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
12021995
label
Nixon Pardon - Hungate Subcommittee Background Material (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
12021995
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Nixon Pardon - Hungate Subcommittee Background Material (2)
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Nixon, Richard M. (Richard Milhous), 1913-1994
Governmental investigations
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
12021995
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1974-09-01
month
9
year
1974
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-08-01
month
8
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
50edb54c12d4fe1a
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 33, folder "Nixon Pardon - Hungate
Subcommittee: Background Material (2)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
Digitized from Box 33 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
This page was digitized from a poor quality original.
San Clemente, California
STATEMENT BY FORMER PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON
SEPTEMBER 8, 1974
Thave been informed that President Ford has granted
me a ful and absolute pardon for any charges which
might be broug t against me for actions taken during
the time I was President of the United States. In
accepting this pardon, I hope that his compass nate
act will contribute to lifting the burden of Wetergate
from our country.
Here in California, my perspective on Wagergate is
quite different than it was white I was embat ed
in the nidst of the conti oversky and while. van
still subject to the unrelenting daily demands of
the Presidency itself.
Locking back on what is still in my mind a complex
and comf using imaze of events, decisions, pressures,
and personalities, one thing Lean see clearly how
is that Iwas wrong in more decisively
and more forthrightly in dealing with Waterpate,
particularly when it reached the stage of indicial
proceedings and grew Gomia political scandal into
a nation tragedy
GERALD LIBRARY ? FORD
2
No words can describe the depth of my regret and
pain at the anguish my mistakes over Watergate have
caused the Nation and the Presidency --- a Nation
I so deeply love, and an institution I so greatly
respect.
I know that many fair-minded people believe that my
motivations and actions in the Watergate affair
were intentionally self-serving and illegal. I now
understand how my own mistakes and misjudgments
have contributed to that belief and seemed to support
it. This burden is the heaviest one of all
to bear.
That the way I tried to deal with Watergate was the
wrong way is a burden I shall bear for every day
of the life that is left to me.
# # #
FORD
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
TIME MAGAZINE
September 30, 1974
THE PRESIDENCY/HUGH SIDEY
show that he helped Nixon continue his deception.
Yet, six months before the end, Haig and Kissinger saw,
A Loyalist's Departure
an anguished impeachment trial, bare survival for Nixon.
And even that was the thinnest of hunches. Did Haig begin
to ease the way for a Nixon resignation then? Probably.
General Alexander Haig has paid his dues to the United
Haig knew that Watergate was taking a terrible physical
States. Several times.
toll of Nixon. The viral pneumonia was the first signal. Yet
From West Point to Korea, from the Pentagon to Viet
Nixon could come back to his peak. Said Haig: "The Pres-
Nam, he answered every call to duty. Then Richard Nixon
ident performed brilliantly in the Middle East and Russia."
called him one day when Haig, at the time a four-star gen-
When Haig learned of the last transcript, he knew Nixon
eral and Army vice chief of staff, was visiting Fort Benning.
was finished. He believes Nixon knew it too. Some others in
Haldeman and Ehrlichman, about to be thrown out of the
the White House did not. Haig moved through the murk.
White House, wanted Haig to come take charge of the staff.
The question that concerned
DIRCK MALSTEAD
"I really don't think I'm the man," he said. "You don't want
him most was whether the coun-
a military man in that job."
try was ready for the events
The loyalty ethic is strong with Haig. He went. But not
ahead, and Haig moved skillful-
blindly. "You won't come out alive," a friend told him. Haig
ly to get the tapes out and bring
had been through the Cuban missile crisis, made 13 trips to
-
the country abreast of them.
Viet Nam. "I don't think professional public servants have
the luxury to play it safe in time of national crisis," he said.
Haig retains admiration for
Haig sat last week in the luxurious office that Haldeman
Nixon in that dark hour. "There
WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSEC UTION FORCE
United States Department of Justice
1425 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
October 12, 1974
Honorable William B. Saxbe
The Attorney General
U. S. Department of Justice
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Saxbe:
Along with my letter of resignation, I beg
to hand you herewith a copy of our latest interim
report which reflects the principal activities of
the Special Prosecutor's office to date.
Two of the results achieved relate to the
mandate directed to this office to investigate
allegations involving the President. Both are
without precedent.
One is the extensive grand jury report on the
involvement of .Richard M. Nixon in Watergate cover-
up activities, prepared for the grand jury by this
office and sent to the House Judiciary Committee
last March, after successful litigation through the
trial and appellate courts. While the grand jury
report, which presented the chain of evidence in
detail, has not been published, I am informed that
it served as a major guide for the staff and members
of the Committee in the development of the presenta-
tion leading to the Articles of Impeachment.
The second involved the successful litigation
of a trial subpoena for tape recorded evidence in
the hands of the President of the United States. The
Supreme Court's unanimous decision supporting the
subpoena of the Special Prosecutor compelled the
former President to release, among others, the tape
recording of June 23, 1973, which served as a fore-
runner to his resignation.
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
- 2 -
Although not appropriate for comment until
after the sequestering of the jury in United States V.
Mitchell, et al., in view of suggestions that an
indictment be returned against former President
Richard M. Nixon questioning the validity of the pardon
granted him, I think it proper that I express to you my
views on this subject to dispel any thought that there
may be some relation between my resignation and that
issue.
As you realize, one of my responsibilities, not
only as an officer of the court, but as a prosecutor
as well, is not to take a position in which I lack faith
or which my judgment dictates is not supported by probable
cause. The provision in the Constitution investing the
President with the right to grant pardons, and the
recognition by the United States Supreme Court that a
pardon may be granted prior to the filing of charges are
so clear, in my opinion, as not to admit of doubt. Philip
Lacovara, then Counsel to the Special Prosecutor, by
written memorandum on file in this office, came to the
same conclusion, pointing out that:
H
the pardon power can be exercised at
any time after a federal crime has been
committed and it is not necessary that
there be any criminal proceedings pending.
In fact, the pardon power has been used
frequently to relieve federal offenders of
criminal liability and other penalties and
disabilities attaching to their offenses
even where no criminal proceedings against
the individual are contemplated.'
I have also concluded, after thorough study, that
there is nothing in the charter and guidelines appertain-
ing to the office of the Special Prosecutor that impairs
or curtails the President's free exercise of the
constitutional right of pardon.
I was co-architect along with Acting Attorney
General Robert Bork, of the provisions some theorists
now point to as inhibiting the constitutional pardoning
power of the President. The additional safeguards of
independence on which I insisted and which Mr. Bork, on
former President Nixon's authority, was willing to grant
were solely for purposes of limiting the grounds on which
my discharge could be based and not for the purpose of
enlarging on the jurisdiction of the Special Prosecutor.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 3 -
Hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Committee
subsequent to my appointment make it clear that my
jurisdiction as Special Prosecutor was to be no
different from that possessed by my predecessor.
There was considerable concern expressed by
some Senators that Acting Attorney General Bork, by
supplemental order, inadvertently had limited the
jurisdiction that previously existed. The hearings
fully developed the concept that the thrust of the
new provisions giving me the aid of the Congressional
"consensus" committee were to insulate me from ground-
less efforts to terminate my employment or to limit
the jurisdiction that existed. It was made clear,
however, that there was no "redefining" of the juris-
diction of the Special Prosecutor as it existed from
the beginning. There emerged from these hearings
the definite understanding that in no sense were the
additional provisions inserted in the Special Prosecutor's
Charter for the purpose of either enlarging or diminish-
ing his jurisdiction. I did stress, as I argued in the
Supreme Court in U. S. V. Nixon, that I was given the
verbal assurance that I could bring suit against the
President to enforce subpoena rights, a point upheld
by the Court. This, of course, has no bearing on the
pardoning power.
