outside of Memphis and telephoned the Nashville
campaign headquarters to determine if there were any messages
for him. He was informed by Nancy Roberts, his secretary,
that Bell wanted to speak with him and would call him right
R. FORD
back. Bell did telephone him right back and told him that
GERALD
THEM
there was information that the Commission had subpoenaed
Sasser's records. He states that Bell told him that the
- 9 -
Commission action was apparently a matter of public record
and Bell wanted him to check it out.
Perkins then made a series of credit card telephone
calls from that same phone booth to Washington, D.C. He
attempted to reach William Loughrey, Executive Assistant
to the Commission's Chairman. He called Loughrey's home
and left word with Loughrey's roommate, Thomas Gilboy, that
it was "extremely important" or "urgent" that he talk to
Loughrey. Loughrey was not available.
Perkins reached Commissioner Joan Aikens at her home.
According to all testimony, after a few courteous
preliminaries, Perkins said that he had heard that the
Commission had voted in open session to subpoena records
in the Sasser campaign; Ms. Aikens replied that the Commission
had not done so, that she was not at liberty to discuss
compliance matters, and that Perkins should talk to Dave
Fiske, the Commission's Press Officer, who handles all
compliance inquiries. This telephone conversation lasted
approximately three minutes.
Perkins also attempted to call Jan Baran, Counsel to
the Republican Congressional Committee in Washington, D.C.
He did not succeed. He attempted to reach Miss Victoria
Tigwell, a Commission employee, but also failed to reach
THE is LIBRARY 0ERALL
1/
It should be noted for the record that on Monday,
October 25, 1976 at approximately 1:00 p.m the
General Counsel was contacted in person by
Commissioner Joan Aikens who related to him the
phone call she had received Saturday evening from
Bob Perkins at her home. The following day
Commissioner Aikens provide a written rendition of
that phone call for this file.
- 10 -
her. As he was now behind schedule to reach Jackson,
Tennessee by 7:00 p.m. that evening, Perkins called his
wife, Beth Perkins, in Nashville, relayed to her the
salient information, and asked that she attempt to contact
the individuals he had failed to reach.
Shortly thereafter, Beth Perkins did make contact
with Jan Baran and Victoria Tigwell, although the order
in which this occurred is not clear. She reached Baran at
his home in Washington, D.C. Their testimony coincides
on the basic point that she informed him she had heard
the Commission had taken certain action in the Sasser case
and that she wanted to know if Baran knew anthing about it.
Baran indicated that he did not, that he was sure it was
confidential and that he would be unable to find anything
out about it. Subpoenaed telephone records reflected that
this call was under three minutes in duration.
Mrs. Perkins reached Victoria Tigwell at the Perkins'
house at 1100 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C.,
which Miss Tigwell occupied as a tenant. Miss Tigwell has
known the Perkins since 1974 when they worked together in
behalf of the Republican candidate for the Senate from Iowa.
Miss Tigwell came to Washington, D.C. in the Spring of 1976
and rented the Perkins' house early that summer when the
Perkins moved to Nashville. Bob Perkins had been of
GERALD R.FORD
assistance in referring her to the Commission for employment
possibilities. Miss Tigwell was first employed as a
Commission auditor and then in the summer became a member
- 11 -
of the Commission's Ten Day Non-Filer Team, which monitors
failures to file required pre-election reports. A co-worker
on the Ten Day Non-Filer Team testifies that Miss Tigwell
recurrently talked openly of the Tennessee Senatorial race
and expressed a clear preference for Senator Brock. The
co-worker similarly testified that Miss Tigwell was aware
that a Democratic opponent had filed a complaint against
Sasser. Since the Perkins' departure for Nashville,
Miss Tigwell testifies that she has been in regular telephone
communication with them on a whole range of matters, notably
including on-going problems having to do with the restoration
of the Perkins' Capitol Hill property.
When Beth Perkins telephoned her on the evening of
Saturday, October 23, 1976, Miss Tigwell recalls that
Mrs. Perkins stated that they had heard in Tennessee that
the Commission had subpoenaed Sasser's campaign records.
Mrs. Perkins asked whether Miss Tigwell knew anything
about it. Miss Tigwell states that she told Mrs. Perkins
she knew nothing about it. In the course of this conversation
Mrs. Perkins learned that Miss Tigwell would be out that
evening for dinner with Daniel Reese, the Executive Assistant
to the Commission's Staff Director. However, Mrs. Perkins
denied that she suggested that Miss Tigwell question Mr. Reese
GERALD
with respect to the subpoenas.
1/
Bob Perkins testified, with regard to this point: "I
think Beth indicated [to her husband] she had asked
Vicky to find out what she could." Bob Perkins Tr. p.82.
- 12 -
Miss Tigwell's parents were visiting Washington at
the time and she went with them to dinner in the company
of Mr. Daniel Reese, with whom she had developed a close
social relationship. After dinner she and Reese returned
her parents to the Maryland Avenue, N.E. residence and
then went on to continue the evening elsewhere. In transit
in Reese's automobile, Miss Tigwell said that she had heard
that the Commission had subpoenaed Sasser's records. She
may have preceeded this by saying that Beth Perkins had
called her with this information. In any event Reese knew
that the Perkins had made this inquiry because, whether she
offered the information at the outset or only in response
to his later question, there is no doubt Miss Tigwell told
him that the question had been posed by the Perkins.
Reese confirmed that the Commission had in fact issued
subpoenas against Sasser. In later reviewing his deposition
and in response to a question, Reese said that he "may have"
said something about a unanimous vote. Reese testified
that he warned her in the car that she should not talk about
the matter. In any event Miss Tigwell had been thoroughly
warned on numerous earlier occasions with regard to the
confidentiality requirement of the Federal election laws.
According to Mr. Reese, this portion of their conversation
i
FORD
that evening was very brief, and the Sasser matter was not
GERALD
adverted to again after the exchange in Reese's automobile.
At approximately 9:00 a.m. the morning of Sunday,
October 24, 1976, Miss Tigwell telephone Bob Perkins from
- 13 -
her Maryland Avenue, N.E. residence. Perkins was at his
home in Nashville. In a conversation which lasted four
minutes and thirty seconds, she confirmed that the Commission
had issued subpoenas for Sasser's records. Perkins, under
close questioning, testified that he must have received the
information regarding the 6-0 vote from her that Sunday
-
morning.
The state of the record regarding contact between
Perkins and Bell on this subject that Sunday, October 24th,
is somewhat confused. Bell and Perkins do agree that they
were together at Bell's home that evening, along with other
Brock campaign staffers for the regular weekly meeting at
which campaign activity was reviewed, and that during that
meeting Bell and Perkins spoke in a separate room by
telephone to Tom Ingram of The Nashville Banner. Ingram
is the reporter whose by-line appeared on The Banner story
of October 25, 1976 regarding the Commission's subpoena action.
In variant terms, Bell's and Perkins' testimony is
in agreement on the point that at least one of them
discussed subpoenas with Ingram in the telephone conversa-
tion with him that Sunday evening; but only Perkins is strong
on the point that either he or Bell told Ingram that the
vote was 6-0; Bell's recollection of this is very hazy.
1/ Bob Perkins Tr. p. 84. Perkins did not recall whether
Tigwell indicated during this phone call that Reese
was the source. He does say Reese was discussed by
Tigwell and him at the Thursday morning breakfast,
October 28, 1976.
FORD LIBRARY
- 14 -
During this same conversation with Ingram, and pursuant
to discussion they had previously had with each other, either
Bell or Perkins suggested to Ingram that one way for the
reporter to proceed would be to call Sasser's campaign staff
and ask for a simple affirmation of the fact that the subpoenas
had been issued. Very early the following morning, October 25,
1976, Ingram did just that. He first called Jerry Grant,
Sasser's Campaign Manager, and said that he had learned that
the Commission had issued subpoenas which were to be returned
during the coming week. Grant was noncommittal since he was
totally ignorant of the facts. Ingram then called Gary
Blackburn, Sasser's Campaign Treasurer, and found him at
breakfast. Blackburn was accurately quoted in The Banner
story that appeared later in the day. He fairly successfully
evaded the question of whether subpoenas had been issued,
managing to characterize the Federal Election Commission's
communication as no more than a request for additional
records which would be supplied in the ordinary course.
Ingram then called David Fiske in Washington, D.C. at
Fiske's home. Fiske is accurately quoted in the October 25,
1976 story as saying that there could be no comment on a
compliance matter. Ingram then went with the story in the
FORD
early edition of The Banner, which is Nashville's afternoo
/
newspaper.
GERALDOR
LIBRARY
1/
Parenthetically, it should be noted for the record that on
Sunday, October 24, 1976, at approximately noon (after
Tigwell's call to Perkins that morning), William Loughrey
Executive Assistant to the Commission's Chairman, came to
the Commission and there encountered Miss Tigwell
- 14a-
and another member of the Ten Day Non-Filer Team,
Miss Suzanne Callahan. Miss Tigwell indicated to
Mr. Loughrey that Bob Perkins was looking for him
or "wanted to talk to you about the Sasser case. "
Loughrey testified that at that point he responded
by saying "yeh, it must be about the subpoenas" or
he may have said "yeh, do you think it's about the
subpoenas?" In any event he indicated that he
needed a phone number from Mr. Perkins. Miss Tigwell
gave him one. Loughrey subsequently tried that
number and found it was incorrect, although the
party at the other end indicated that Bob Perkins
had once lived there. Loughrey's and Perkins'
testimony is in accord on the point that Perkins
never was re-contacted by Loughrey.
FORD is LIBRARY 038ALD
- 15 -
III. The Investigatory Process
Following preliminary discussion of the article in
The Banner at its Tuesday, October 26, 1976 Executive Session,
the Commission met in special Executive Session on Wednesday,
October 27, 1976 and there authorized the Commission's General
Counsel to proceed with an inquiry into the apparent breach
of confidentiality reflected by that article. The initial
procedure approved was to take the testimony of all Commission
staff who had been present at the October 19th Executive
Session, as well as the testimony of any other employees
identified as possibly possessing knowledge of details of
Commission actions in the Sasser case.
On October 29, 1976, the first staff depositions were
taken, including those of Victoria Tigwell and Daniel Reese.
Among other things to which Miss Tigwell testified, she
stated she had had a breakfast meeting with Bob Perkins on
Thursday morning, October 28th at the Hyatt Regency Hotel
in Washington, D.C., at which time her pending deposition
was discussed. During Perkins' deposition, he stated that
at that breakfast meeting they had made passing reference
to her phone call to Perkins on Sunday morning, October 24,
1976. Neither Miss Tigwell nor Mr. Perkins proved willing
to describe the details of that breakfast conversation with
any great specificity. Under deposition Tigwell was not
adequately questioned with respect to her conversation
with Daniel Reese on the evening of Saturday, October 23,
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
1976; the only details she divulged with regard to it were
- 16 -
that she told Reese that Beth Perkins had called and that
she had relayed to Reese what Beth Perkins had said about
subpoenas. The additional details were supplied subsequently
by Reese's testimony. Tigwell failed, in response to
questioning, to admit the telephone conversation she had had
with Perkins on the morning of Sunday, October 24, 1976
On Saturday, October 30, 1976, all of the voting
Commissioners were deposed. During the ensuing week of
November 1, 1976 further depositions were taken of staff
personnel identified as having attended the October 19, 1976
Executive Session, or as otherwise having familiarity with
the Sasser matter.
