Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4520555",
    "label": "Federal Election Commission - Tennessee Senate Election",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520555"
}

{
    "id": "4520555",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520555",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Federal Election Commission - Tennessee Senate Election",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520555",
    "collections": [
        "Philip W. Buchen Files",
        "Philip Buchen's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Tennessee",
        "Congressional elections"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520555.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520555.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520555.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520555",
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520555.pdf",
    "mediaId": "79c444e59b87c367",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 16, folder \"Federal Election Commission -\nTennessee Senate Election\" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential\nLibrary.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 16 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nCOMMUSSION\nFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION\n1325 K STREET N.W.\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nWASHINGTON,D.C. 20463\nJanuary 4, 1977\nHonorable Edward H. Levi\nAttorney General of the United States\nDepartment of Justice, Room #5111\nWashington, D.C. 20530\nDear Mr. Attorney General:\nThe enclosed report of General Counsel John G. Murphy, Jr.\nin MUR 298 (76) dated December 21, 1976, deals with apparent\nviolations of the confidentiality provisions of 2 U.S.C. $437g\nin connection with the Commission's investigation of a complaint\nrelating to the U.S. Senatorial election in Tennessee.\nThe report summarizes an investigation which was conducted\nby General Counsel Murphy and the Commission's Chief Investigator,\nMr. Michael Hershman. During the course of this investigation\nit developed that the Commission's Chairman, Vernon W. Thomson,\nmay have been involved, among others. As you will appreciate,\nthis has presented the Commission with a problem of great\ndelicacy and difficulty.\nThe report was considered by the Commission on December 22,\n1976, and again today, January 4, 1977, with Chairman Thomson\nabsenting himself-on both occasions. The five Commissioners\nparticipating have now unanimously concluded that it would not\nbe appropriate for the Commission to handle this matter further.\nWe are accordingly referring the report to you as Attorney\nGeneral.\nA copy of all statements taken during the investigation\nof MUR 298 will be supplied to you as soon as duplication is\ncompleted.\nCopies of this letter and of General Counsel Murphy's\nreport are being transmitted to the Chairmen of the Senate\nRules and House Administration Committees, and will become\npart of the public record.\nYours very truly,\nThomas E. Harris\nREVOLUTION\nTHOMAS E. HARRIS\nAMERICAN\nBICENTENNIAL\nVice Chairman\nGREAT FORD LIDRAR,\n1776-1976\n1-4-77\nCityline\nBY TIM WYNGAARD\nSCRIPPS-HOWARD STAFF WRITER\nWASHINGTON, JAN. 4 THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (FEC) IS\nPROBING CHARGES THAT ITS OWN CHAIRMAN LEAKED A STORY DESIGNED TO HELP\nA REPUBLICAN SENATOR IN DEEP TROUBLE IN LAST FALL'S ELECTION.\nSOURCES INVOLVED IN THE PROBE SAY FEC INVESTIGATORS ARE CONDUCTING\nAN INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS THAT FORMER REPUBLICAN REF. VERNON W.\nTHOMSON, WIS., LEAKED A STORY DAMAGING TO DEMOCRAT JAMES SASSER, WHO\nTWO NEEKS LATER BEAT GOP SEN. WILLIAM E. BROCK IN THE TENNESSEE\nELECTION.