I cannot escape the conclusion, therefore, that
additional provisions to the Charter do not subordinate
the constitutional pardoning power to the Special
Prosecutor's jurisdictional rights. For me now to
sentend otherwise would not only be contrary to the
interpretation agreed upon in Congressional hearings --
it also would be, on my part, intellectually dishonest.
Thus, in the light of these conclusions, for me
to procure an indictment of Richard M. Nixon for the
sole purpose of generating a purported court test on
the legality of the pardon, would constitute a spurious
proceeding in which I had no faith; in fact, it would be
tantamount to unprofessional conduct and violative of
my responsibility as prosecutor and officer of the court.
DERALO FORD LIBRARY
- 4 -
Perhaps one of the more important functions
yet to be discharged relates to our final report.
It is contemplated that this report will be as all-
encompassing as the authority granted this office
permits, consistent with the prosecutorial function
as delineated by the American Bar Association Standards
for Criminal Justice. While this report will be cast
in final form subsequent to my term as Special Prosecutor,
I will be available to the authors for such contributions
and consultations as they deem advantageous.
You are aware, of course, of the position this
office has taken regarding access to former President
Nixon's White House materials for all remaining
investigations and prosecutions. Legislation now pend-
ing, if enacted, will solve the problem. If not enacted,
I shall continue to be available, to whatever extent my
successor desires, for counseling on reaching a solution
to this problem so that all relevant materials will be
forthcoming.
My Deputy, Henry Ruth, and most of the other
members of the staff have worked together since the
creation of the office. Mr. Ruth has a familiarity with
all matters still under investigation as well as those
still to be tried. He has been in charge of all "milk
fund" matters, in view of my recusal. I trust that you
will not mind my offering the suggestion that he be
given consideration to serve as my successor, thus
permitting the unfinished matters to continue without
interruption.
Sincerely,
LEON JAWORSKI
Special Prosecutor
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Wednesday, Oct. 16, 1974
The Pardon of Nixon
"The Best-Prepared Case"
The special prosecutor said that evidence
Was Timely, Legal,
to be presented during the current Water-
gate trial will further enmesh the former
President in the cover-up. Mr. Jaworski,
Jaworski Believes
who won't be participating in the prosecu-
tion, called it "the best-prepared case I've
been associated with."
Mr. Jaworski's attitude about the contro-
He Says Nixon's Acceptance
versial pardon rests on the assumption
Clearly Shows His Guilt
drawn from an early Ford news conference
that President Ford always intended to par-
And More Evidence Is Due
don Mr. Nixon eventually. Thus, to Mr. Ja.
worski, all that is at issue is the timing of
the pardon.
By KAREN J. ELLIOTT
Mr. Jaworski insists that if Mr. Nixon's
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
case had been allowed to proceed to indict-
WASHINGTON-Special Watergate Pros-
ment and trial, the public would have
ecutor Leon Jaworski sees nothing wrong
learned nothing more about the former
with President Ford's decision last month to
President's role than will come out in the
pardon Richard Nixon.
trial of his former aides. "It's a mistake to
Mr. Jaworski, talking publicly about the
believe there would have been more evi-
controversy for the first time, concedes that
dence for the public if he had been tried,"
the pardon prevented an indictment and
the special prosecutor said.
trial of Mr. Nixon. But he believes that suf-
"If he had been pardoned after indict-
ficient evidence has, or soon will, become
ment, the public would have no new infor-
public to show conclusively that the former
mation. If he had gone to trial, he could
President was guilty of obstruction of tus-
have invoked his Fifth Amendment guaran-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 14, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
KEN LAZARUS
SUBJECT:
House Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing
On Pardon: Anticipated Questions For
The President.
Set forth below are a number of questions which I anticipate may be
raised at the hearing on Thursday and some rather cryptic notes
which may be of assistance to you in this regard. Hopefully, the
President will have the opportunity to consider these and all other
questions which may be anticipated prior to his appearance.
I.
QUESTIONS OF LAW
A. Basis of the Pardon Power
1. What is the Constitutional basis of the President's pardoning
power?
Article II, section 2, cl. 1: 11
and he shall have Power
to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the
United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. 11
2. Who has the power to pardon and is the exercise of that
power exclusive?
a. Only the President may exercise the power to pardon.
(1) Ex Parte Wells, 59 U.S. (18 How. ) 307 (1855): at
p. 309 "Under this power, the President has
granted reprieves and pardons since the commence-
ment of the present government
No statute
has ever been passed regulating it in cases of
conviction by the civil authorities. In such cases,
the President has acted exclusively under the power
as it is expressed in the constitution. 11
FORD VIBRAR,
- 2 -
(2) Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 380 (1867): "This
power of the President is not subject to legislative
control. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed
in him cannot be fettered by any legislative
restrictions. 11
(3) Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 120 (1924): "The
Executive can reprieve or pardon all offenses
...
conditionally or absolutely, and this without
modification or regulation by Congress."
(4) The Laura, 114 U.S. 411, 414 (1885): The President's
11
constitutional power in these respects cannot
be interrupted, abridged, or limited by any legis-
lative enactment."
(5) See also, United States V. Klein, 13 Wall. 128 (1872)
and Knote V. United States, 95 U.S. 149 (1877), both
stating that the President has the power to grant a
full pardon.
(6) Thompson V. Duehay, 217 Fed. 484, 487 (W. D. Wash.
1914) affd. 223 Fed. 305 (9th Cir. 1915); Bozel V.
United States, 139 F. 2d 153 (6th Cir. 1943); United
States V. Kawkita, 108 F. Supp. 627 (S. D. Cal. 1952);
United States V. Jenkins, 141 F. Supp. 499 (S. D. Ga.
1956).
(7) 20 Op. A. G. 668 (1893), stating that "
the
pardoning power of the President is absolute, and is
not a subject of legislative control. 11
41 Op. A. G. 251 (1955), stating "Nor do I believe that
the parole laws and regulations can be regarded as
a limitation upon the President's pardoning power
vested in him by the Constitution. The books are
replete with statements that Congress can neither
control nor regulate the action of the President in
this regard. 11 At p. 254.
b. May the President delegate his power to pardon to other
officials or agencies within the Executive Branch?
FORD
- 3 -
(1) In light of the above cases, it would appear that the
power to pardon is nondelegable. To support this
premise, 19 Op. A. G. 106 (1888) states that "This
grant of power to pardon offenses against the United
States to the President alone forbids the exercise of it
by any one else
But it is to be presumed Congress
passed law (permitting an officer to pardon after general
court-martial) in subservience to and not in violation of
the Constitution. 11 Since the ability to remit punishment
was limited solely to punishment and not to the offense
itself, which is the essential object of a pardon, the
President's pardoning power was not impinged. The
Opinion went on to state, however, "But when the law
has finally pronounced its judgment /and an offense has
been established/, it /Congress/ could not and did not
intend to grant the power to pardon the offense against
the United States. 11 At p. 108 "If the power of the officer
to pardon existed at any time after the final judgment, and
could be exercised after the offender had paid a large
part of the penalty of the law, he might be again
prosecuted, convicted, and twice punished for the same
offense. It At p. 109.
(2) But see dictum in Solesbee V. Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9
(1950) which states that the "power of executive clemency
has traditionally rested in governors or the President,
although some of that power is often delegated to agencies
such as pardon or parole boards. Seldom has this power
of executive clemency been subjected to review by the
courts. "
(3) I believe that 41 Op. A. G. 251 (1955) disposes of the
issue that the parole statutes in any measure detract
from the President's pardoning power. Viewing the
dictum stated above as relating solely to the act of
parole, it is clear that judicial review of the decision
to parole has been denied the courts.