On November 10, 1976, the General Counse and Mr. Hershman
travelled to Nashville, Tennessee, and during the course of
the following morning, November 11, 1976, interviewed a number
of individuals connected with the Sasser compliance matter.
These included George Barrett, Mr. Sasser's attorney; Gary
Blackburn, the Sasser Campaign Treasurer; representatives
of the First National Bank of Tracy City, Tennessee and the
United American Bank of Nashville, Tennessee; and an attorney
associated with the firm serving the United American Bank.
Their responses to close questioning strongly support the
proposition that the breach of confidentiality at issue here
was not occasioned by careless talk on the part of persons
&
FORD
1/
Tigwell 10/21/76 TR. P. 18.
GERALD
- 17 -
associated with the subpoenaed banks or the Sasser campaign.
The fact that the subpoenas had issued was very closely
held, on instructions by George Barrett. The fact that
The Banner story did not mention the bank subpoenas makes
it relatively clear that the banks were not the source of
any leakage of information; had Ingram known of the
additional subpoenas, he surely would have included that
detail in his article. Within the Sasser campaign, only
Barrett, Blackburn and eventually Sasser's campaign
chairman knew that the subpoenas had issued (Jerry Grant,
the Campaign Manager, did not know this as a fact but had
only heard it on the morning of October 25, 1976 from
Ingram). It was the investigators judgement that, except
for what Blackburn told Ingram during the early morning
conversation of October 25, 1976, there had been no
leakage of information from the Sasser structure. Moreover,
no one in the Sasser campaign or at either of the banks
could have been aware of what the Commission's vote was
and accordingly could not have supplied that detail for
The Banner article.
During the afternoon of November 11, 1976, both Robert
Perkins and Beth Perkins, accompanied by Counsel, were
deposed. The depositions commenced at 2:00 p.m. with
Mr. Perkins. His deposition was interrupted to take that
FORD
1/
It should be remembered that The Banner article was
LIBRARY
in error on the vote.
- 18 -
of Mrs. Perkins in order that she could make an airplane
that day. Mr. Perkins deposition was resumed at approximately
5:00 p.m. in the afternoon and concluded at approximately
6:45 p.m. It was during the course of these depositions
that Thomas Bell, Brock's Campaign Manager, was first
identified as having participated in the chain of communica-
tion. Both Bob and Beth Perkins testified unequivocally that
Bell had never given them his source.
On November 17, 1976, Thomas Bell accompanied by Counsel
was deposed in the Office of General Counsel at the Federal
Election Commission. During this deposition, Dan Kuykendall
was first identified as having participated in the chain
of communication. Bell also identified "Carl" as Kuykendall's
source but could not further describe him except to
characterize him as perhaps a "lawyer--lobbyist friend"
of Kuykendall.
On November 18, 1976 at 10:00 a.m. the General Counsel
and Mr. Hershman interviewed Mr. Kuykendall at his 16th
street office in Washington, D.C. Mr. Kuykendall stated
(and later reaffirmed under deposition) that he had received
a phone call at his home one evening late in the week of
October 18th. The caller, whom Mr. Kuykendall would not
identify during the course of this interview, told him that
within the last few days the Federal Election Commission
had taken a unanimous vote to subpoena records of the Sasser
campaign. He described his source as a prominent person,
R.
FORD
LIBRARY
- 19 -
one who had served in the legislature, although not in an
elective capacity, and who had also served with the executive
branch of government, although not for the last four years.
He indicated that he was unwilling to identify the source
until the source had given him clearance to do so. It
was agreed that he would attempt to reach his source that
day and that he would be back in contact during the course
of the afternoon. He indicated that if his source asked
him not to cooperate, he would resist a subpoena. The
interview terminated.
In the late afternoon of November 18, 1976,
Mr. Kuykendall telephoned the General Counsel to state
that he had been unable to contact his source and that
that person would be unavailable until Monday, November 22.
While this statement was received by the investigators
with skepticism, and while they assumed that the intervening
weekend would be used by Mr. Kuykendall and other to consult
with regard to the investigation, it was decided not to
issue a subpoena to Mr. Kuykendall at that time.
Within the following 24 hours, using the information
supplied by Bell and Kuykendall with respect to "Carl," and
drawing on informal sources, the investigators conditionally
identified Kuykendall's contact as Carl S. Wallace, Vice
President of the Puralator Corporation. It was nonetheless
decided to await Mr. Kuykendall's telephone call on Monday,
GERALD Fun,
- 20 --
That call was received at approximately 10:00 a.m.
on the 22nd. Mr. Kuykendall identified his source as Carl
S. Wallace and indicated that Mr. Wallace was expecting to
hear from the Commission.
Mr. Wallace was immediately telephoned and an interview
was granted forthwith at Mr. Wallace's office in downtown
Washington, D.C. Mr. Wallace stated that he had received a
telephone call at the Burning Tree Country Club on Friday,
October 22, 1976 from Ms. Laurie Hawley, secretary to
Melvin Laird. He stated (and has reaffirmed under oath) that
Ms. Hawley had indicated to him that Laird had called her
and asked to see if Wallace knew anyone in the Brock campaign;
that Laird had told her that the Commission was issueing
subpoenas for the records of Brock's opponent; and that this
information should be "checked
out. 1,2/ Wallace then stated
that he passed the information on to Kuykendall at Kuykendall's
home that evening.
Laird's office was then telephoned by the investigators
from the first floor of Wallace's office building. A
secretary took the message and said that she would be back
in touch. Ms. Hawley called the General Counsel during the
afternoon of November 22, 1976 stating that Laird was
indisposed that day, and would be out of town November 23,
but would be available for a meeting at 10:00 a.m. November 24,
FORM
1976.
GERALD
1/ Kuykendall testifies that to this day, he has not learned
the identify of Wallace's source.
2/
Wallace's Powell's and Kuykendall's testimony makes it
plain that they all understood that the information was
to be put to political use.
- 21 -
On November 24th the investigators met with Melvin
Laird at his office on Rhode Island Avenue in Washington, D.C.
Present at that meeting was Ms. Laurie Hawley. A key detail
of this interview was Melvin Laird's representation that
some time toward the end of October he had received information
in Washington, which he characterized as rumor, that the
Commission had acted or was about to act to obtain records in
connection with the Sasser investigation. He declined at
this time to identify his source. He deprecated the value
of the information he had received. He indicated that he had
learned as early as September, from friends on Capitol Hill,
that campaign loans were at issue in the Tennessee Senatorial
race, and this had interested him because he had been considering
an article on abuse of the campaign laws, specifically with
respect to campaign loans and personal expenditures by candidates.
He set out the Readers Digest policy against revealing the
identity of confidential news sources, although he stopped short
of invoking a newsman's privilege. He represented that he had
the impression that the rumor he had received was public
knowledge, since it was his impression that everything the
Commission did was done publicly. Notwithstanding these
impressions, he did not think the Readers Digest policy
regarding confidentiality could be breached. He indicated
a willingness to cooperate if there was some way that the
investigators could assure that he and the Readers Digest
GERALD
would remain unidentified. Several alternatives were
discussed, to none of which was he particularly responsive.
- 22 -
On several occasions he declined to state that his source
was not within the Commission. The interview terminated
after approximately an hour with the understanding that Laird
would consult with the Digest Counsel as to whether or not
he should answer the questions of 1) who gave him the
information, 2) when and where it was given, and3) who else,
if anyone, was involved.
It is now clear that either on Thursday, November 18,
or relatively early Friday, November 19, Kuykendall was
in fact in contact with Wallace, and that Wallace was
immediately in contact with Laird. In short, these three
figures had in some fashion consulted prior to the morning
of Monday, November 22, 1976 when Mr. Kuykendall called the
General Counsel to identify Mr. Wallace. It is also now
clear that some time between Wallace's contact with Laird
on November 18th or 19th and the investigators' interview
of Laird on November 24th, Laird telephoned Vernon Thomson.
The investigators did not learn at this telephone conversa-
tion until December 4, 1976.
Because of the intervention of the long Thanksgiving
Day weekend following the Laird interview, nothing further
was done with respect to the investigation until the week
of November 29, 1976. On November 30, 1976, the General
Counsel spoke with Laird by telephone. The conversation
was largely an abbreviated replication of the contents of
the November 24th interview. Mr. Laird was informed that,
FORD
LIBRARY
- 23 -
given the state of the record before the investigators at
that time, a recommendation would be made to the Commission
that formal depositions be taken. He indicated that he
would resist such a procedure. He nonetheless indicated
that he would talk further with his Counsel.
Several subsequent efforts to reach Laird again prior
to the Commission's December 2, 1976 meeting failed. At
that Commission meeting the General Counsel sought and
received from the Commission subpoenas for Laird, Hawley,
Wallace, Powell and Kuykendall, as well as for the passenger
lists of several Northwest Airlines flights to Milwaukee on
October 21, 1976.
At approximately 10:00 a.m. in the
morning of December 3, 1976, telephone contact with Laird was
resumed. In the early stages of that conversation, it appeared
1/
Immediately prior to the December 2nd Commission meeting
the General Counsel, accompanied by Mr. Hershman
approached Chairman Thomson in the Commission's
5th floor reception area. Counsel told the Chairman
that the investigators had tracked the leak back to
Melvin Laird and that Counsel was about to request
a subpoena for certain airline passenger lists for
flights to Milwaukee which Laird may have taken on
Thursday, October 21, 1976. The Chairman expressed
no surprise or other emotion at the mention of
Laird's name. Counsel stated that as a matter of
courtesy he wished to inform the Chairman of this
imminent request because of the chance that,
October 22nd - 25th having been a long holiday
weekend, the Chairman, a Wisconsinite, might also
have been on one of the flights. The Chairman
expressed no concern whatsoever at the time and
indicated that he normally flew to Wisconsin only
on Tuesdays, to attend certain Board meetings.
GEBELS FORD LIBRASH
- 24 -
that Laird's position had not changed whatsoever since
the last contact. He was then informed that the Commission
had authorized subpoenas for him and other persons. He
expressed extraordinary concern over this development.
This conversation ended with the understanding that he would
be in touch with his counsel, and. at some point would
probably be back in touch with the investigators. He called
back at approximately 11:15 a.m. that same morning and
expressed great interest in the possibility that some
arrangement could be worked out whereby anonymity could be
preserved. It was tentatively agreed that he would meet
with the investigators the following Monday morning,
December 6, 1976 at 11:00 a.m. at his office. Laird then
went to lunch with his counsel and this matter was discussed.
It is now clear that sometime during that same day Laird
called Vernon Thomson and, at the very least, indicated
disappointment that Mr. Thomsom had voted for a subpoena
for information which Thomson already had. 1/
On Saturday morning December 4, 1976 at 9:30 a.m. the
General Counsel received a telephone call at his residence
from Marilyn Early, Vernon Thomson's secretary. Ms. Early
indicated that the Chairman wished to speak with the Counsel
and requested that Counsel call. In the ensuing telephone
1/
Laird Tr. p. 38. In his December 7th interview with
the investigators Mr. Laird had expressed himself
FORD
rather more forcefully on this point.