\nTHOMSON, UNAVAILABLE FOR COMMENT: ALLEGEDLY TOLD FORMER DEFENSE\nSECRETARY MELVIN R. LAIRD, A REPUBLICAN THAT THE FEC WAS DEMANDING\nSASSER'S CAMPAIGN FINANCE RECORDS.\nAND LAIRD, WHO WOULD NOT COMMENT PASSED THE INFORMATION THROUGH\nASSOCIATES TO BROCK'S STAFF IN AN EFFORT TO BOOST BROCK'S SAGGING\nCAMPAIGN IN THE CLOSING DAYS OF THE RACE, ACCORDING TO THE SOURCES.\nUNDER FEDERAL LAW, IT IS ILLEGAL FOR FEC MEMBERS AND EMPLOYES TO\nMAKE PUBLIC INFORMATION REGARDING CONTINUING AGENCY INVESTIGATIONS OF\nFEDERAL ELECTIONS. PENALTIES, UNDER TWO SEPARATE SECTIONS OF THE LAW,\nINVOLVE FINES OF UP TO $5,000.\nTHE STORY RECEIVED WIDESPREAD NEWSPAPER AND TELEVISION COVERAGE IN\nTENNESSEE AND WHILE IT DID NOT DEFEAT SASSER WAS WIDELY USED BY\nBROCK'S FORCES IN THE CLOSING DAYS OF THE RACE.\nAN FEC SPOKESMAN SAID YESTERDAY (MONDAY) THAT THOMSON WHO SERVED\nIN CONGRESS WITH LAIRD WHEN BOTH HERE MEMBERS OF WISCONSIN'S\nDELEGATION WAS FORBIDDEN BY LAW FROM DISCUSSING ANY ASPECT OF AN\nON-GOING INVESTIGATION. AND AN INTERNAL PROBE OF HOW ANY SUCH STORY\nLEAKED FROM THE FEC WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN EXTENSION\" OF THE\nORIGINAL INVESTIGATION AND CANNOT BE COMMENTED UPON, SAID FEC\nSPOKESMAN DAVID H. FISKE.\nSASSER WAS UNDER FEC INVESTIGATION AS A RESULT OF CHARGES BY AN\nUNSUCCESSFUL PRIMARY OPPONENT THAT SASSER'S CAMPAIGN OBTAINED\nIMPROPER LOANS AND ILLEGALLY USED CORPORATE AIRCRAFT. SASSER HAS\nDENIED THOSE CHARGES.\nTHE ORIGINAL STORY BROKE IN TENNESSEE LAST OcT. 25 ONE WEEK BEFORE\nTHE GENERAL ELECTION. IT REPORTED THAT THE FEC HAD ACTED DAYS BEFORE\nTO REQUIRE SASSER TO PRODUCE HIS CAMPAIGN FINANCE RECORDS. THE STORY\nALSO CONTAINED CONFIRMATION FROM A SASSER AIDE THAT THE MATERIAL HAD\nBEEN 'OFFICIALLY REQUESTED'' BY THE AGENCY.\nTHE SOURCES FAMILIAR WITH THE INVESTIGATION OF THE LEAK SAID THOMSON\nHAD TOLD LAIRD OF THE SASSER INQUIRY. LAIRD THEN REPORTEDLY PASSED\nTHE INFORMATION TO A FORMER AIDE: CARL S. WALLACE, NOW-A WASHINGTON\nLOBBYIST.\nSTATE\nTHE\nWALLACE, THE SOURCES SAID THEN TOLD FORMER TENNESSEE REPUBLICAN\nREP. DAN H. KUYKENDALL, WHO ALSO IS NOW A WASHINGTON LOBBYIST.\nKUYKENDALL RELAYED THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE FEC INQUIRY INTO\nSASSER'S RECORDS TO BROCK'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER THOMAS BELL.\nLESS THAN 72 HOURS AFTER BELL RECEIVED IT: THE STORY RECEIVED MAJOR\nTREATMENT FROM TENNESSEENEWSPAPERS AND TELEVISION.\nNONE OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION HOWEVER: CHARGE\nTHAT BROCK A CONTENDER FOR ELECTION AS REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CHAIRMAN\nLATER THIS MONTH WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE TRANSMISSION OF THE\nSTORY.\nMORE.\nWYNGAARD 2\nNOR HAS IT BEEN CHARGED DIRECTLY THAT THOMSON KNOWINGLY PASSED THE\nINFORMATION FOR OVERTLY PARTISAN REASONS. WILLFULLY DIVULGING SUCH\nINFORMATION COULD BRING AN FEC FINE OF UP TO $5,000 WHILE FINES FOR\nSIMPLY MAKING INFORMATION PUBLIC DURING AN INVESTIGATION ARE LIMITED\nTO $2,000.\nTHOMSON WAS NAMED TO THE SIX-MEMBER FEC - WHICH OVERSEES COMPLIANCE\nWITH FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS - BY PRESIDENT FORD AFTER BEING DEFEATED\nIN 1974 FOR AN EIGHTH TERM IN THE HOUSE.\nSHNS\nSTATE FORD LIBRARY\nTERMS ELECTION COMMISSION\nFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION\n1325 K STREET N.W.\nUNITED STATES Of AMERICA\nWASHINGTON,D.C. 20463\nJanuary 4, 1977\n2:00 P. M.