C. Does the Congress have any power to pardon?
(1) From a reading of the Debates of the Constitutional
Convention, it appears that the Framers of the Consti-
tution specifically omitted the Congress from participation
in the exercise of the President's pardoning power. By
a vote of 1 to 8 the following clause including the Senate
I
(
FORD
GERALD
- 4 -
in the participation of the Executive's pardoning power
was omitted: "
power to grant reprieves
and pardons with consent of the Senate. " (emphasis
supplied) 2 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal
Convention of 1787, 419 (1937).
In one of the debates, Rufus King of Massachusetts made
the following observation: "It would be inconsistent with
the constitutional separation
of powers to let the
prerogative Lof pardon/ to be exercised by the legis-
lature a legislative body is utterly unfit for the purpose.
They are governed too much by the passions of the
moment. 11 2 M. Farrand, supra, at p. 626.
(2) The power to pardon has been committed exclusively by
the Constitution to the President of the United States.
See Ex Parte Wells, supra; Ex Parte Garland, supra;
Ex Parte Grossman, supra.
(3) In 22 Op. A. G. 36 (1898), it is stated that:
"The power thus conferred is unlimited with the ex-
ception stated (except in cases of impeachment). It
extends to every offense known to the law, either before
legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency,
or after conviction and judgment. This power of the
President is not subject to legislative control. Congress
can neither limit the effect of his pardon nor exclude from
its exercise any class of offenders. The benign pre-
rogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by
any legislative restrictions. 11
(4) Cases of general grants of amnesty or immunity from
prosecution can be distinguished from the exercise of the
pardoning power reposed exclusively in the President.
In Brown V. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896), the Court held
that a statute granting witnesses testifying before the
Interstate Commerce Commission immunity from prose-
cution was virtually a grant of amnesty and therefore
a witness could not be excused from testifying on the
ground that he might incriminate himself. The granting
of immunity to witnesses before prosecution on a quid
pro quo basis seems readily distinguishable from the
grace concept intrinsic in amnesty. Immunity statutes
FORD
GERALD
- 5
have the limited and special purpose of obviating the
constitutional privilege against self-imcrimination.
Brown should not be read as support for the proposition
that Congress can pass a general amnesty statute which
in effect is an exercise of the pardoning power. See
distinction discussed in Burdick V. United States, 236
U.S. 79, 94-95 (1915).
In The Laura, 114 U.S. 411 (1885), the Supreme Court
upheld the remission of a fine by the Secretary of the
Treasury acting pursuant to Congressional authorization.
the Court observed that the President's power to pardon
offenses and remit penalties is not exclusive, the case
indicates that the statutory authority accorded the
Secretary of the Treasury was placed wholly within his
discretion and that a remission could not have occurred
without his concurrence. Under such circumstances, the
degree of Congressional encroachment on the Executive's
power to pardon was minimal, given the predominant
role accorded Executive discretion by the statute.
d. Does the judicial branch have the power to pardon?
(1) This issue has been addressed by the Supreme Court in
Ex Parte United States, 242 U.S. 27 (1916). In this case,
the Court held that courts possess the right to impose
punishment provided by law. But this right affords no
ground for the contention that
"
the power to enforce
begets inherently a discretion to permanently refuse to
do SO. Authority to define and fix punishment is legis-
lative and includes the right to bring within judicial
discretion in advance elements of consideration which
would be otherwise beyond the scope of judicial
authority; but that the right to relieve from the punishment,
fixed by law, belongs to the executive department. "
3. Must the recipient of an offer of pardon accept it?
a. Yes, without acceptance, an offer of pardon lapses.
(1) United States V. Wilson, 32 U.S. (7 Pet. ) 150 (1833)
which states that a pardon is a "deed" to the validity of
which delivery is essential and is not complete without
acceptance.
- 6 -
X
(2) Burdick V. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), holding
that acceptance is essential to a pardon's validity.
(3) Biddle V. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480, 486 (1927), dis-
tinguishes a commutation which needs no acceptance
from a pardon which does.
(4) 11 Op. A. G. 227 (1865) at p. 230 states that "After the
pardon has been accepted, it becomes a valid act, and
the person receiving it is entitled to all its benefits. 11
See also 41 Op. A. G. 251, 254-258 (1955).
(5) In re DePuy, 7 Fed. Cas. 507 (Cas. No. 3814, 1869);
Ex Parte Perovich, 9 F. 2d 124 (D. Kan. 1925).
4. Does acceptance of a pardon imply an admission of guilt?
a. Yes.
b. 6 Op. A. G. 20 (1853) states that a pardon before trial and
conviction is proper "
because the act of clemency and
grace is applied to the crime itself, not to the mere formal
proof of the crime by process of law. But there must be
satisfactory evidence of some kind as to the guilt of the party.
And it has been held unwise and inexpedient, as a general
rule, to interpose the pardoning power in anticipation of trial
and condemnation, although particular circumstances may
exist to justify such an exceptional act on the part of the
President. Mr. Wirt's opinion, March 30, 1820; Mr. Berrien's
opinion, October 12, 1829; Mr. Taney's opinion, December 28,
1831. 11 6 Op. A. G. at 21.
11 Op. A. G. 227, 228 (1865) states that "There can be no
pardon where there is no actual or imputed guilt. The
acceptance of a pardon is a confession of guilt, or of the
existence of a state of facts from which a judgment of guilt
would follow. 11
Burdick V. United States, 236 U.S. 70 (1915) states that a
pardon carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession
of it. But legislative immunity has no such imputation or
confession, being the unobtrusive act of the law given protection
against a sinister use of the witnesses'; compelled testimony.
5. May a pardon be void ab initio?
a. Yes.
GERALD
- 7
b. 11 Op. A. G. 227 at 229 (1865) states that "A pardon procured
by fraud or for a fraudulent purpose, upon the suppression
of the truth or the suggestion of falsehood, is void. It is a
deed of mercy given without other fee or reward than the
good faith, truth and repentance of the culprit. On the other
hand, as an act of grace freely given, when obtained without
falsehood, fraud, and for no fraudulent use, it should be
liberally construed in favor of the repentent offender. "
6. May the President grant a pardon without first investigating the
facts upon which the pardon operates to relieve an individual
from punishment?
a. Yes.
b. 1 Op. A. G. 359 (1820) stating with respect to the suggestion
that the President must either grant a new trial because of
the petitioners' submission of new facts upon which to base
the pardon or to accept without question the explanation of
the petitioners that "I do not think that the power of pardon
either requires or authorizes him to do the one or the other
of these things; but that, on the contrary, to do either would
be an abuse of that power. 11 Distinguish that right to do
something from the judgment whether something which one
has the right to do should be done in a particular manner.
B. Form of the Pardon
1. Must a pardon have a particular form or designation?
a. Yes.
b. Ex Parte Wells, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 307, 310 (1855)
"Such a thing as a pardon without a designation of its
kind is not known in the law. Time out of mind, in the
earliest books of the English law, every pardon has its
particular denomination. They are general, special, or
particular, conditional or absolute, statutory, not
necessary in some cases, and in some grantable of course. "
C. It appears that there is a difference between a full and un-
conditional pardon for an offense which has been specified
in the preamble of the pardon statement, and a "general"
pardon.