LIBRA
X
- 25 -
call, the Chairman told the Counsel that he was disturbed
about their brief conversation prior to the Commission
meeting of Thursday, December 2, 1976, and by the Counsel's
presentation to the full Commission in Executive Session
later that day, in which Laird had been identified as part
of the chain of communication. The Chairman indicated that
he would like to meet with the Counsel sometime during the
weekend. It was agreed that Counsel would meet at the
Chairman's home later that afternoon.
That meeting commenced approximately 4:15 p.m. The
Chairman indicated that he had reviewed his deposition and
that in view of the Counsel's presentation to the Commission
on December 2, 1976 and Laird's apparent involvement, there
was an additional matter of which the Counsel should be
informed. The Chairman then recounted his meeting with
Laird at the University Club on the evening of October 19,
1976. He stated that at that cocktail reception for
Robert Spitzer he had been aggressively approached by
Laird who had berated the Commission for not acting expedi-
tiously on complaints and for apparently pursuing a policy
of postponing compliance actions until after the election.
The Chairman said that he may have overreacted to Laird's
attack. He stated that he had defended the Commission's
action by vehemently replying that the charge of inaction
was completely false and that the Commission was moving
forward on all matters and was acting very vigorously
FORD
LIBRA
- 26 -
The Chairman said he did not say anything about the Sasser
case or Brock, nor did he mention subpoenas. In response
to a question, the Chairman said that Laird may have said
something about the Commission improperly permitting bank
loans to candidates. The Chairman was emphatic that he had
not said anything specific about any investigation but had
merely spoken in generalities in defense of the Commission's
position.
Counsel asked the Chairman whether Laird had been in
touch with him since the October 19, 1976 reception. The
Chairman stated that Laird had called him several weeks
ago to ask who Mr. Murphy was and why Murphy was seeking
an appointment with Laird. The Chairman stated that he
explained to Laird that the Commission had authorized an
investigation and that the Counsel was doing his duty in
carrying it out. Counsel asked whether during this
telephone conversation the Chairman and Laird had spoken
about their previous exchange at the University Club on
October 19, 1976. The Chairman said that that conversation
did not come up., The Chairman did not inform the Counsel
of Laird's telephone call of December 3, 1976.
Apart from Robert Spitzer, the Chairman identified
Hyde Murray as having been present at the University Club
that evening, 1/ but was unable to recall who else may have
RALD FORD LIBRE
been present.
1/
Hyde Murray was interviewed by the investigators on
December 9, 1976 at his office at the House Committee
on Agriculture. Murray recalls having attended the
University Club function, and saw Laird and the
Chairman there, but did not overhear the contents of
their conversation.
- 27 -
Counsel recommended to the Chairman that he search his
memory for the identity of additional persons who may have
heard his exchange with Laird on October 19, 1976. It was
also agreed that the Chairman should in some way supplement
the existing record in this investigation. The interview
terminated shortly before 5:15 p.m. Counsel immediately
dictated a memorandum of the interview from a public telephone
booth at the intersection of Kirby Road and Route 123 in
McLean.
/ Later that evening the Counsel telephoned Mr. Hershman
and described the interview in detail.
On Monday, December 6, 1976 the investigators met at
11:00 a.m. with Mr. Laird, and Mr. Timothy May, the Readers
Digest local counsel. At several points during the course
of this discussion, Mr. May expressed displeasure over the
fact that Federal law might be applied to a situation in
which one had ascertained certain information during the
course of a cocktail party conversation, or that Federal
investigations should ensue in the wake of comments having
been made in the heat of provocation. He strongly indicated
that the Readers Digest would resist the subpoena if it
issued. This interview terminated with the agreement that
Mr. Laird would talk to his source and seek permission to
give the investigators the requested information.
At approximately 1:30 the investigators met with the
Chairman who indicated that he had spoken with Laird around
FURO
noon. After a limited discussion, the Counsel asked if
1/
A copy of that memorandum is attached hereto.
- 28 -
the Chairman would telephone Mr. Laird and grant permission
to him to talk to the investigators. The Chairman agreed
that he would, and thereafter at approximately 2:00 p.m.
he notified Counsel that permission had been granted.
Counsel was unable to arrange for a further meeting with
Mr. Laird that day, but an appointment was made for 10:00 a.m.
the following morning, December 7, 1976.
At that December 7th meeting, accompanied by Mr. May,
Laird indicated that he had approached Mr. Thomson aggressively
at the October 19 University Club function and had needled him
about the Commissioners' failure to act on compliance matters.
He said that at that time he had specifically mentioned loan
problems in Tennessee, Minnesota and Maryland. He recalled
that the Chairman had said that the Commission was acting to
investigate records in these campaigns. He could not recall
that either he or the Chairman had used the word subpoena
nor did he have any recollection of receiving information
about a specific Commission vote. He indicated that he did
receive a strong impression that the Commission was acting
vigorously and currently in these cases. He did not recall
whether the name Sasser came up, but was certain that the
name Brock had not been mentioned.
He recalled thereafter calling the Chairman, sometime
between November 19, and November 23, to inquire about
Mr. Murphy and why the latter was seeking an appointment
with him. He stated he wanted to know what was going on.o
He stated that during that phone call the October 19th
- 29 -
University Club meeting was probably mentioned and that
he had told the Chairman that the Chairman was the only one
with whom he had discussed the Tennessee matter. He stated
further that upon receiving notice on December 3, 1976 from
Mr. Murphy that the Commission had issued a subpoena,
he had called the Chairman to ask why the Chairman voted for
a subpoena when the Chairman was fully informed of the
relevant facts.
On December 15, 1976, Mr. Laird was deposed. Under
oath, he showed great reluctance to be as specific as he
had been in informal meetings. The transcript of that
deposition is attached hereto and should, as earlier
suggested, be read in its entirety. Pages 5-16 and 25-45
are particularly relevant.
During the course of the deposition (pp. 48-49) the
investigators first learned that Mr. Thomson was apparently
represented by an attorney named Jerris Leonard, who earlier
that week had talked to Carl Wallace and to two assistants
in Laird's office. Through each of these individuals
Mr. Leonard sought to obtain an appointment to see Mr. Laird
prior to Laird's deposition (Tr. p.48), but Laird had
referred him to Mr. May, the Digest counsel, and never did
talk to him. Leonard had asked Wallace what Wallace had
told the investigators; Wallace told him.
1/
Again, this December 3rd telephone call was not
mentioned by the Chairman when he met the General
December 4th.
CENTER
FORD
Counsel at his McLean home the next day, Saturday
LIBRARY
- 30 -
After returning to the Commission from this deposition,
the General Counsel informed the Chairman of the Leonard
reference during the deposition, and the Chairman confirmed
that Leonard was representing him. Counsel indicated
that perhaps Mr. Leonard should be present during the
Chairman's upcoming re-deposition. The Chairman indicated
that Counsel should talk to Leonard about that and provided
Counsel with Leonard's telephone numbers. The General
Counsel talked with Leonard late that afternoon and an
appointment at Leonard's office was arranged for 2:00 p.m.
Thursday, December 16th.
At that meeting, the investigators spoke candidly and
at length with Mr. Leonard about the state of the record
in this case. There was prolonged discussion of what further
developments in the case might conceivably be, from referral
for criminal prosecution at one end of the spectrum, to
informal internal reprimand on the other. By the close of
the conversation, the investigators had identified, and Mr.
Leonard had duly noted, six. significant discrepancies or
omissions on the record which bore on the Chairman's credibility.
These were:
1. The Chairman's failure to disclose to the Commission
or the staff, prior to December 2, the telephone call from
Mr. Laird that came in sometime between November 19 and 23.
is
FORD
2. The failure of the Chairman to disclose the
October 19, 1976 meeting with Mr. Laird and the initial Laird
LIBRARY
telephone conversation, once the General Counsel had made a
- 31 -
presentation identifying Mr. Laird at the December 2, 1976
Commission meeting, a meeting at which Commissioner Harris
had promptly stated that he had met with Mr. Laird sometime
around October 19 at the Hay Adams Hotel.
3. The failure of the Chairman to dislcose the
October 19, 1976 meeting with Laird and the initial Laird
telephone conversation until thirty-six hours after the
December 2, 1976 Commission meeting, when disclosure was
finally made to the General Counsel at the Chairman's
home in McLean, Virginia.
4. The Chairman's statement during the December 4,
1976 meeting at his home with the General Counsel that in the
course of Laird's initial telephone conversation, the
University Club meeting of October 19, 1976 "did not come
up"; Mr. Laird had informed the investigators on December 7,
1976 that that October 19, 1976 meeting probably was
discussed in the first telephone conversation, and the
Chairman now testifies that it was mentioned.
5. The failure of the Chairman to disclose in his
Saturday, December 4, 1976 meeting with the General Counsel
that the October 19, 1976 meeting at the University Club
had included specific reference to the Tennessee, Minnesota
and Maryland loan complaint situations. The General
Counsel pointed out to Mr. Leonard that in the December 4,
1976 meeting with the Chairman, the Chairman had stated
FOND
that he defended the Commission against Mr. Laird in very
general terms and had in no way been specific. Mr. Laird,
of course, had informed the investigators on December 7, 1976
- 32 -
that Tennessee had in fact been mentioned on October 19, 1976.
6. The failure of the Chairman to disclose at his
Saturday, December 4, 1976 meeting with the General Counsel that
Mr. Laird had telephoned him the day before, December 3rd.
Mr. Leonard met with Mr. Thomson at 10:00 a.m. on
Friday, December 17, 1976. At noon on that day , Mr. Leonard
telephoned the General Counsel and the Chairman's re-deposition
was arranged for 9:30 a.m. on Monday, December 20th at
Mr. Leonard's office.
On December 20, under deposition, Mr. Thomson stated:
1. That he had told the General Counsel at the
Saturday, December 4th meeting that Tennessee, Minnesota and
Maryland had been mentioned in the conversation with Laird
on October 19;
2. That he had told the General Counsel at the meeting
of Saturday, December 4th that Laird had called him not
once but twice;
3. That in the initial telephone conversation with
Laird sometime between November 19 and November 23, the
University Club conversation had been mentioned in some
fashion;
4. That he had been "struck like a thunderclap" by the
General Counsel's presentation of December 2, 1976 to the
full Commission regarding Laird's involvement, and that
after he had pondered over the General Counsel's presenta-
tion, it came to him that he should correct his deposition
and thus call the General Counsel in a timely fashion on
GENATO R. FORD
Saturday morning, December 4th.
5. That Commissioner Harris' prompt declaration
during the meeting of December 2nd that Harris had met with
Laird around October 19 should be viewed as involving
- 33 -
"different circumstances." The implication of this statement
by the Chairman was that Harris' December 2 declaration did
not bear on the Chairman's silence at that same meeting with
regard to his own contact with Laird.
Due to the pressures of time, this report at this
juncture does not purport to fully review either Mr. Laird's
or Chairman Thomson's deposition. It is recommended that
both be thoroughly read. Suffice it to say that Chairman
Thomson's testimony completely and unequivocally denies that
in his conversation with Mr. Laird on October 19, 1976 he
did more than defend the Commission in general terms, although
certain States were indeed mentioned; that he gave Mr. Laird
the specifics of any complaint; or that he gave Mr. Laird
any information regarding any Commission vote on a compliance
matter.