\nCOMMISSION ACTION\nIt was moved by Vice Chairman Harris that:\nThe Federal Election Commission refer the General Counsel's report\nin the matter of MUR 298 (76) to the Attorney General of the United\nStates, that the report be transmitted without recommendation, and\nthat a copy of the report and the letter of transmittal to the Attorney\nGeneral be sent to the President of the United States; Senator Howard\nCannon, Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee; and the Honorable\nFrank Thompson, Chairman of the House Committee on Administration;\nand that each of the aforenamed be contacted immediately by telephone\ninforming them that the report is being transmitted and that they are\nasked to withhold judgment on the matter until they have had an\nopportunity to receive the report, and\nthat Vernon W. Thomson, Chairman of the Federal Election Commission,\nbe personally informed of the above action at the same time the other\nparties are contacted.\nThe vote on the motion carried unanimously. (5-0).\nMarjorie Secretary to the Commission W. Emmons R. FORD\nLIBRARY\nAMERICAN REVOLUTION WEENTENNING\n1776-1976\nFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION\nGENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT\nIn Re An Unknown Respondent\nMUR 298 (76)\nI.\nPreface\nMUR 298 (76) was opened by the Commission on Wednesday,\nOctober 27, 1976 with a finding of reason to believe that\nan unnamed respondent had violated the confidentiality\nprovisions of 2 U.S.C. $437g in connection with the\nCommission's investigation of MUR 216(76), which involved\nthe Democratic Senatorial Campaign in Tennessee. Evidence\nsupporting the finding of reason to believe had been\nsupplied by an article appearing in the October 25, 1976\nedition of The Nashville Banner, in which it was reported\nthat the Commission had subpoenaed records of the Democra-\ntic senatorial candidate in that state. Because of the\nimportance and sensitivity of the apparent breach of\nconfidentiality reflected by that article, and because the\narticle had wholly arbitrarily and improperly injected the\nCommission into a close senatorial race, the General\nCounsel personally conducted the ensuing investigation\nwith the assistance of the Commission's Chief Investigator,\nMr. Michael Hershman. During the course of investigation\n65 depositions were taken, 14 other interviews conducted,\nand six subpoenas were served, five for records and one\nfor personal appearance. The results of that investigation\nto date are set forth below.\n- 2 -\nII. Facts\nOn August 3, 1976, a formal complaint was filed against\nDemocratic senatorial primary candidate James Sasser of\nTennessee by a Democratic opponent, Harry Sadler, who alleged,\ninter alia, that Mr. Sasser had received illegal bank loans\nand was also benefiting from improper arrangements for the\nuse of corporate aircraft. The Commission notified Mr. Sasser\nof the complaint in due course. Ensuing communications\nbetween the Sasser campaign and the Commission failed to\nproduce information adequate to resolve the allegations in\nthe Sadler complaint. By mid-October 1976, the Commission\nstaff felt that the Commission should tolerate no further\ndelay in the production of requested data and should\ntherefore issue subpoenas.\nOn October 19, 1976, the Commission, acting in Executive\nSession, voted unanimously (with Commissioner Staebler absent)\nto issue three subpoenas in connection with the Sadler\ncomplaint, which at that time was styled MUR 216 (76) / One\nsubpoena was for certain records maintained by the Sasser\ncampaign treasurer, Mr. Gary Blackburn. The other two\nsubpoenas were addressed respectively to the United American\nBank of Nashville Tennessee, and the First National Bank of\nTracy City, Tennessee, which allegedly made illegal loans to\nthe Sasser campaign. The subpoenaed parties were directed to\n- 1/ A similar complaint styled MUR 239 (76), and involving the\nsame issues, was filed by a C.D. Hopkins on September 23, 1976,\nand was consolidated with MUR 216 (76).\nFORD LIBRARY\n- 3 -\nproduce the described information by October 26 and 27, 1976.