FORD
GERALD
- 8 -
See Stetler's Case, 22 Fed. Cas. (Cas. No. 13, 380,
1852) where the Court distinguished between a full and
unconditional pardon, which was there involved, and a
general pardon. The Court held that the pardon which was
full and unconditional was valid for the offense recited in
the preamble but that this was not a general pardon for
other crimes.
8 Op. A. G. 281 (1857) also made specific reference to the
fact that the form of the pardon was significant. As an
example, the Opinion stated "a 'general' pardon restores
the competency of a party as a witness but that effect may
not follow a special remission merely of the residue of a
sentence i.e., commutation."
d. President Ford referred to Mr. Nixon's pardon as "full,
free and absolute" and covering the period of his term in
office.
2. Must the form of the pardon include a statement which indicates
the intent of the President with respect to the offenses encompassed
by the pardon?
a. Stetler's Case, supra, states that the "effect of the preamble
/of the pardon statement/ reciting a single offense limits
-
the general words of the grant of pardon.
b. Where the scope of the pardon is ambiguous, 11 Op. A. G.
227 at 229 (1865) suggests that since the pardon is essentially
an act of grace, "when obtained without falsehood, fraud,
and for no fraudulent use, it should be liberally construed
in favor of the repentent offender. "
3. If there is any ambiguity regarding the President's intent in
specifying the offenses which are the subject of the pardon, may
he be required to specify his intent?
a. No.
b. So long as the offenses covered or which may be covered are
in some manner treated by the terms of the pardon, i.e.,
"during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,
1974. "
C. Somewhat bearing on this consideration is the comment in
11 Op. A. G. 227, 232-233 (1865) which suggests that it
would be proper for the judiciary to determine in each
FORD i LIBRARY
- 9 -
particular case the adequacy of the repicients' acceptance
of the terms of a pardon. Apparently, ambiguity with
respect to acceptance is a subject of judicial determination,
permitting a court to review the expression of intent in a
pardon as the way of gauging the adequacy of the acceptance.
C. Timing of the Pardon
1. May a pardon precede indictment and conviction?
a. Yes.
b. During the debates of the Constitutional Convention, a motion
was made to insert the words "after conviction" after the
words "reprieves and pardons". Mr. James Wilson of
Pennsylvania objected to this proposal on the grounds that
"pardon before conviction might be necessary in order to
obtain the testimony of accomplices. " The motion was then
withdrawn. 2 M. Farrand, supra, at 422, 426.
C. 6 Op. A. G. 20, 21 (1853) permits the offer of a pardon before
trial and conviction "
because the act of clemency and
grace is applied to the crime itself, not to the mere formal
proof of the crime by process of law. "
d. Ex Parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1866) states that
the pardoning power may be exercised at any time after its
commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or
during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.
e. 8 Op. A. G. 281 (1857) states "He may pardon before trial
and conviction. He may pardon at any time either anterior
to prosecution or pending the same or subsequent to the
executions subject in the latter case only to the limits of
legal, moral, or physical possibilities.
f. Stetler's Case, supra, states that "the President has consti-
tutional authority to pardon an offense so long as any of its
consequences remain. 11
2. May a pardon include offenses which have neither been discovered,
nor listed in the pardon statement at the time of its issuance?
a. Yes.
- 10 -
b.
If the pardon statement designates that the pardon will be
general or if by its terms the pardon states that it includes
"all" offenses which have been committed by the recipient,
knowledge of the precise types of crimes involved is irrele-
vant. A pardon is essentially directed to the nullification
of the legal consequences flowing from an offense. Such an
effect is not dependent on knowledge or enumeration of the
offenses involved. 22 Op. A. G. 36 (1898) Since the Congress
cannot limit the President's power to pardon, "the inquiry
arises as to the effect and operation of a pardon, and on this
point all the authorities concur. A pardon reaches both
punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the
offender; and when the pardon is full it releases punishment
and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the
law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed
the offense. "
D. Challenge and Review of a Pardon
1. Who has standing to challenge the pardon?
a.
The President
Matter of DePuy, 7 Fed. Case. No. 3814 (1869) states that
the President has the right to arrest a pardon, but only
before it has been delivered and accepted by the grantee.
b.
Leon Jaworski, Special Prosecutor, has standing to challenge
the pardon. Ordinarily, of course, a prosecutor is subject
to the President's control, so the basis of his challenge would
not be that the incumbent President acted improperly. But
here, the understanding between the Department of Justice,
the President and the Special Prosecutor contained in Order
No. 551-73 (Nov. 2, 1973), 38 Fed. Reg. 30738, provided
"that the President will not exercise his constitutional powers
to effect the discharge of the Special Prosecutor or to limit
the independence that he is hereby given. 11 The President
further agreed not to remove him from his duties except for
extraordinary improprieties on his part and without the
President's first consulting the maj ority and the minority
leaders and chairmen and ranking minority members of the
Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Representa-
tives and asc ertaining that their consensus is in accord with
his proposed action. 11
- 11 -
Note the decision in Nader V. Bork,
F. Supp.
(D. D. C. 1973) 42 L. W. 2262, which apparently does not
address the standing question, but did hold that Acting
Attorney General Bork's firing of Special Prosecutor
Cox was illegal.
From newspaper reports of September 9, 1974,
Mr. Jaworski had decided not to challenge the pardon.
New York Times, p. 1 col. 4 states that "The special
prosecutor 'accepts the decision'
'He thinks it's
within the President's power to do it. His feelings is that
the President is exercising his lawful power, and he
accepts it. 111
The challenge would have to be based on the grounds dis-
cussed above -- notably, fraud in the inducement. There is
no Federal case law which will indicate that obtaining it by
inducement contrary to public policy (e. g., a "deal" for
Nixon's resignation) would constitute invalidating fraud.
Obviously, however, care should be taken to eliminate any
such speculation. It is difficult to argue that the pardon
violates the agreement with Jaworski. It does not "effect
/his/ discharge" or "limit his independence" or "remove
him from his duties. " But obviously, questions can be
expected on this point.
2. May the President revoke a pardon once it has been accepted?
a. No.
b. In re DePuy, 7 Fed. Cas. 507 (Cas. No. 3814, 1869). In
reviewing a pardon by the President, the Court stated that
"when a pardon is complete there is no power to revoke it,
any more than there is power to revoke any other completed
act. 11 Once a pardon has been accepted, it becomes a
completed act and cannot be revoked.
c. This situation should be distinguished from the case where
the pardon is conditional and the recipient fails to fulfill the
terms of the condition. See Lupo V. Zerbst, 92 F. 2d
362 (5th Cir. 1937).
LIDUARY GERALD
- 12 -
3. Can Congress challenge a pardon?
a.
No.
b.
United States V. Klein, 13 Wall. 128, 143, 148 (1872):
"Now it is clear that the legislature cannot change the
effect of such a pardon any more than the executive can change
a law. 11
4. See discussion of fraud as a basis for challenging a pardon,
supra at (A)(5) of the outline discussing 11 Op. A. G. 227 (1865).
5. May courts review a grant of a pardon?
a. Yes.
b.
Judicial review may not extend to the propriety of the
President's exercise of the pardoning power. However, the
courts have reviewed such issues as whether the offense
pardoned falls within the category of an offense against the
United States (Ex Parte Grossman, supra); whether the
conditions imposed are valid (i. , Hoffa v." United States
(most recent example); Ex Parte Wells, supra; United
States V. Klein, supra); whether the grantor of the pardon
has the authority to issue the pardon (The Laura, supra;
22 Op. A. G. 36, supra; 19 Op. A. G. 106, supra); whether
the terms of the pardon are ambiguous; and whether at the
time of the issuance of the pardon the President was consti-
tutionally able to exercise the pardoning power by reason
of the Twenty-fifth Amendment.