At the close of the deposition, Mr. Leonard expressed
the hope that he would be able to meet with the General
Counsel prior to the time when the latter made his report
to the Commission. The General Counsel was noncommittal.
III. Possible Further Investigatory Steps
Two additional classes of persons who arguably maybe
able to supply an additional relevant information have not
been interviewed. First class is comprised of the
approximately 50-75 persons who attended the University Club
function on October 19, 1976. The investigators do not have
the names of these individuals but could probably obtain them.
FORD : LIBRARY GERALD
- 34 -
The second class is comprised of the Brock campaign staff
people other than Perkins and Bell, who attended the staff
meeting at Thomas Bell's home in Nashville on October 24,
1976.
It is the Counsel's current recommendation that further
interviews of persons present at the University Club not be
held; it would appear that no one overheard the conversation
between Mr. Laird and Chairman Thomson. Nor does there seem
to be great merit to preceeding with interviews of persons
present at Bell's home on October 24, 1976; the relevant
conversation with Tom Ingram took place in a room apart from
the room in which the main staff gathering occurred. And
there is no indication on the present record that the
Commission's action was a subject of discussion except among
Bell, Perkins and Ingram. Nonetheless, the Commission may
wish to examine the option of having these people examined.
i
FORD
CERALD
LIBRARY
- 35 -
IV. Legal Analysis
The first issue is to what extent 2 U.S.C. $437g is
applicable to the conduct of various individuals involved
in the above-described chain of communication. In relevant
portion, that section states:
2 U.S.C. $4378 (a) (1)
(2) the Commission upon receiving any
complaint under paragraph (1), and if it has
reason to believe any person has committed a
violation of this Act or of Chapter 95 or
Chapter 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954, or, if the Commission on the basis of
information ascertained in the normal course
of carrying out its supervisory responsibilities,
has reason to believe that such a violation has
occurred, shall notify the person involved of
such alleged violation and shall make an investi-
gation of such alleged violation in accordance
with the provisions of this section.
(3) (A) Any investigation under paragraph
(2) shall be conducted expeditiously and shall
include an investigation, conducted in
accordance with the provisions of this section
of reports and statements filed by any
complainant under this title, if such complainant
is a candidate.
(B) Any notification or investigation made
under paragraph (2) shall not be made public by
the Commission or by any person without the
written consent of the person receiving such
notification or the person with respect to whom
such investigation is made.
(c) any member of the Commission, any employee
of the Commission or any other person who violates
the provisions of subsection (a) (3) (B) shall be
fined not more than $3,000. Any such member,
employee, or other person who knowingly and
willfully violates the provisions of subsection
(a) (3) (B) shall be fined not more $5,000. (Emphasis
supplied.)
FORD i LIBRARY 03RALD
- 36 -
The above quoted language $437g(a) (3) (B), to the effect
that "any notification or investigation made under paragraph
2 shall not be made public" has not been formally construed
by the Commission, nor, of course, by any court. The
legislative history of the 1976 amendments to the Federal
Election Campaign Act is not helpful as to the meaning of
the phrase "made public"; the only indication there is that
Congress meant "disclosure." S. Rep. No 1237, 93rd Congress
2nd Sess. 94 (1974). There has been no judicial review of
the constitutional permissibility of imposing a confidentiality
requirement upon persons other than Commission employees. That
that confidentiality requirement may appropriately be imposed
upon Commission employees would appear at least inferentially
to be the lesson of cases such as Swaaley V. U. S. 376 F.2d
857 180 Ct. C1. (1967) and Iantiarelli V. Morton, 327 F. Supp.
873 (E.D. Penn. 1971), remanded on other grouds, 463 F.2d 179.
A. Commission Personnel
It is the General Counsel's recommendation that the
Commission interpret the statutory language regarding
making investigations public in the following manner: When-
ever a Commission employee communicates information, other
than in the ordinary course of an investigation, to any
person not officially employed with the Commission, a
violation of the confidentiality requirements of 2 U.S.C.
§437g may be found if the communication directly results
in knowledge on the part of the recipient of the information
GERALD
LIBRA
- 37 -
that the Commission is conducting an investigation with
respect to a specific individual, committee, or other
organization or group.
So interpreted, the concept of making a matter public
would not encompass communications between Commission
employees regarding specific Commission compliance activity.
Applying this interpretation to the actions of Commission
prsonnel involved in this case leads to the following
conclusions:
1. Victoria Ann Tigwell
The evidence is clear that Miss Tigwell on Sunday,
October 24, 1976, "made public" the Commission's investigation
of the Senatorial campaign of James Sasser of Tennessee by
specifically communicating to an individual in the private
sector, namely Robert Perkins, a part-time aide in the campaign
of incumbent Senator William Brock, the fact that the
Commission had supboenaed Sasser Committee records.
RECOMMENDATION: The Staff Director placed Miss Tigwell on
administrative leave with pay on November 29, 1976. I
recommend that the Staff Director now initiate appropriate
procedures to terminate Miss Tigwell's employment with the
Commission, Such procedures may appropriately include a
provision for argument by her Counsel before the Commission
that a personnel sanction short of dismissal be imposed.
In the meantime, I recommend that the Commission find reason
1.
to believe that Miss Tigwell violated the confidentiality
STATE
FORD
LIDRERY
requirement of 2 U.S.C.$437g (a) (3) (B). Conciliation
1/
This statement of the test is not exhaustive. There may be
cases where the Commission is about to investigate, or has
concluded an investigation, where the matter is not yet
properly public. Such instances would be subject to variant
wording of the cited proposition.
- 38 -
agreement negotiations with Miss Tigwell's attorney are
ongoing and may well result in a settlement, as well as a
waiver by her of further formal Commission findings to
which she would otherwise be entitled.
2. Daniel Reese and William Loughrey
The foregoing recommended interpretation of the "made
public" language of 2 U.S.C. $437g does not cover the
communications of Reese to Tigwell on the evening of Saturday,
October 23, 1976 nor of Loughrey to Tigwell on Sunday,
October 24, 1976. Both communications were Commission
employee to Commission employee. Accordingly, there is no
reason to believe that either Reese or Loughrey violated
§437g (a) (3) (B). I am of the view, however, that Mr. Reese's
October 23rd confirmation to Miss Tigwell that Sasser
subpoenas had issued, at a time when Reese knew that Brock
supporters, i.e. the Perkins in Tennessee, had asked about
this subject, amounted to an extraordinarily serious error
of judgement. Severe disciplinary action is indicated, in
my judgement. I say this nothwithstanding my appreciation
of the fact that Mr. Reese, during his deposition, was
forthcoming with regard to his confirmatory statement to
Miss Tigwell that Saturday evening.
With respect to Mr. Loughrey, both his remarks to
Miss Tigwell during the afternoon of Sunday, October 24th
and the context in which they were uttered, are somewhat
unclear on this record. He would appear to have been carel RSS275
offhand in indicating to Miss Tigwell that Perkins might
be
GEROLD
- 39 -
checking out the subpoenas, but I have no recommendation
as to what disciplinary action may be in order.
3. Vernon W. Thomson
The question of whether there is reason to believe
Mr. Thomson "made public" a Commission investigation turns
in part upon whether his recollection or that of Mr. Laird
is better with regard to their conversation at the University
Club on October 19, 1976. Mr. Thomson states emphatically
that he said nothing specific to Laird, that "subpoenas,"
"Brock" and "Sasser" were not mentioned, and that he does
not recall saying the Commission was "investigating the
records" or "moving to obtain records" in compliance actions
involving Tennessee and other named jurisdictions. Mr. Laird's
best recollection under oath, on the other hand, is that
Mr. Thomson had used the terminology "investigation of records,"
and had indicated "that these records or these complaints
would be investigated, and that the Commission was going to
pursue this matter and try to get answers.
1,1/
1/
Laird's testimony differs from Mr. Thomson's testimony
in three additional salient respects:
1) Laird states that he and Thomson reviewed the
contents of their October 19th conversation,
probably on Friday, December 3rd; Thomson
states that no such review occurred;
(Laird Tr. P 44, Thomson tr. P. 18)
2) Thomson does not agree that Laird expressed
disappointment to him on December 3rd that
the Commission had issued subpoenas (Laird
Tr. P. 38, Thomson Tr. p. 16)
3) Thomson does not agree that on December 3rd
Laird "certainly did" tell him to tell the
Commission staff of the October 19th
conversation (Laird Tr. p. 4, Thomson Tr. P. 17)
FORD
GERALD
- 40 -
At several points during the deposition, Laird made
statements such as "I did get the impression that it was
a very active matter, and that the Commission was pursuing
these complaints vigorously; I got the impression that it
was an immediate, ongoing matter, and that the Commission
was pursuing the matter vigorously." This testimony
conforms to earlier statements made by Laird to the
investigators.
It is to be remembered that as the information makes
its way toward Tennessee on October 22nd, its recipients
grow increasingly specific as to its contents. Laird
testified he told Hawley of a rumor that the Commission
was investigating the records of Brock's opponent. Hawley
testifies to the same effect. But Wallace was clear that
Hawley had told him the records had been subpoenaed. And
Kuykendall swears Wallace told him the rumor was that
the Commission had voted unanimously to issue subpoenas that
week. Bell testifies that Kuykendall told him of a unanimous
subpoena vote and that Kuykendall had said "Carl" [Wallace]
had said so to Kuykendall. Powell testifies to learning of
a "sure" vote for "subpoenas." It should further be noted
that each of these persons swore that they had only spoken
about this matter with the individuals they identified on
the record.
This increasing specificity lends credenceto the idea
that Mr. Laird's initial transmission to Hawley was even more
TXL FORD LIBRE
- 41 -
particularized than either one remembers. Unless something
had been said by Mr. Thomson regarding Commission pursuit of
"records" in the several campaigns, it would appear to have
required an extraordinarily intuitive leap by Mr. Laird to
put in motion information which Mr. Wallace clearly recalls
as involving at least "subpoenas" for Brock's opponent. It
may reasonably be inferred from the record as a whole,
notwithstanding Mr. Thomson's belief, that he in fact told
Mr. Laird at least that the Commission was acting in some
fashion to obtain records in connection with Tennessee. The
inference is reasonable notwithstanding the fact that
Mr. Laird did not transmit information to Hawley until two
and one-half days after the October 19th conversation, a gap
that has not thus far been satisfactorily explained.
In the General Counsel's view, such an inference may
properly be drawn at this time and should be. That
something compromising may have been uttered by Mr. Thomson
on October 19th is implicitly buttressed by his remarkable
failure until December 4th to report to Commission staff
that he had spoken by telephone with Mr. Laird about this
investigation and the University Club conversation perhaps
as early as November 19th and certainly not later than
November 23rd.
The question then becomes whether a preliminary finding
that Mr. Thomson was sufficiently specific in his October 19th
discussion with Mr. Laird provides a basis for finding reason
GERALD
- 42 -
to believe that he violated the Act. It is the General
Counsel's view that the test set forth above is applicable
to communications possessing the degree of specificity reflected
by Laird's testimony and reasonable inference; in short, this
record supports a preliminary finding that Mr. Thomson's
communication on October 19th directly resulted in knowledge
on the part of Mr. Laird that the Commission was conducting
an investigation with respect to the Sasser campaign.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Commission find reason
to believe that Vernon W. Thomson violated $437g (a) (3) (B) of
the Act.