\nThe Commission adjourned at approximately 1:00 p.m. on\nOctober 19, 1976.\nAt approximately 5:30 p.m., October 19, 1976, Federal\nElection Commission Chairman Vernon W. Thomson attended a\nreception at the University Club for Mr. Robert Spitzer, a\nlong-time Wisconsin acquaintance. He states that he remained\nat the reception for a relatively brief time, since he had a\ndinner to attend. At one point he was approached by Mr. Melvin\nLaird. Both Mr. Thomson and Mr. Laird have testified that\nMr. Laird addressed Thomson very aggressively from the outset,\nand that the subject matter of their discussion was whether\nthe Commission was acting with adequate expedition in compliance\nmatters. Mr. Thomson vigorously defended the Commission\nagainst Laird's challenge that the Commission was not acting\neffectively. Both men stated, prior to deposition, that\nThomson may have \"over reacted\" to Laird's attack. Laird\nspecifically referred to Commission postponement of action\non complaints regarding illegal bank loans to candidates and,\nin this context, he testified to the best of his recollection\nthat the states of Tennessee, Minnesota and Maryland were\nmentioned. 1/ Laird testified that Thomson used the terminology\n\"investigation of the records\" in connection with \"these\ncomplaints Mr. Thomson does not agree that this termino-\nlogy was used.\n1/\nLaird Tr. p.9.\nFORD LIBRARY\n2/ Laird Tr. PP 15-16.\n3/ Both the Laird and Thomson transcripts of depositions are\nattached hereto and should be read in toto.\n- 4 -\nMelvin Laird testifies emphatically that Thomson was\nthe only person with whom he spoke about the Tennessee\nmatter until the following Friday, October 22, 1976, and\nthat he had no other source for the information regarding\n1/\nTennessee. He states that his conversation at the Univer-\nsity Club with Thomson lasted approximately five to ten\nminutes. He testified that since late Spring he has had\nan interest in a possible article about various campaign\nlaw abuses, including loan abuses. And he had earlier\nstated that he was aware from general discussion on Capitol\nHill that Mr. Sasser's Democratic opponent in the primary\nhad complained that Mr. Sasser has been the beneficiary of\nan improper campaign loan.\nAfter Mr. Laird left the University Club at approximately\n6:30 p.m. on October 19, 1976, he went home. On Wednesday,\nOctober 20 he testifies that he was in his office all day.\nOn Thursday, October 21, his schedule was as follows:\nHe attended the inauguration of the new American University\nPresident in the morning, then went to a George Washington\nUniversity Board of Trustees luncheon about noon, after which\nthe Board met. He went from the Board meeting to the Airport.\nAt 3:30 p.m. he took Northwest Airlines flight 375 to Milwaukee.\nHe flew on to Green Bay, Wisconsin that same evening, and stayed\nat a motel in Appleton. The purpose of his trip to Wisconsin\nwas largely political; he made several appearances on behalf\nof the Ford Committee through the course of the weekend, and\nalso appeared with a local Republican candidate.\n1/\nLaird Tr. PP 20, 28, 43.\nFORD i LIBRARY 9ERALD\n- 5 -\nHe states that while in Wisconsin, he heard\nallegations that improper campaign loans were involved in\nRepublican candidate Harold Froehlich's campaign, and\nthat this, as well as perhaps just preparing for political\nappearances, recalled for him his conversation with Thomson.\nOn Friday morning, October 22, he telephoned his secretary,\nLaurie Hawley in Washington, D.C. to arrange, among other\nthings, for some upcoming appointments in New York. He said\nto her, in what he characterizes as an afterthought, that he\nhad a \"rumor\" which \"might be of interest to our friends in\nTennessee\" and that she should attempt to get the information\nto Carl Wallace who might know someone in the Brock campaign.