6. Can a recipient of an invalid pardon claim estoppel if he is
prosecuted for an offense covered by a pardon allegedly granted
to him?
a.
Yes, However, there is no case law on this point.
b. It is reasonable that if in reliance on the grant of a pardon
(where the pardon might be phrased in ambiguous terms),
the recipient "waives" his Fifth Amendment protection
against self-incrimination by making incriminating statements,
subsequent prosecution would be estopped. The recipient
because of his reliance on the pardon in making those state-
ments would effectively be prevented from obtaining a fair
trial by an impartial jury, guaranteed him by the Sixth
Amendment.
LIBRARY
- 13 -
E. Extent of the Pardoning Power
1. Can the pardoning power affect either state criminal jurisdiction
or civil liability to third parties?
a. No.
b. (Angle V. Chicago, St. P. M. &O. R. Co., 151 U.S. 1 (1893);
Osborn V. United States, 91 U.S. 474 (1875). As to third
parties (see also 5 Op. A. G. 532 (1852)), stating "this
power of granting pardons does not confer an unlimited
power
The power of granting pardons does not extend
to the release of the portion of fines, penalties, and for-
feitures which, by United States law, are directed to be dis-
tributed by the individual. Such would deprive individuals
of their interests
and they would suffer loss. "
C. Ex Parte Grossman, supra, at page 121 which states "neither
in this country nor in England can /a pardon/ interfere with
the use of coercive measures to enforce a suitor's rights. "
d. Look to the express terms of Article II, Section 2, cl. 1
which limits the power to offenses against the United States.
2. What are offenses against the United States?
a. Ex Parte Grossman, supra
(1) A pardon of the president is meant to operate on offenses
against the United States as distinguished from offenses
against the States.
(2) Offenses against the United States include, but are not
limited to, crimes and misdemeanors defined and
announced by Congressional acts.
(3) The words of the pardon clause were not meant to exclude
therefrom common law offenses in "the nature of con-
tempts against the dignity and authority of United States
courts. 11 Criminal, but not civil, contempts are subject
to pardon.
(4) The term offenses is used in the Constitution in a more
comprehensive sense than are the terms "crimes" and
"criminal prosecution".
- 14 -
b. A state felony (i.e., assault and violation of traffic
regulations) is not an offense against the United States.
In re Bocchiaro, 49 F. Supp. 37 (W. D. N. Y. 1943)
C. The pardon power is sufficient to remit a fine imposed on
a citizen for contempt for neglecting to serve as a juror.
4 Op. A. G. 317 (1844)
d. The pardon power extends to all penalties and forfeitures,
as well as other punishments. 8 Op. A. G. 281 (1857)
e. Proceedings instituted by the United States for punishment
of criminal contempt committed by a violation of an in-
junction is an offense against the United States. United
States V. Goldman, 277 U.S. 229 (1928).
F. Equal Protection Argument
1. Can others who allegedly have committed the same offenses as
co-conspirators or accomplices sustain a claim that they have
been denied equal protection when one of their number has been
pardoned?
a. No. The act of pardoning is essentially an act of executive
grace, specifically directed usually at one particular person.
Moreover, there is no equal protection argument possible
where there is a rational basis upon which a distinction can
be made.
Even if equal protection considerations were raised, it is
arguable that considerations, other than those strictly legal,
may validly distinguish one co-conspirator from another,
i.e., health, position, effect of a trial on the national con-
science and morale, as well as the extent of the recipient's
participation.
Since this power is ultimately designed to function as a
stress point in our Constitutional fabric to which no citizen
has a right, failure to accord the grace to all involved in a
particular offense does not violate equal protection.
2. May the pardon of Mr. Nixon be considered in the sentencing by
judges presiding over trials involving Watergate-related offenses?
- 15 -
a. Yes. The sentencing power of the judge is wholly dis-
cretionary and subject to very little review so long as the
terms of the sentences are within the statutory limits.
G. Prospective Application of the Pardoning Power.
1. Can a Presidential pardon be prospective in application to
offenses against the United States committed after the offer
of the pardon?
a. No. 22 Op. A. G. 36, 39 (1898).
H. Effect of Pardon.
1.
Can President Nixon refuse to testify in future Watergate trials
by claiming his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?
a. No. He has been granted immunity from federal criminal
prosecution. He may refuse to testify on matters which
would involve State criminal liability since he has not been
given immunity with respect to State liability. Jaworski
could give him such immunity.
2. If Nixon testifies at Watergate trials and is shown to have lied
under oath and if he is then charged with perjury can he raise
President Ford's pardon as a bar to liability for perjury? No.
A pardon is limited in this case to crimes completed as of the
date of Mr. Nixon's resignation, August 9, 1974.
3. Does Nixon face the possibility of criminal tax liability for
tax fraud in California? Yes.
4. Would Nixon be subject to civil suits? Yes.
I. Executive Privilege: Congressional Demands.
1. How does Executive Privilege operate in response to
Congressional demands?
Congressional demands for material may be grouped into
four categories:
- 16 -
a.
Some Presidents have acknowledged that a demand for
material pursuant to an impeachment inquiry would re-
quire production for any and all executive material. See
Washington's statement, 5 Annals of Congress 710-12 (1796).
b.
Particularized Congressional demands for materials pursuant
to a legislative mission may be rejected on the basis of
Executive Privilege where it is deemed by the President
that the production of such material would be detrimental
to the functioning of the Executive Branch.
C.
Particularized Congressional demands for sensitive materials
have at times been met with certain restrictions on access,
e. g., examination by only the Chairman and ranking
Republicans on a committee.
d.
Non-particularized claims for general access with no
compelling indication of need are routinely rejected.
2.
Does a former President have the authority to invoke Executive
Privilege for materials or conversations arising during his
Presidency?
Yes. The rationale behind the privilege and the interest it serves
compels an affirmative response. The invocation of Executive
Privilege is not so much to protect the content of the particular
discussions demanded as it is to protect the expectation of con-
fidentiality which enables future discussions to be free and frank.
Principle recognized as early as 1846. Richardson, Messages
and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. IV, 433-34.
Former President Truman in 1953, having returned to public
life, asserted privilege in response to House committee subpoena
concerning matters which transpired while he was in office. The
House committee accepted the letter and did not attempt to
enforce the subpoena.
3.
Does the Congress itself protect a sphere of confidentiality in its
internal deliberations?
Yes. At least four precedents can be given in this regard.
a. In 1962, certain staff members of the Senate Rackets Committee
were allowed to testify in a criminal proceeding against
Jimmy Hoffa but they were forbidden from making available
- 17 -
any documents in the hands of the Senate and from testifying
about information that they gained while employed in the
Senate. 108 Cong. Rec. 3626 (1962). In explaining the
resolution to the Senate, Senator McClellan said in part:
"The Senate recognizes it has certain privileges as a
separate and distinct branch of government which it wishes
to protect." Id. at 3627.
b. In 1970, the House Committee on Armed Services refused
to comply with a request from counsel for Lieutenant
William Calley for the production of testimony given to the
committee by Calley in closed session. The chairman of the
committee, Rep. Hebert, indicated that "
only Congress
can direct the disclosure of legislative records. " See 116
Cong. Rec. 37652 (1970).
C. In 1972, the United States Senate by resolution refused a
judicial subpoena for documentary evidence in the criminal
case of United States V. Brewster, then pending in the D. C.