B. Application of §437g to Persons Not Officially
Employed with the Commission
$4378 (a) (3) (B) expressly states that non-Commission
individuals have the same confidentiality obligation that
Commission employees bear with respect to investigations.
On the present state of this record, and given the exigencies
attending the submission of this report, I am not at this
time prepared to make a recommendation to the Commission as
to whether it should seek to apply §437g to persons identified
as having participated in the described chain of communication
who are not officially employed with the Commission.
C. Referral to the Justice Department for Possible
Perjury and Obstruction of Justice Investigation.
There is some evidence on this record that perjury may
have been committed and obstruction of justice attempted in
the course of this investigation. However, for the same
FORD
reason that I noted in subsection B above, I am not at the time BEFE
prepared to recommend to the Commission that it refer any
aspect of this case to the Department of Justice for
- 43 -
aspect of this case to the Department of Justice for
investigation of these potential charges.
V. Conclusion
Find reason to believe with respect to Victoria Ann
Tigwell and Vernon W. Thomson; prepare appropriate transmittal
letters; defer determinations regarding persons outside the
Commission who participated in the described chain of communi-
cation;defer consideration of whether to refer any aspect of
the case to the Attorney General.
December 21, 1976
Addendum
As this report makes clear, Mr. Thomson's testimony of
December 20, 1976 is, on a number of points, in direct and
unequivocal conflict with the General Counsel's clear recol-
lection of, and a contemporaneous memorandum made with regard
to, their meeting at Mr. Thomson's home on Saturday, December 4,
1976. It also conflicts with an account of that meeting related
orally by the General Counsel to Mr. Hershman later that same
day. The General Counsel is accordingly of the view that the
Commission may appropriately request that I relinquish control
of this investigation, since I may be a witness in it.
JohnD John G. Murphy May high Jr
333
December 4, 1976
MEMORANDUM TO: The File
FROM:
John G. Murphy, Jr.
you
Saturday, December 4, 1976, 5:15 p.m., Intersection
of Route 123 and Kirby Road, McLean, Virginia.
I have just spent approximately one hour with Vernon
Thomson at his home at 6213 Kellogg Drive, McLean, Virginia.
Marilyn Early telephoned me at 9:30 this morning and
indicated the Chairman wanted me to call him. I telephoned
him and he said that he would like to meet with me sometime
this weekend because he was disturbed about our brief
conversation prior to the Commission meeting, Thursday,
December 2. At that time, accompanied by Mike Hershman,
I had said to the Chairman that I was going to request
the Commission to subpoena the passenger list of several
Northwest Airlines flights from Washington to Milwaukee
on October 21, 1976. I said that as a matter of courtesy
I wanted to inform him of this imminent request because
it seemed to me that there was a chance with the holiday
weekend coming up he might have been on one of the
flights. He expressed no concern whatsoever at that
time and indicated that he normally flew to Wisconsin
on Tuesday to attend Board meetings. I told him that I
was subpoening the plane records because we had tracked
the leak back to Melvin Laird who was on one of the
airplanes for which I sought records. He expressed no
surprise or any other emotion when I mentioned Laird's
name.
During this morning's telephone conversation, I agreed
to meet with him this afternoon and I went to his home at
approximately 4:15 p.m. After some preliminaries with regard
to last evening's staff party, he indicated that he had
reviewed his deposition and thought there might be an
omission of importance.
He said that on Tuesday, October 19, 1976, he had gone
to a reception of Wisconsin people for an old friend of
his, Bob Spitzer, at the University Club and during the
course of his brief stay had run into Mel Laird. He said
Laird came up to him with other people standing around and
berated the Commission for not acting expeditiously on
complaints. He said that he had felt somewhat provoked
GERALD
- 2 -
He said he may have 12/4pm merreacted,
and had vehemently replied that that was totally false,
that the Commission was moving forward on all matters and
was acting very aggressively. Thomson says he did not
say anything about the Sasser case or Brock and that he
did not mention the word subpoenas. In response to a
question, he said that Laird may have said something about
the Commission letting all those banks make those loans.
In grost
he
durens
Thomson's memory is not strong on this. He said that
Laird's aggressive behavior was characteristic and he
recounted another earlier unrelated episode in which Laird
to explism
Xme
had behaved the same way.
this
dedn't
I asked him if he could remember who was at the party
who could have heard this conversation. He was unable to
give me a name. He had earlier mentioned a man named
z
years
Lard
Hyde Murray as being present but he did not think Murray
you
heard his exchange with Laird.
my
Thomson's manner throughout this interview somewhat
was
puzzled me. I asked him whether Laird had been in touch
as
with him since that reception. He said Laird had called
him a couple of weeks ago to ask who Murphy was and why I
almergin
had been calling Laird seeking an appointment. Thomson
represents that he said to Laird that the Commission was
did
with
investigating a matter, that I was authorized to act for
the Commission, and that he, Thomson, did not know exactly
what I was doing. I asked whether they had talked about
their previous conversation at the University Club. Thomson
ty
said it did not come up. He could not relate any other
pm
details of this telephone conversation. It seems to me
odd that Laird made this telephone call, as described, since
the call was apparently made after I had tried to reach
him and therefore well after he had already conferred
with Wallace and probably Kuykendall about the fact that
I was on the track.
We left it that he would probably submit a statement
1.
with respect to the University Club meeting, that he would\
pinpoint the exact date of the meeting and that he would
search his memory for the name of any person at the
Library
University Club who may have heard his conversation with
Laird. He also agreed to sign another subpoena for the
Northwest Airlines flight we missed with a previous
subpoena. [Addendum 12/7 6:30 Pm 2119 -1 At beginning & this sat. meeting,
VT sard he had groun disturbed since Thursday meeting. thinkms slamed
Laird involument. seeing Laird's name on chat I had drawn in
expe assim, and reflections un my menton 3 her name that morning, VT
thought A was do "mcabble "md remeired his
UC contact with Land. But then later he says laid caura him
"- comple b weeks ago shows me - why didn'd he cell me in then ?
TEC
FROM ELECTION COMMISSIN
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
1325 K STREET N.W.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463
January 12, 1977
The Honorable Philip Buchen
Counsel to The President
THE WHITE HOUSE
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Buchen:
Enclosed are two of the deposition transcripts which I
thought should be in the President's file. There are copies
of all other depositions taken of Commissioners, staff, and
others which are available in my office should you desire them.
If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate
to call me.
Best regards.
Sincerely yours,
Joan Jan
D. Aikens, arkens
BIERALD
Commissioner
JDA:jet
onei
Enclosures a/s
is LIBRARY GERALD
AMERICAN REVOLUTION WENTENING
1776-1976
@
ORIGINAL
Transcript of Proceedings
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Depositions taken by the General Counsel
for the
Federal Election Commission MUR 298 (76)
DEPOSITION OF VERNON IV. THOMSON
Washington, D. C.
Monday, 20 December 1976
FORO
ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters
415 Second Street; N.E.
Washington, D-C.- 20002
Telephone:
(Code 202) 547-6222
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
1
CR 1625
1
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
JOHNSON
Depo
2
ij-all
3
4
Depositions taken by the General Counsel
5
for the
6
Federal Election Commission MUR 298 (76)
7
8
DEPOSITION OF VERNON W. THOMSON
9
Washington, D. C.
10
Monday, 20 December 1976
11
12
Deposition 'of VERNON W. THOMSON, called for examination
13
by General Counsel for the Federal Election Commission, at
14
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Suite 1111, Washington, D. C.
15
at 9:30 a.m., before Rebekah J. Johnson, a notary public in
16
and for the District of Columbia, when were present on
17
behalf of the respective parties:
18
JOHN G. MURPHY, JR., General Counsel, Federal Election
Commission, Washington, D. C.
19
MICHAEL HERSHMAN, Chief Investigator, Federal Election
20
Commission, Washington, D. C.
21
JERRIS LEONARD, Esq., Leonard, Cohen and Gettings,
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C.;
22
on behalf of the Deponent.
Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
BERALD FUND LIBRARY
2
1
CONTENTS
2
WITNESS:
EXAMINATION
3
Vernon W. Thomson
4
By Mr. Murphy
3
By Mr. Leonard
34
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
FORDO j LIBRARY GERALO
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
3
CR 1625
1
PROCEEDINGS
JOHNSON
Depo
2
Whereupon,
ij-all
nily
3
VERNON W. THOMSON
4
was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn,
5
was examined and testified as follows:
6
EXAMINATION
7
BY MR. MURPHY:
8
Q.
Mr. Chairman, this is your second deposition in
9
this proceeding. I would ask you to first state your full
10
name and home address and home telephone number, please.
11
A.
Vernon W. Thomson, 6213 Kellogg Drive, McLean,
12
Virginia, 356-3644.
13
Q.
And you continue to serve as Chairman of the
14
Federal Election Commission.
15
A.
Yes, sir.
16
Q.
Mr. Chairman, I direct your attention to a
17
meeting that you and I had at your home on December 4, 1976,
18
a Saturday, and I ask you whether you recall that at that
19
meeting you informed me that on October 19, 1976, you had
20
encountered Melvin Laird at the University Club.
21
A.
That is correct.
22
Q.
Would you state for the record what occurred
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
FORD i LIBRARY QERALD
4
1
during that encounter on October 19th.
2
A.
I called you Saturday morning, the 4th of
3
December, to suggest to you, in line with your transmittal
4
letter of November 29th of my original deposition, I might
5
want to suggest corrections, or to elaborate or explain it.
6
I called you to say I wanted to talk to you for that purpose.
7
You had asked me a question in the original
8
deposition if I had spoken to anyone outside of the
9
Commission with respect to MUR216, the Sasser investigation,
10
or any detail with respect thereto, and I said that I had
11
hardly thought of the matter at any time before October 19th,
12
or the period from the 19th to the 25th, or thereafter, that
13
I had met Melvin Laird on October 19th at the University
14
Club in Washington, that I had been invited by a long-time
15
Wisconsin friend, Bob Spitzer, and that I had a 6:30 dinner
16
engagement, so I was rushing to get to the University Club,
17
pay my respects to Spitzer, and get out of there so I could
18
make my 6:30 engagement.
19
Sometime after I arrived there, I met Melvin
20
Laird, and he more or less accosted me or challenged me by
21
saying something to the effect, "Why doesn't your commission
22
get busy and enforce the law?"
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
FORD : LIBRARY GERALD
5
1
My reply was a general reply that the Commission
2
was carrying out its duties in accoradance with the law,
3
and that we were enforcing the law.
4
Then he replied, "Well, why don't you do something
5
about the banks that are making loans to candidates like
6
those in Maryland, Tennessee, Minnesota, and maybe some
7.
others?"
8
And I said, "There are no exceptions to the
9
enforcement policy of the FEC, we're carrying out our
10
duty, and it doesn't matter whether it's a bank or anybody
11
else. The Commission is doing its duty in enforcing the law."
12
Then he said, "Yes, but you're putting them all
13
over until after the election."