\nHe told her that his information was to the effect that the\nCommission had taken or was about to take action to obtain\nrecords from the Sasser campaign. He stated that he does not\nrecall using the word \"subpoenas\" 3/ He does not recall\nreceiving specific information from Mr. Thomson about a\nCommission vote, such as a unanimous vote, but in a pre-\ndeposition interview he did say Thomson gave him the impression\nthat the Commission was \"working together\" effectively on a\nnumber of cases.\nLaurie Hawley, Laird's Executive Secretary, has been\nassociated with him for ten years, including time with him\nin the Congress, at the Pentagon, and now at the Readers Digest.\n1/\nThe investigators have confirmed that there had been\nBERALD FORD LIBRART\nsuch an allegation regarding Mr. Froehlich's campaign\n2/\nLaird Tr. PP. 24, 25, 29\n3/\nNeither does Ms. Hawley. Hawley tr. p.5.\n- 6 -\nUpon receiving the above information she called Carl Wallace,\nwho has also worked for years with Melvin Laird, both in the\nlegislature and executive branch, and who is now a Vice\nPresident of the Purolator Corporation, with offices in\nWashington, D.C. She found Mr. Wallace on the golf course\nat the Burning Tree Country Club and in a brief conversation\ntold him that Laird had asked her to pass on to him the rumor\n1/\nthat the Commission was investigating Sasser's campaign records.\nShe indicated that Laird wanted Mr. Wallace to pass the infor-\nmation on to the Brock people and have them investigate it.\nShe testifies that Laird did not ask that Wallace get back to\n/\nher or Laird with any form of confirmation of the rumor.\nEarly on the evening of October 22, 1976, Mr. Wallace\nlooked up the home telephone number of Mr. Dan Kuykendall, a\nRepublican ex-Congressman from Tennessee who currently does\nconsulting work in Washington, D.C. He called Mr. Kuykendall\nat home at approximately 6:30 p.m. and related the information\nwhich Ms. Hawley had given him. Kuykendall testifies Wallace\ntold him of a rumor that the Commission had unanimously voted\nto issue subpoenas for Sasser's records within the last couple\nof days and that Kuykendall should attempt to have the Brock\ncampaign people \"check it out. /\nMr. Kuykendall then called his Executive Secretary,\nElizabeth Powell, at her home, and asked that she obtain a\nphone number for Thomas Bell, Brock's campaign manager in\nNashville. Miss Powell telephoned Senator Brock's Senate\nSTATE TORD LIBRARY\n1/ Hawley Tr. PP 7-8.\n2/ Hawley Tr. PP 8-9.\n3/\nWallace testified that Kuykendall was the only person to whom\nhe spoke about this matter within the relevant time frame.\nWallace Tr. p.8.\n4/ Wallace confirms only that he told kuykendall that subpoenas\nhad been issued and that should be checked out, but not that\nthm was unanimous or recent. Wallace Tr. PP 5-7.\n- 7 -\noffice around 7:00 p.m. and obtained Bell's Tennessee phone\nnumber from Senator Brock's secretary. She called Bell in\nNashville and told him that he should call Mr. Kuykendall\nwho had some information for the Brock campaign. Later\nin the evening she telephoned Mr. Kuykendall to satisfy\nher curiosity as to what the information was. Mr. Kuykendall\ntold her at that time that the Commission had voted to issue\nsubpoenas for Sasser's records. She does not recall whether\nMr. Kuykendall said the vote was unanimous but she gleaned\nfrom the conversation that the vote was \"for sure.