District Court. 118 Cong. Rec. 766 (1972).**
d. In 1974, the Senate passed a resolution allowing a Senate
staff member to testify in a criminal proceeding but limited
the scope of the testimony by providing that "
he shall
respectfully decline to provide information concerning any
and all other matters that may be based on knowledge
acquired by him in his official capacity
" S. Res. 338,
passed June 12, 1974.
II. QUESTIONS OF FACT
A. Introductory Notes: This hearing presents a real opportunity for
the President. At the same time, however the open-ended nature
of the factual inquiry must be limited to ensure a responsible
search for the truth regarding the pardon. Although the President
need not assume a defensive posture, potential for political mischief
must be minimized.
1. Ground Rules. The ground rules which have been agreed upon with
the subcommittee may be summarized as follows:
- 18 -
a. Opening Statement. No time limitations but statement
should be responsive to each of the formal inquiries
raised by H. Res. 1367 and H. Res. 1370.
b. Scope of Inquiry. The understanding has been reached
that the inquiry shall be limited by the scope of the two
formal resolutions of inquiry.
c: Time Limitations. Each of the nine members sitting with
the subcommittee shall have the opportunity to question
the President for two periods of five minutes each. Thus,
there will be a total of 90 minutes of questioning.
d. Television. Consent has been given to live television
coverage of the hearing.
2. Thoughts on ground rules. In my opinion, further consideration
should be given to the ground rules in the following respects:
in
a. Time Limits. If possible, the agreement reached on the
period for questioning should be reopened and substantially
reduced. Perhaps, a total of 1/2 hour to be controlled by and
divided between the chairman and ranking Republican.
Alternatively, only 5 minutes per member might be allowed
for a total of 45 minutes. Ninety minutes is simply too long.
b. Order of questioning. The order of questioning should
alternate from Democrat to Republican and form senior to
junior. The Democrats should not be allowed to exhaust
their time prior to the allotment of time to the Republicans.
C. Nixon-GSA Agreement. It should be clearly understood
that the tapes agreement is beyond the scope of this inquiry,
except to the extent that it might impact upon the grant of
the pardon.
d. Prior Executive's Discussions and Materials which are
presumptively privileged. It should be understood that
President Ford will not infringe upon any claim of Executive
Privilege which former President Nixon may want to assert
with regard to materials or conversations arising prior to
- 19
August 9th. This position can be substantially strengthened
by a letter to Jack Miller, counsel to the former President,
inquiring as to whether he intends to assert a privilege on
behalf of the former President Assuming Miller will not
consent to any waiver, documentation of this position will
then be available.
e. Presumptively Privileged Discussions and Materials
Arising after August 9th Two ground rules should be
established in this regard:
(1) President Ford will not make available members of
the White House staff for further examination on the
subject of the pardon; and
(2) Formal requests or demands for documents of the
Ford Presidency will not be complied with unless of
a public nature - this is not to say, however, that
such materials may not be made available pursuant
to informal requests by the committee. The point in
this latter regard is that release in this context is
a Presidential prerogative.
f. Role of the Chairman. Chairman Hungate should assume
the following responsibilities:
(1) Channel all appropriate informal requests for materials
to the White House;
(2) Strictly enforce time limitations and ground rules on
relevancy and privilege; and
(3) Rule clearly repetitious questions out of order.
3. Need For Certainty. If equitable ground rules for this hearing
cannot be firmly established prior to Wednesday, the President
might give thought to postponing his appearance until an agreement
reflecting a good faith effort on both sides can be reached.
13
PRESS CONFERENCE NO. 1
of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
2:30 P.M. EDT
August 28, 1974
Wednesday
In the East Room
At the White House
Washington, D.C.
THE PRESIDENT: Please sit down. Good afternoon.
At the outset, I have a very important and a
very serious announcement. There was a little confusion
about the date of this press conference. My wife, Betty, had
scheduled her first press conference for the same day.
Obviously, I had scheduled my first press conference for
this occasion. So, Betty's was postponed.
We worked this out between us in a calm and
orderly way. She will postpone her press conference
until next week, and until then, I will be making my own
breakfast, my own lunch and my own dinner. (Laughter)
Helen.
QUESTION: Mr. President, aside from the Special
Prosecutor's role, do you agree with the Bar Association
that the law applies equally to all men, or do you
agree with Governor Rockefeller that former President Nixon
should have immunity from prosecution, and specifically,
would you use your pardon authority, if necessary?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say at the outset
that I made a statement in this room in the few moments
after the swearing-in, and on that occasion I said
the following: That I had hoped that our former President,
who brought peace to millions, would find it for himself.
Now, the expression made by Governor Rockefeller,
I think, coincides with the general view and the point of
view of the American people. I subscribe to that point of
view. But let me add, in the last ten days or two weeks I
have asked for prayers for guidance on this very important
point.
In this situation, I am the final authority.
There have been no charges made, there has been no action
by the courts, there has been no action by any jury, and
until any legal process has been undertaken, I think it is
unwise and untimely for me to make any commitment.
MORE
1040
GERALD
LIBRARY
Page 2
Q
Mr. President, you have been in office 19
days now, and already some of your naturally conservative
allies are grumbling that you are moving too far to the left.
Does this trouble you?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think I have deviated
from my basic philosophy nor have I deviated from what I
think is the right action. I have selected an outstanding
person to be the Vice President. I have made a decision
concerning amnesty, which I think is right and proper --
no amnesty, no revenge -- and that individuals who have
violated either the draft laws or have evaded Selective
Service or deserted can earn their way, or work their
way, back. I don't think these are views that fall in the
political spectrum right or left.
I intend to make the same kind of judgments in other
matters because I think they are right and I think they are
for the good of the country.
Q
Mr. President, may I follow that with one
more example, possibly, that is there is a report the
Administration is considering a $4 billion public works
program in case the inflation rate gets higher than it is,
say six percent. Is that under consideration?
THE PRESIDENT: I think most of you do know that
we have a public service employment program on the statute
books which is funded right today, not for any major
program, but to take care of those areas in our country where
there are limited areas of unemployment caused by the energy
crisis or any other reason.
There is a. recommendation from some of my advisers
saying that if the economy gets any more serious, that this
ought to be a program, a broader, more expensive public
service program. We will approach this problem with compassion
and action if there is a need for it.
Q
Sir, two political questions.
Do you definitely plan to run for President
in 1976, and if so, would you choose Governor Rockefeller
as your running mate, or would you leave that choice up to the
Convention's free choice?
THE PRESIDENT: I will repeat what has been said on
my behalf, that I will probably be a candidate in 1976. I
think Governor Rockefeller and myself are a good team,
but of course, the final judgment in this matter will be
that of the delegates to the national Convention.
MORE
GERALD
Page 2
Q
Mr. President, you have been in office 19
days now, and already some of your naturally conservative
allies are grumbling that you are moving too far to the left.
Does this trouble you?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think I have deviated
from my basic philosophy nor have I deviated from what I
think is the right action. I have selected an outstanding
person to be the Vice President. I have made a decision
concerning amnesty, which I think is right and proper --
no amnesty, no revenge -- and that individuals who have
violated either the draft laws or have evaded Selective
Service or deserted can earn their way, or work their
way, back. I don't think these are views that fall in the
political spectrum right or left.
I intend to make the same kind of judgments in other
matters because I think they are right and I think they are
for the good of the country.
Q
Mr. President, may I follow that with one
more example, possibly, that is there is a report the
Administration is considering a $4 billion public works
program in case the inflation rate gets higher than it is,
say six percent. Is that under consideration?
THE PRESIDENT: I think most of you do know that
we have a public service employment program on the statute
books which is funded right today, not for any major
program, but to take care of those areas in our country where
there are limited areas of unemployment caused by the energy
crisis or any other reason.