14
I said, "That's not true, that we have no policy
15
to put over anything until after the election; as a matter
16
of fact, the statute requires us to act expeditiously, and
17
we're doing our level best to carry out the intent and the
18
letter of the law, and you have got to know that we're doing
19
our job."
20
Well, that was about the extent of our
21
conversation. Mel turned and said something about, "Let's
22
try some of this food."
Acc- Federal Reporters, Inc.
GERALD FORD JEBRARY
6
1
I said, "I have got a 6:30 engagement; I don't
2
want to eat because I'm going out to dinner."
3
Then that was about the extent of it, and I never
4
thought for a moment that I --
5
MR. LEONARD: That's the answer to the question,
6
it seems to me.
7
BY MR. MURPHY:
8
Q.
Did he mention Senator Brock?
9
A.
No, sir.
10
Q.
Did you mention Senator Brock?
11
A.
I did not.
12
Q.
Did you mention Mr. Sasser?
13
A.
No, sir.
14
Q.
Did he mention Mr. Sasser?
15
A.
No, he didn't.
16
Q.
Did you mention the word "subpoenas"?
17
A.
No, sir.
18
Q.
Did he ask about subpoenas?
19
A.
No, sir.
20
Q.
Did you say that the Commission was investigating
21
the records in these cases?
22
A.
No, I don't think I said "We're investigating the
Acc- Tediral Reporters, Inc.
FORD : LIBRARY
7
1
records. " I was very general, because I thought he was
2
talking about a policy of enforcement by the Commission, and
3
I simply said that we were doing our best to carry out our
4
statutory mandate, and do it expeditiously, as the law
5
required.
6
Q.
Did you say that the Commission was moving to
7
obtain records in Tennessee or in the other jurisdictions?
8
A.
I don't think I said that, Jack; I was just
9
trying to defend the Commission's activities as doing the
10
job that the statute required us to do. I wasn't getting
11
into any details.
12
Q.
HOW. long was this conversation, Mr. Chairman?
13
A.
Well, I said it was very brief. I don't know
14
how many minutes I could assign to it other than to say
15
it was a brief conversation.
16
Q.
Five minutes?
17
A.
Itdidn't run that long, I don't think.
18
Ω
Would you characterize Mr. Laird's approach to
19
you as hostile?
20
A.
Well, I've told you about Mel Laird; he's
21
extremely aggressive and domineering; he's the "take-charge"
22
guy; he moves right in on you and you get the impression
Acer-Federal Reporters, Inc.
GERALD LISERAY P. FORD
8
1
that he is extremely aggressive.
2
Q.
Did you consider that he was seriously upset or
3
that he was needling you in a form of jest about the
4
Commission's inaction?
5
A.
Well, I would characterize it as ribbing me. I
6
think he used that term subsequent to that time, needling
7
me, sort of a provocative type of questions, which aren't
8
unusual for Mel. Laird.
9
Q.
Did you say that the Commission was taking
10
action that very week?
11
A.
No, I think the extent of my reply was that we
12
were acting expeditiously, as the statute required us to
13°
act.
14
Q.
Do you recall whether anyone was standing with
15
you when Mr. Laird approached you?
16
A.
Oh, Jack, I have thought about that for -- I
17
thought about it the other day when I was down at the
18
White House. I was getting bombarded by Congressmen down
19
there. If I had to say who was standing nearby, I couldn't
20
identify anybody that was standing nearby, although I knew
21
maybe 80 percent of the people there.
22
I don't know who was standing there, Jack. There
Acc-Federal Reporters, Inc.
FORDO is LIBRARY 9ERALD
9
1
were a lot of people there, the room was filled; you could
2
hardly take a step before you encountered someone.
3
Q.
On the question of whether or not you specifically
4
mentioned that the Commission was investigating records,
5
do I understand you to say you don't recall whether you
6
said that?
7
A.
I said I don't think I said anything about
8
examining records; I said that we were trying to enforce
9
the law the way it was written and I don't think ---
10
Q.
Is the answer the same with respect to the use
11
of the words "obtaining records"?
12
A.
I don't remember saying anything about records.
13
When somebody asks you a question involving two, or three,
14
or four areas where the same type of action might exist,
15
I wasn't about to identify any one of those that he
16
mentioned. As a matter of fact, I wasn't familiar with it
17
spęcifically. If somebody had said to me that day, naming
18
three or four places where this type of an action exists,
19
I don't think I could put it together without going to the
20
record to determine that.
21
Q.
Did he ask you whether you were moving to
22
obtain records?
Acco-Fedoral Reporters, Inc.
BERALB FORD
10
1
A.
No, I don't think he asked whether we were
2
moving to obtain records.
3
Q.
Did he ask any questions of that character
4
seeking information about what specifically the Commission
5
was doing?
6
A.
No, I don't think -- he just seemed to be bearing
7
down on me in a general way over a wide geographical area
8
as to a policy the Commission was operating under.
9
Q.
Did he demonstrate any familiarity with the loans
10
in these jurisdictions that were a question?
11
A.
He didn't say anything about them except to
12
say there were loans in such places as Maryland, Tennessee,
13
Minnesota, I think he named another one, maybe two or
14
three others, but I think mentioning those names would
15
indicate some familiarity with something.
16
Q.
Did he indicate he knew what size the loans
17
question were?
BERALD FORD LIBRETT
18
A.
No, there was no discussion of that.
19
Q.
Did he indicate that he talked with someone else
20
about these loans or about these compliance actions?
21
A.
Well, I didn't ask him; he didn't say anything.
22
He's a man with wide-ranging sources of information; I don't
Ace-Jederal Reporters, Inc.
11
1
know where he gets his information.
2
Q.
Was this particular portion of the conversation
3
preceded by any kind of preliminaries, or did he simply
4
walk up and start in on this?
5
A.
He just generally walks up to you and pokes
6
your chest with his finger.
7
Q.
In this instance did he?
8
A.
I don't think he did in this instance, but
9
that's an habitual approach of his. I don't recall that he
10
did this time. He has done it frequently to me.
11
Q.
In this instance is it your recollection he
12
approached you rather more gently?
13
A.
It was more gently than some of his approaches.
14
Q.
Can you recall specifically what he said when
15
he walked up to you, apart from hello?
16
A.
I think he said something to the effect, "Why
17
doesn't your commission, or you guys over at the Commission,
18
do something to enforce the law?"
19
Q.
What was your response to that?
20
A.
My response was that we were doing everything
21
we should do to enforce the law.
22
Q.
Then what did he say?
GERALD ?
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
12
1
A.
Then he said something to the effect about,
2
"Why don't you do something about the banks that are
3
making loans to candidates," like they are doing in these
4
states he mentioend.
5
I replied to that. He came back with the
6
question, "But you're not doing anything until after the
7
election is over. "
8
Q.
At my meeting with you on December 4th at your
9
home, you said that you may have over-reacted to Mr. Laird;
10
would you continue to characterize your responses that way?
11
A.
Well, I didn't think I was over-reacting, but
12
when I got all through talking to him, I just thought that
13
that was another meeting with Mel Laird, and that I had
14
given him the assurance that we were doing our duty, we
15
were doing it expeditiously, as the law required, and that
16
was the end of it.
17
Q.
Did you discuss this conversation with Mr. Laird
18
with anyone else thereafter prior to the time you revealed
19
it to me?
20
A.
Well, as I told in my home, I had had at that time
21
at the instigation of Mr. Laird two conversations; the first
22
time he called me he said something to the effect, "What's
Ace- Jederal Reporters, Inc.
FORD : LIBRARY GERALD
13
1
that Murphy doing? He's pestering me; he's calling me."
2
I told him that the Commission had authorized
3
an investigation involving making public information that
4
the Commission should have confidential, and that you
5
probably wanted to talk to him about our conversation at
6
the Spitzer reception. That's when he said something to
7
the effect, "Oh, that time when I was ribbing you?"
8
I said, "Yes, the time when you were ribbing
9
me; that's probably what Murphy wants to talk to you about. "
10
Q.
Do you recall, Mr. Chairman, that at your home
11
on December 4th I asked you with respect to that telephone
12
conversation you're describing whether the University
13
Club meeting had come up and you said it did not come up?
14
A.
No, he called me to find out what you were
15
pestering him about, and I must have told him that I
16
replied to him that it was at the Commission's direction
17
that you were authorized to do it, and that what you
18
probably wanted to talk to him about was the conversation,
19
but there wasn't any discussion about what the conversation
20
was about.
21
Q.
Now, we met, as we said, on the 4th of December;
22
at that time you described the details of your earlier
Aca- Feileral Reporters, Inc.
FORD LIBRARY
14
1
telephone conversation with Mr. Laird.
2
A.
Both of them.
3
Q.
At that time my records reflect you did not
4
reveal to me the conversation of December 3, 1976, the day
5
before we met; do you now recall that conversation?
6
A.
My recollection is that I told you that he had
7
called me twice; the first time he wanted to know why you
8
were pestering him; the second time he wanted to know what
9
authority the Commission had to issue subpoenas.
10
I told him that it was a vote'of the Commission
11
to issue the subpoenas, and you were lawfully in possession
12
of the subpoenas, and that they had been issued.
13
I "told you, and you said to me, "What dates
14
did Laird call you?"
15
I said, "I don't have a record of the dates
16
on which he called me, but you, Mr. Chairman, would have
17
those dates, because you are --" excuse me, "Mr. Counsel,
18
you would have those dates because you were the individual
19
who was pestering Laird, and who was talking to him about
20
subpoenas."
21
I didn't know what dates you were talking with
22
him, and I didn't have any record, but I told you about
GERALD
LIBRARY
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
15
1
those two conversations at that December 4th meeting.
2
Q.
Our meeting of December 4th was one day after
3
the phone càll from Mr. Laird to you with respect to the
4
subpoenas; you couldn't recall on the 4th of December
5
that you heard from him on the 3rd?
6
A.
I didn't have any log; I didn't remember what
7
the date was, but I told you -- I advised you of the tele-
8
phone call and told you that you should know better than I
9
did because I didn't know when you were pestering him, or
10
when you were talking to him about subpoenas. There isn't
11
any doubt in my mind but what I told you about both of
12
those conversations, just as I have told you about them
13
here today.
14
Q.
I would respectfully differ, but I don't want
15
to argue with the witness over a deposition. My recollection
16
distinctly is different, that you did not tell me of the
17
December 3rd conversation.
18
A.
Don't you remember that I told you about two
19
conversations, Jack?
20
Q.
No, sir, I do not.
21
A.
You asked me what were the dates for either of
22
them, and I didn't know the dates for either of them.
Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
FORD : LIBRARY GERAL
16
1
Q.
The record should reflect my disagreement with
2
the Chairman's information of December 4th on the
3
December 3rd phone call.
4
Would you tell me again what Mr. Laird said
5
to you at that time.
6
A.
He wanted to know how the Commission could issue
7
subpoenas and if it was lawful. I said the Commission
8
felt that we had the authority to issue subpoenas, that
9
the general counsel had recommended the issuance of
10
subpoenas; the Commission had voted to issue subpoenas,
11
and you were proceeding with the authority of the
10
12
Commission and, not on your own.
13-
Q.
Did he indicate to you his disappointment that
14
you had signed a subpoena for information which you already
15
possessed?