There is a. recommendation from some of my advisers
saying that if the economy gets any more serious, that this
ought to be a program, a broader, more expensive public
service program. We will approach this problem with compassion
and action if there is a need for it.
Q
Sir, two political questions:
Do you definitely plan to run for President
in 1976, and if so, would you choose Governor Rockefeller
as your running mate, or would you leave that choice up to the
Convention's free choice?
THE PRESIDENT: I will repeat what has been said on
my behalf, that I will probably be a candidate in 1976. I
think Governor Rockefeller and myself are a good team,
but of course, the final judgment in this matter will be
that of the delegates to the national Convention.
MORE
GERALD
Page 3
QUESTION: May I just follow up on Helen's
question: Are you saying, sir, that the option of a
pardon for former President Nixon is still an option that
you will consider, depending on what the courts will do.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, I make the final deci-
sion. And until it gets to me, I make no commitment one
way or another. But I do have the right as President
of the United States to make that decision.
QUESTION: And you are not ruling it out?
THE PRESIDENT: I am not ruling it out. It is
an option and a proper option for any President.
QUESTION: Do you feel the Special Prosecutor
can in good conscience pursue cases against former top Nixon
aides as long as there is the possibility that the former
President may not also be pursued in the courts?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Special Prosecutor,
Mr. Jaworski, has an obligation to take whatever action
he sees fit in conformity with his oath of office, and
that should include any and all individuals.
QUESTION: What do you plan to do as President
to see to it that we have no further Watergates?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I indicated that, one,
we would have an open Administration. I will be as candid
and as forthright as I possibly can. I will expect
any individuals in my Administration to be exactly the same.
There will be no tightly controlled operation of the White
House staff. I have a policy of seeking advice from a
number of top members of my staff. There will be no one
person, nor any limited number of individuals, who make
decisions. I will make the decisions and take the blame
for them or whatever benefit might be the case.
I said in one of my speeches after the swearing
in, there would be no illegal wiretaps or there would be
none of the other things that to a degree helped to
precipitate the Watergate crisis.
QUESTION: Do you plan to set up a code of ethics
for the Executive Branch?
THE PRESIDENT: The code of ethics that will be
followed will be the example that I set.
MORE
Page 4
QUESTION: Mr. President, do you have any plans
now for immediate steps to control and curtail inflation,
even before your summit conference on the economy?
THE PRESIDENT: We have announced that as far
as fiscal control is concerned, we will spend less in
the Federal Government in the current fiscal year than
$300 billion. That is a reduction of $5 billion 500 million
at a minimum.
This, I think, will have two effects: Number
one, it will be substantively beneficial, it will make our
borrowing from the money market less, freeing more money
for housing, for the utilities to borrow, and in addition,
I think it will convince people who might have some doubts
that we mean business.
But in the meantime, we are collecting other
ideas from labor, from management, from agriculture,
from a wide variety of the segments of our population to
see if they have any better ideas for us to win the battle
against inflation.
QUESTION: Mr. President, as you know, a number
of people have questioned your opposition to a return to
wage and price controls. Gardiner Ackley, a University of
Michigan economist that you have listened to in the past,
recently testified before Congress that if we are really
frightened about inflation, we ought to think about
returning to wage and price controls.
Can you foresee any circumstances under which
you would be willing to do that and make them work?
THE PRESIDENT: I foresee no circumstances under
which I can see the reimposition of wage and price
controls. The situation is precisely this: This past
week I had a meeting with the Democratic and Republican
leadership, plus my own advisers in the field of our national
economy.
There was an agreement, number one, that I would
not ask for any wage and price control legislation. There
was agreement by the leadership on both sides of the
aisle that there was no possibility whatsoever that this
Congress in 1974 would approve any such legislation.
Number three, labor and management almost unanimously
agree that wage and price controls at the present
time or any foreseeable circumstances were unwise.
Under all those circumstances, it means that
wage and price controls are out, period.
MORE
Page 5
Q
Can you give us your present thinking on how
best you might use Mr. Rockefeller as Vice President once
he is confirmed?
THE PRESIDENT: I have a lot of ideas. Until Con-
gress confirms Mr. Rockefeller, we are sort of in a honeymoon
period. I really shouldn't make any commitments until we
actually get married.
But to be serious, if I might, I think Governor
Rockefeller can be extremely important in the new Administra-
tion as my teammate in doing effective work in the area of the
Domestic Council. We have to prepare legislative proposals
that will go to the Congress when the new Congress comes
back in January.
I believe that Governor Rockefeller will take
over my responsibilities heading the subcommittee of the
Domestic Council on privacy. Governor Rockefeller, with
his vast experience in foreign policy, can make a significant
contribution to some of our decision-making in the area of
foreign policy. Obviously, in addition, he can be helpful,
I think, in the political arena under certain guidelines
and some restrictions.
Q
Mr. President, you just ruled out wage and
price controls, but I just would like to ask you why
Mr. Nixon, when he was President, felt he was compelled
to go back to them because the situation was getting out of
hand? Can you just reinforce what you told Mr. Brokaw,
why you think the situation is that much out of hand yet?
THE PRESIDENT: I can only refer you to the cir-
cumstances and the decision of President Nixon in August
of 1971. That was a decision he made under quite different
curcumstances. We are in totally different circumstances
today. We have gone through a 3-year period, more or less.
I think we have learned a few economic lessons that wage
and price controls in the current circumstances didn't
work, probably created more dislocations and inequities.
I see no justification today, regardless of the rightness
or wrongness of the decision in 1971, to reimpose wage
and price controls today.
Q
Mr. President, you are still working with the
same team of economic advisers who advised your predecessor.
As a matter of putting your own stamp on your own Administration,
perhaps spurring confidence, do you plan to change the
cast of characters?
THE PRESIDENT: There is one significant change.
Just within the last 48 hours, Herb Stein, who did a superb
job for President Nixon, is going back to the University
of Virginia, and Alan Greenspan is taking over and he has
been on board, I think two days.
MORE
Page 6
That is a distinct change. I think Mr. Greenspan
will do an excellent job. We are soliciting, through the
economic summit, the views of a great many people from the
total spectrum of the American society. Their ideas will be
vitally important in any new, innovative approaches that
we take. So, I think, between now and the 28th of September,
when I think the second day of the summit ends, we will have
the benefit of a great many wise, experienced individuals
in labor, management, agriculture, et cetera, and this
will give us, I hope, any new approaches that are wise
and beneficial.
MORE
FORD
Page /
QUESTION: Some oil governments and some commercial
cartels, notably Aramco in Saudi Arabia are restricting
oil production in order to keep oil prices artifically
high. Now the U.S. can't do anything about Venezuela, but
it can conceivably vis a vis cartels like Aramco. What
steps and actions do you plan to take in this regard?
THE PRESIDENT: I think this points up very vividly the need
and necessity for us to accelerate every aspect of
Project Independence, I think it highlights the need
and necessity for us to proceed with more oil and gas drilling,
a greater supply domestically. I believe it points up the require-
ments that we expedite the licensing processes for new nuclear reactors.
I think it points up very dramatically the need that we expand
our geothermal, our solar research and development in the
field: of energy.
In the meantime, it seems to me that the effort
that was made several months ago to put together a group
of consumer-industrial nations requires that this group
meet frequently and act as much as possible in concert,
because if we have any economic adverse repercussions because of
high oil prices and poor investment policies, it could create
serious economic problems throughout the industrial world.
So it does require, I believe, the short-term action by
consumer nations and the long-term actions under Project
Independence.
QUESTION: Mr. President, to further pursue Helen's inquiry,
have there been any communicationsbetween the Special Prosecutor's
office and anyone on your staff regarding President Nixon?
THE PRESIDENT: Not to my knowledge.
QUESTION: Mr. President, the beneficial effects
of budget cutting on inflation will take some time to.
dribble down to the wage earner. What advice would you give
the wage earner today who is having trouble stretching his
dollar over his needs.
THE PRESIDENT: I think every wage earner has to
realize we are going through a serious economic problem with
inflation in double digits, not as bad as people in many
Western European countries, but it will require him or her to
follow the example of their Federal Government which is going
to tighten its belt and likewise for an interim period of
time watch every penny.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you said last March in an
interview, I think in Seapower magazine, that you came down
quite strongly in favor of establishing a U.S.-Indian Ocean
fleet with the necessary bases to support it. Do you still stand
by
that and do you favor the development of Diego Garcia?
MORE
STORARY
STATE
Page 8
THE PRESIDENT: I favor the limited expansion of
our base at Diego Garcia. I don't view this as any challenge
to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union already has three
major naval operating bases in the Indian Ocean. This
particular proposed construction, I think, is a wise
policy and it ought not to ignite any escalation of
problems in the Middle East.
Yes, Sarah.
MORE
Page 9
QUESTION: I want to ask about this new veterans
benefits bill which Congress passed in the last hours. I
understand this is a bill that you favored and maybe
spurred the Congress to pass. It saves $200 million.
My question is: Is that a real savings when it gives
the disabled man less money than an able man and disrupts
completely the veterans going to college in September?
THE PRESIDENT: I had no part in just how
that House action was taken. I did discuss, coming back
from the VFW meeting in Chicago, with a number of Members
of the House and Senate, the problem that I faced with the
bill that came out of conference, which would have added
$780-some million over and above the budget for this year and
a substantial increase for a number of succeeding years.
But that particular compromise was put together
and brought to the Floor of the House without any
participation by me. I think there are some good provisions
in that particular House action. It does tend to equalize
the benefits for Vietnam veterans with the benefits
that were given to World War II and to Korean veterans.
There are some, I think, inequities, and you
probably pointed out one. I hope when the Congress
reconvenes within a week or so that they will go back
to conference, take a good look and hopefully eliminate
any inequities and keep the price down because it is
inflationary the way it was and it may be the way it was
proposed by the House.
QUESTION: Mr. President, concerning the Federal
budget, will domestic social programs have to bear the
whole brunt of the anti-inflation fight or can
some money come out of the defense budget, and if so,
how much?
THE PRESIDENT: No budget for any department is
sacrosanct, and that includes the defense budget. I
insist, however, that sufficient money be made available
to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force so that we are
strong militarily for the purpose of deterring war or
meeting any challenge by any adversary. But if there
is any fat in the defense budget, it ought to be cut out
by Congress or eliminated by the Secretary of Defense.
In the meantime, all other departments must be
scrutinized carefully so that they don't have any fat
and marginal programs are eliminated.
Mrs. Tufty?
MORE
Page 10
QUESTION: Mr. President, you have given top
priority to inflation. Do you have a list of priorities
and if so, what is number two?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, public enemy
number one, and that is the one whe have to lick, is
inflation. If we take care of inflation and get our economy
back on the road to a healthy future, I think most of our
other domestic programs or problems will be solved.
We won't have high unemployment. We will have
ample job opportinuties. We will, I believe, give greater
opportunities to minorities to have jobs. If we can lick
inflation, and we are going to try, and I think we are going
to have a good program, most of our other domestic programs
will be solved:
QUESTION: Do you have any plans to revive the
Office of Economic Opportunity, and if so, in what areas?
THE PRESIDENT: As I am sure you know, the old
poverty program has been significantly changed over
the last several years. The Headstart program has been
taken out of OEO and turned over to the Department of
HEW. The healthaspects of the old poverty program are
also over in HEW.
The Congress just approved, and Mr. Nixon
approved, a Legal Services Corporation, which was another
part of the old poverty program. So, we end up really
with just CAP, the Community Action Program.
I think most people who have objectively looked
at the Community Action Program and the model cities
program and maybe some of the other similar programs,
there is duplication, there is overlapping.
And under the new housing and urban development
bill, local communities are given substantial sums to
take a look at the model cities programs and related
programs, and they may be able to take up the slack of the
ending of the Community Action Programs.
MORE
Page 11
QUESTION: Mr. President, my question applies to
a 1972 statement in which you said that an impediment
to a regional peace settlement is an impediment to
preserve the fiction that Jerusalem is not the capital of
Israel. My question, sir, is would you, now that you set
foreign policy, request that the Embassy be shifted from
Tel Aviv to Jerusalem along with 17 other national Embassies?
THE PRESIDENT: Under the current circumstance
and the importance of getting a just and lasting peace in the
Middle East, I think that particular proposal ought to stand
aside. We must come up with some answers between Israel
and the Arab nations in order to achieve a peace that is both
fair and durable.
QUESTION: Mr. President, do you contemplate any
changes in our policy with Cuba?
THE PRESIDENT: The policy that we have toward Cuba
today is determined by the sanctions voted by the Organization
of American States and we abide by those actions that were
taken by the members of that organization.
Now if Cuba changes its policy toward us and toward
its Latin neighbors, we, of course, would exercise the option
depending on what the changes were to change our policy. But
before we made any change, we would certainly act in concert
with the other members of the Organization of American States.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you have emphasized
here your option of granting a pardon to the former President.
THE PRESIDENT: I intend to.
QUESTION: You intend to have that option. If an
indictment is brought, would you grant a pardon before any
trial took place?
THE PRESIDENT: I said at the outset that until the
matter reaches me, I am not going to make any comment during
the process of whatever charges are made.
QUESTION: Mr. President, two questions related,
how long will the transition last, in your opinion, and,
secondly, how soon would it be proper and fair for Democrats
on the campaign trail this fall to hold you accountable for
the economic policy and the economic problems the country
faces?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't judge what the Democrats
are going to say about my policies. They have been very
friendly so far and very cooperative. I think it is a fair
statement that our problems domestically, our economic
problems, are the joint responsibility of Government. As
a matter of fact, I think the last poll indicated that most
Americans felt that our difficulties were caused by Government
action and that, of course, includes the President and
the Democratic Congress. So we are all in this boat together along
with labor and management and everybody else. I don't think
making partisan politics out of a serious domestic problem is
good politics.
MORE
GERALD
Page 12
QUESTION: Mr. President, in your fight against
inflation, what, if anything, do you intend to do about the next
Federal pay raise?
THE PRESIDENT: I have made no judgment on that yet,
the recommendation has not come to my desk.
QUESTION: Mr. President, when do you expect the
SALT talks to resume? Is there disagreement over our position
in the Pentagon and the State Department and other agencies?
THE PRESIDENT: At the present time, there is an
effort being made to bring the Department of Defense, the
State Department and any others together for a resolution of
our, the United States position regarding SALT 2. This
decision will be made in the relatively near future. I
don't think there is any basic difficulties that cannot be
resolved internally within our Government. I believe that
Secretary Kissinger is going to be meeting with representatives
from the Soviet Union in the near future, I think in October,
if my memory is correct, and we, of course, will then proceed
on a timetable to try and negotiate SALT 2. I think a
properly negotiated effective strategic arms limitation
agreement is in the best interests of ourselves, the Soviet
Union and a stable international situation.
THE PRESS: Thank you, Mr. President.
END
(AT 2:59 P.M. EDT)