16
A.
No, I don't think he -- he said, "Well, your
17
agency is the only agency in government that doesn't
18
respect the privilege of a journalist."
19
Q.
Do you recall whether he asked you to disclose
20
the October 19th meeting with him to the Commission staff,
21
or specifically to me, that is, during this December 3rd
22
telephone call?
BERATO FOND LIBRARY
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
17
1
A.
Would you repeat the question?
2
Q.
Do you recall whether during the December 3rd
3
telephone call "he asked you to reveal the October 19th
4
meeting with him to the staff or to me?
5
MR. LEONARD: I don't understand the question.
6
I don't know who you mean with all the "yous" you're using.
7
BY MR. MURPHY:
8
Q.
Do you recall whether during the December 3rd
9
telephone conversation with Mr. Laird Mr. Laird indicated
10
or stated that you, Mr. Chairman, should disclose the fact
11
that you and he had met on October 19th at the University
12
Club reception?
13
A.
Jack, I think the only discussion of disclosing
14
the conversation we had came on the next Monday, the 6th,
15
and when he called me, I immediately called you, and you
16
and Mike Hershman came up to my office and I told you
17
that Laird had called me and that I had intended to call him
18
and tell him that I had no objections, no objections at
19
all, to his discussing with you the conversation I had
20
with Mr. Laird on November 19th --
21
MR. LEONARD: October 19th.
22
THE WITNESS: October 19th, yes.
FORD is LIBRARY 07/170
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
18
1
BY MR. MURPHY:
2
Q.
Do you recall at any time after October 19th
3
discussing with Mr. Laird the details of your conversations
4
of the 19th with him?
in
A.
No, I don't think -- I told him to respond to you,
6
to describe what was discussed there, but I don't have any
7
recollection of discussing the conversation that I had
8
with Laird with him, except to tell him that that was the
9
conversation that you probably wanted to talk to him about.
10
Q.
So, to the best of your recollection, you did
11
not discuss
the details of that conversation with him
12
at any time except as you have described the conversation.
13
A.
That is correct.
SEAL R. FORD LIBRARY
14
Q.
Going back to the first telephone call you
15
received, which you characterized as one in which Mr. Laird
16
asked why Murphy was pestering him, do you recall whether
17
Mr. Laird said anything at that time about who he had
18
talked to other than you with regard to Commission compliance
19
matters?
20
A.
Well, I don't think we -- I don't think there
21
was any discussion of who else he had talked to.
22
Q.
Did he indicate that he had talked to no one else?
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
19
1
A.
We didn't discuss it; I don't have any
2
recollection of that.
3
Q.
On December 6th, which was the Monday following
4
our meeting at your home, you have referred to a. conversation
5
you had with Mr. Laird by telephone later in the morning
6
after which you met with Mr. Hershman and myself; would you
7
state for the record what Mr. Laird said during that
8
conversation?
9
A.
Well, Mr. Laird said that he had a policy as a
10
publisher, or writer, of not discussing with anyone any
11
conversations he had unless the other party to the
12
conversation gave approval to that, and he said that you
13
had been talking to him and requesting or demanding
14
that he disclose the conversations that he had had with
15
what you termed to be "his source."
16
I just said, "Mel, I have no objections to your
17
discussing with Murphy the conversation we had at the
18
Spitzer reception at all. You can tell Murphy that or I
19
will tell him." I said; "I will tell Murphy that I have
20
no objection to it," and I called you up to my office and
21
told you that I had no objection to it, and then I called
22
Mr. Laird immediately after you left and told him that I
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
20
1
had no objection to it.
2
Q.
Do you recall at any time in meetings with
3
Mr. Hershman and myself that you stated that you did not
4
know that Mr. Laird was a newsman?
5
A.
Well, I might have said I --
6
MR. LEONARD: Excuse me, I fail to see the
7
relevancy of that. The facts lie in the conversation;
8
whether the governor viewed Mr. Laird as a newsman or not
9
seems to me to bear little on the conversation of October 19th
10
I guess my objection to the question is that it has little
11
relvancy to the investigation, but you can answer the
12
question.
13.
THE WITNESS: I think said to you that I
14
had read two or three articles that had Mel Laird's
15
byline, which surprised me a little as to him being an
16
author, but he is a vice president of Reader's Digest, and
17
he does produce articles under his byline.
18
Well, I have known Mel for many years; I know
19
he's written a book; I know he's written a few articles.
20
But -- what did you ask me, if I characterized him as a
21
author?
0
22
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
21
1
BY MR. MURPHY:
2
Q.
Do you recall saying to Mr. Hershman and to me
3
that you did not know that Mr. Laird was a newsman?
4
A.
Well, I didn't know he was an author. I wouldn't
5
call him a newsman.
6
Q.
Do you recall specifically using that word,
7
"newsman," that he was not a newsman?
8
A.
No, I don't recall using the word "newsman."
9
It's possible I did. What I was saying was that I was a
10
little bit amused that Mel Laird was in the business of
11
writing, but he is, and I said that as a humerous remark,
12
I suppose, based, on my long observation of Mr. Laird.
13
Q.
During the week of December 6th, the 6th being
14
that Monday, at some later time, did you have occasion
15
to call Mr. Laird's office?
16
A.
Well, I called his office on December 6th.
17
Q.
Yes. Do you recall a later telephone call on
18
Wednesday?
19
A.
On the 8th?
20
Q.
The 8th of December.
21
A.
No.
22
Q.
Or on Thursday the 9th of December?
FORD is 938839 LIBRARY
Acc- Federal Reporters, Inc.
22
1
A.
I don't have any recollection of talking to him
2
after I told him to go ahead and talk to you.
3
Q.
At any time?
4
A.
I just don't have any recollection of calling
5
him; I have no reason to call him.
6
Q.
Are you saying, Mr. Chairman, that you have not
7
spoken with Mr. Laird since December 6th?
8
A.
No, I'm not saying that; I met him at the White
9
House party, I think it was on the 9th, and I spoke to him,
10
but largely for the purpose of introducing the escort I
11
had at the White House affair.
12
Q.
Has there been any other occasion since
13
December 6th, apart from the White House reception you
14
referred to, when you talked to Mr. Laird?
15
A.
I don't recall any.
16
Q.
Has there been any other occasion when you have
17
called Mr. Laird's office?
18
A.
Well, I don't know why I would be calling. I
19
don't recall calling.
20
MR. MURPHY: We will take a short recess here.
21
(A brief recess was held.)
22
MR. MURPHY: Back on the record.
1980
Acc-Federal Reporters, Inc.
BERAL
LIBRARY
23
1
I just have one or two additional questions.
2
For the record, I might note that by agreement
3
with the witness's counsel, at the conclusion of these
4
questions, Mr. Leonard has been given the liberty to ask
5
the witness additional questions, if he feels the need to do
6
so. We're happy to accomodate Mr. Leonard in this respect.
7
BY MR. MURPHY:
8
Q.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct your
9
attention once again to the conversation you had with
10
Mr. Laird by telephone when he was inquiring about my action
11
in seeking an appointment with him in which you explained
12
to him that I was pursuing the investigation authorized
13
by the Commission. I think you stated to me that he was
14
curious about what I was doing, and that you indicated
15
that I was authorized to pursue this matter, and you have
16
indicated that the subject of the University Club meeting
17
did come up; it was clear from what you knew, I gather,
18
that I was, in fact, investigating along a line that had
19
led me to Mr. Laird.
20
The question I have is why did you not report
21
this telephone call to me at sometime prior to December 4th?
22
A.
Well, Jack, you were investigating; I didn't know
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
GERALD
LIBRARY
24
1
anything about who were you investigating except that you
2
were, as Laird said, perstering him. I didn't have any
3
reason to withhold any information from you or from anybody
4
else.
5
I didn't know that you were investigating
6
Mr. Laird for the purpose of identifying whoever he had
7
talked to until you said it in the December 2nd meeting
8
of the Commission, and I was just struck like a thunderclap
9
at that time, as I told you on December 4th when you came
10
to my house.
11
You stopped me on my way into the Commission
12
meeting to tell me. you were going to ask for the Northwest
13
Airlines' flight to Wisconsin, and I said something about,
14
"For heaven's sake, what will that reveal?"
15
You said to me, "It will reveal whether you
16
were on the flight."
17
And I replied to that that if you wanted to know
18
about any flights I made, I would give them to you; further-
19
more, I hadn't been on a Thursday flight in two years, or
20
whatever I could remember.
21
I had nothing to withhold so far as your
22
investigation. I knew you were going to Laird; I didn't
Acc-Foderal Reporters, Inc.
LIBRARY GERALD FORD
25
1
care if you went to Laird, but I didn't know the significance
2
of it until long after Laird called me and said you were
3
pestering him. I told him you were pestering him because
4
you were investigating a matter of importance to the
5
Commission.
6
Q.
The record will reflect correctly, Mr. Chairman,
7
that when Mr. Hershman and I approached you on the morning
8
of December 2nd prior to the meeting, you did indeed tell
9
me that you flew to Wisconsin on Tuesday for the board
10
meeting.
11
A.
I went to a board meeting on Tuesday night, and
12
I said I hadn made a Thursday flight as long as I could
13
remember.
14
Q.
That you were perfectly comfortable with the
15
notion that we would subpoena those airline flight
16
passenger records.
17
A.
I did. I said if you wanted my records, I'll
18
give them to you.
19
Q.
I don't recall that you said that. The : record
20
should be clear you were perfectly comfortable with the
21
notion we would obtain records of a Thursday flight.
22
A.
Yes, I signed. the subpoena, didn't I.
Aw-Feileral Reporters, Inc.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
26
1
Q.
A moment ago you characterized my December 2nd
2
presentation to the Commission on this matter as one which
3
left you thunderstruck; may I ask why you did not
4
disclose this information to me that afternoon?
5
A.
Well, the only reason was the connection between
6
the flight to Wisconsin and the fact that you thought
7
Mel Laird was a critical person in there. I had never
8
considered that I had in any way violated the law, made
9
anything public except the policy of the Commission to do
10
its job.
11
But the more I thought about the connection
12
between those flight manifests and the fact that you were
13
identifying Laird as a critical person, I couldn't believe
14
that I had any involvement in it, and so I -- well, I went
15
to your farewell party and enjoyed your limericks, and
16
thinking this matter over; so, Saturday morning I called
17
you -- and I probably called you too early for a person that
18
had been to a farewell party -- but I called you at a
19
reasonably early hour Saturday morning so I could tell you
20
about it.
21
I couldn't believe it. All I had done was
22
defend the Commission; if it had been published in the
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
LIBRARY GERALD P. FORD
27
1
Washington Post, nobody would even remember it probably.
2
Q.
Although you were thunderstruck by my presentation
3
on December 2nd, it did not lead you to discuss the
4
October 19th meeting that day.
5
A.
You mean December 2nd?
6
Q.
December 2nd; you were in the office on
7
December 3rd.
8
A.
I was.
9
Q.
May I ask why during the course of the day,
10
December 3rd, I was not contacted?
11
A.
I just couldn't come to any belief that I was
12
involved in this matter So I called you early on the
13
morning of December 4th.
14
Q.
You called me at 9:30; that isn't early.
15
A.
It seemed to be early under the circumstances.
16
O.
I. had been up for several hours.
17
So that your statement with respect to December 3rd
18
is that you were mulling my presentation over, but the full
19
implications to it with respect to the October 19th meeting
20
did not come clear to you until Saturday morning, the 4th.
21
A.
Well, I couldn't believe that I would be charged
22
with anything. If I was charged with anything, it should be
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
LIBRARY GERALD
28
1
that I made public the fact that the Federal Election
2
Commission was doing its job regardless of who the parties
3
were. Now that might have been news, but that's all I
4
should have been charged with.
5
Q.
You are familiar with the Commission policy
6
with respect to reporting external conversations having to
7
do with compliance matters.
8
A.
Well, I insisted on drafting the ex-party rule
FORD
9
to that Commission, and I appointed Bill Springer to draw
10
ANVUST
them.
11
Q.
At the point at which it was clear to you that
12
the investigation had reached Mr. Laird, did it occur to
13
you that at least the spirit of ex-party provisions
14
suggested that you make a record to the Commission staff
15
with regard to your contact with Mr. Laird on October 19th?
16
A.
I didn't think there was anything ex-party
17
about it at all to insist that the Commission was doing its
18
job and doing it expeditiously, as the statute required.
19
It never occured to me there was anything wrong.
20
Q.
I'm not referring to the October 19th meeting.
21
A.
Would you repeat the question?
1
22
Q.
When Mr. Laird first telephoned you to indicate
Acc-Federal Reporters, Inc.
29
1
I was seeking to interview him, you were aware that I was
2
conducting an investigation, and you told Mr. Laird that.
3
At that time did not at least the spirit of ex-party policy
4
suggest to you the desirability of entering that
5
conversation on the record?
6
A.
No, I don't think so, he just asked me if you
7
had authority to conduct an investigation, and I told him
8
you did.
9
Q.
Do you recall whether during that first conversation
10
he mentioned the name Carl Wallace?
11
A.
No, I'm certain he didn't mention Carl Wallace.
12
Q.
Dan Kuykendall?
13
A.
I'm certain he didn't mention Dan Kuykendall.
14
Q.
Did he mention anyone?
15
A.
No, he just mentioned the states where he thought
16
we weren't carrying out our duty. The first I heard about
17
these names you mentioned --
18
Q.
I don't mean during the conversation at the
19
University Club; I mean in the conversation on the telephone
20
with Mr. Laird about my involvement, did he mention Carl
21
Wallace?
22
A.
No, he didn't mention anybody. He said you were
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
GEBRLD FORD LIBRARY
30
1
pestering him, and he wanted to know if it was a legitimate
2
activity of the Commission.
3
Q.
Can you recall what day of the week it was when
4
he called?
5
A.
Jack, I have told you, the day of the week or
6
the date, as I said to you on the 4th in my home, you have
7
the best evidence of when it was because you were in contact
8
with Laird. I don't keep any log.
9
Q.
Mr. Chairman, it seems clear to that I did
10
not know that you had met with Mr. Laird on the 19th until
11
you told me on the 4th; so, I would have no basis to know
12
when he made the call. I respectfully differ when you say
13
I have the best evidence.
14
A.
You were pestering Mr. Laird.
15
Q.
I object to that characterization.
16
A.
That's his characterization I am repeating, as
17
I have, that he characterized your phone calls to him as
18
"pestering" him. So, you were talking with him; whether you
19
knew about the October 19th meeting, you were talking with
20
Mr. Laird.
21
Q.
Do you know if at the time he called you that
22
first time I had seen him. or not?
Acc-Federal Reporters, Inc.
BERALE FORD
31
1
A.
I don't know; I don't remember whether you had
2
been in
to see him, or whether vou were talking to him
3
on the telephone. I don't think I asked him.
4
Q.
Did you have an impression in one way or the
5
other I had been in direct communication with him as
6
distinct from an intermediary?
7
A.
Well, he said, "Murphy is pertering me." I don't
8
know whether you pester people through intermediaries.
9
Q.
He did not say I had spoken with him?
10
A.
Well, I am telling you the best recollection that
11
I have, whether you spoke to him on the telephone or in
12
person, I don't know.
13
Q.
Well, I just want the record to reflect that
14
exchange of a moment ago to the effect that at our meeting
15
December 4th, I learned for the first time of the October 19th
16
meeting between you and Mr. Laird, and there was no way I
17
could have conceivably known of the telephone conversation
18 .
you revealed to me at that time.
19
MR. LEONARD: If I might just for a moment, first,
20
Jack, I don't think that the governor has in any way
21
intimated or characterized what he's saying as an atack on
22
you at all. I think the point that he is trying to make
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
FORDO : LIBRARY GERALD
32
1
is that with respect to the first phone call that he had with
2
Laird, which is not on the record here today, but which you
3
have indicated to me and I have indicated to the governor,
4
would have taken place somewhere between November 18th and
5
November 22nd, that as far as establishing the date of
6
that phone call, the point he's making is that your records
7
of contact with Laird would be the best evidence of the
8
date of that, because he had, number one, no recollection
9
of the date, and number two, he has no record of the date,
10
therefore, if you kept a log -- and he's not suggesting, nor
11
am I, that you did -- but if you kept some kind of a
12
telephone log with Laird, it probably would have been a
13
day or two, or three or four, after you first contacted
14
Laird that Laird would have called the governor.
15
MR. MURPHY: I understand that, Mr. Leonard.
16
MR. LEONARD: That's the point he's making.
17
MR. MURPHY: The point I'm trying to make is that
18
the Chairman in the Saturday meeting on December 4th did not
19
make that statement to me, but I don't want to get into
20
a swearing match with the witness.
21.
MR. LEONARD: You did not know about the
22
October 19th meeting at the University Club until December 4th
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
exat & LIBRARY 0ERALD
33
1
MR. MURPHY: That is correct, I certainly did
2
not.
3
What I'm saying is that the Chairman did not
4
tell me on December 4th that I was the best source of a record
5
as to when the conversation by telephone occurred after the
6
October 19th meeting.
7
MR. LEONARD: Again, I don't know what the
8
materiality of the specific date is; he did reveal to you
9
that he had that conversation with Laird.
10
MR. MURPHY: That is correct.
11
MR. LEONARD: The "Murphy-is-pestering-me"
12
conversation.
13
MR. MURPHY: That is correct, he revealed that
14
phone call.
15
THE WITNESS: Jack, you keep saying that you
16
learned about my conversation of October 19th on December 4th;
17
but long before that you were asking Laird to sit down and
18
discuss this matter with you, and you didn't have to tell
19
me that Mel Laird was involved because you were already
20
talking to him, and I think that ought to be clear on the
21
record.
22
MR. MURPHY: I think it is.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
BERALD Be FORD <<8
LIBRARY
34
1
I have no further questions as this time.
2
MR. LEONARD: I have just a few.
3
BY MR. LEONARD:
4
Q.
Governor, wouldn't it be more correct with
5
respect to -- strike that.
6
MR. MURPHY: Please don't lead the witness,
7
Mr. Leonard.
8
MR. LEONARD: I think you'll agree when I finish
9
the question it's an appropriate one.
10
BY MR. LEONARD:
11
Q.
With respect to your December 6th conversation
12
with Mr. Murphy and Mr. Hershman relative to the question
13
of Mr. Laird's hewsman's privilege, you said that you were
14
amused that he was considering himself to be an author,
15
et cetera. Would it be more correct to characterize that
16
amusement as the fact that you were amused that he was
17
claiming a newsman's privilege in view of the fact you had
18
never considered him to be a newspaper man even while he
19
was with Reader's Digest?
20
A.
Well, I think that's true; I don't think Mel Laird
21
is a newspaper man; he's probably a publisher and maybe an
22
author.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
DERALO B. FORD LIBRARY
35
1
Q.
With respect to your October 19, 1976,
2
conversation with Mr. Laird at the University Club at the
3
Spitzer party, did you at any time during that conversation
4
tell Mr. Laird that the FEC had voted unanimously to do
5
anything about anything?
6
A.
There was nothing in that conversation relating
7
to any action of the Commission except that we were doing
8
our statutory duty.
9
Q.
Did you during that conversation tell him that
10
you, the Commission, had voted to issue subpoenas in any
11
case?
12
A.
No.
13
Q.
Did you discuss with him in any way the specifics
14
of what was later to become known as MUR 216, the Sasser
15
bank loan case involved in the Sasser/Brock election?
16
A.
We didn't discuss anything in regard to the
17
details; the only discussion went to the general policy of
18
enforcement, which was being challenged by Mr. Laird.
19
Q.
Now, if counsel for the Commission will allow
20
me, I know that this is a litt bit leading, but --
21
MR. MURPHY: Let me hear it off the record first.
22
MR. LEONARD: All right.
&
FORD
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
GERALD
LIBRARY
36
1
(Discussion off the record.)
2
MR. MURPHY: Back on the record.
3
MR. LEONARD: That's all I have.
4
MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much.
5
THE WITNESS: Let me just add one thing, because
6
I think Mr. Murphy --
7
MR. MURPHY: Off the record.
8
THE WITNESS: I want it on the record; it does
9
have a relevancy to the factual question that you are
10
considering.
11
MR. MURPHY: All right.
12
THE WITNESS: In Mr. Murphy's conversation
13
with Jerris Leonard, he indicated that Commissioner Thomson
14
had failed to reveal on the meeting of December 2nd the
15
fact that he had had a conversation with Melvin Laird on
16
October 19th, whereas one of the other commissioners
17
stated that he had met with Melvin Laird at about that
18
time, and that that Commissioner had volunteered that he
19
had spoken to Laird, but the effect of the statement was
20
that he revealed the fact that he had spoken with Mr. Laird,
21
whereas Commissioner Thomson didn't volunteer that at the
22
meeting of December 2nd. I think that is correct, Mr. Murphy.
Ace- Federal Reporters, Inc.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
37
1
MR. MURPHY: That's correct.
2
THE WITNESS: I have explained to you why I
3
called you early - or at 9:30, as you said, on December 4th,
4
when I realized from the talk about the airplane flight and
5
whether I was on it or not, I concluded that I better tell
6
you about it. I not only told you about it, but I told
7
Mel Laird to talk to you about it.
8
I have been just as open and frank with you as
9
I possibly can all the way, but I don't like the suggestion
10
that because one Commissioner, who did talk to Mel Laird also,
11
mentioned it in the Commission meeting on the 2nd, and I
12
didn't tell you until the 4th. I think there are different
13
circumstances involved in the matter.
14
STATE
E
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LEVERAL
15
Anything further, Mr. Leonard?
16
MR. LEONARD: No, Mr. Murphy.
17
MR. MURPHY: We will end this now, and I think you.
18
(Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the taking of the
19
deposition was concluded.)
20
21
22
(Signature waived.)
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
38
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC AND REPORTER
I,
Rebekah J. Johnson
the officer before whom
,
the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the witness
whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me;
that the testimony of said witness was taken in shorthand and thereafter
reduced to typewriting by me or under my direction; that said deposition is
a true record of the testimony given by said witness; that I am neither
counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action
in which this deposition was taken; and, further, that I am not a relative
or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor
financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.
District of Columbia
My commission expires 14 May 1981