\"\nThomas Bell formerly worked as Senator Brock's\nAdministrative Assistant in the Senate, and became the\nSenator's Campaign Manager in February of 1976, at which\ntime he moved to Nashville. He testified that he spoke\nby telephone with Kuykendall on the evening of Friday,\nOctober 22, 1976. In that conversation he states that\nKuykendall told him the Commission had voted unanimously\nto issue subpoenas for Sasser's records. Bell testified\nthat Kuykendall indicated that his source was a person\nnamed \"Carl\", but Bell was unable under deposition to recall\nCarl's last name. Bell testified that Kuykendall represented\nthat this information was a matter of public record and had\nbeen found by \"Carl\" in the course of doing some research\nat the Commission. Bell states that he told Kuykendall he\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\ndid not know the procedures for confirming this information\n1/\nIn an informal re-examination on December 15, 1976\nKuykendall reaffirmed that Wallace had told him the\nvote for subpoenas was unanimous. He pointed out\nthat he had told Bell this within 30 minutes of having\nheard it from Wallace.\n- 8 -\nand asked for advice as to how he should proceed. Kuykendall\nrecalls nothing of this portion of the conversation. Wallace\nhas never done any research at the Commission.\nIt is unclear whether Bell was able to transmit the\ninformation further on the evening of Friday, October 22, 1976.\nIt is unequivocally clear that he did transmit it at approxi-\nmately 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 23, 1976, when he gave it\nby telephone to Mr. Robert Perkins, the Executive Director of\nthe Tennessee Republican Party, and at that time, a half-time\nworker for the Brock campaign. Perkins had been on Senator\nBrock's Washington staff until the summer of 1976, when he\nmoved to Nashville to assume his new post with the Tennessee\nRepublicans, and to aid the Senator's re-election campaign.\nPrior to that move, Perkins had worked extensively on the\nFederal Election Campaign Act amendments of 1976, was\nthoroughly familiar with the law, and had come to know many\nCommission staff people.\nPerkins had spent the day of Saturday, October 23, 1976\nin Tunica, Mississippi and was on his way to a Brock fund-\nraiser in Jackson, Tennessee, when he stopped at a gas\nstation outside of Memphis and telephoned the Nashville\ncampaign headquarters to determine if there were any messages\nfor him. He was informed by Nancy Roberts, his secretary,\nthat Bell wanted to speak with him and would call him right\nR. FORD\nback. Bell did telephone him right back and told him that\nGERALD\nTHEM\nthere was information that the Commission had subpoenaed\nSasser's records. He states that Bell told him that the\n- 9 -\nCommission action was apparently a matter of public record\nand Bell wanted him to check it out.\nPerkins then made a series of credit card telephone\ncalls from that same phone booth to Washington, D.C. He\nattempted to reach William Loughrey, Executive Assistant\nto the Commission's Chairman. He called Loughrey's home\nand left word with Loughrey's roommate, Thomas Gilboy, that\nit was \"extremely important\" or \"urgent\" that he talk to\nLoughrey. Loughrey was not available.\nPerkins reached Commissioner Joan Aikens at her home.\nAccording to all testimony, after a few courteous\npreliminaries, Perkins said that he had heard that the\nCommission had voted in open session to subpoena records\nin the Sasser campaign; Ms. Aikens replied that the Commission\nhad not done so, that she was not at liberty to discuss\ncompliance matters, and that Perkins should talk to Dave\nFiske, the Commission's Press Officer, who handles all\ncompliance inquiries. This telephone conversation lasted\napproximately three minutes.\nPerkins also attempted to call Jan Baran, Counsel to\nthe Republican Congressional Committee in Washington, D.C.\nHe did not succeed. He attempted to reach Miss Victoria\nTigwell, a Commission employee, but also failed to reach\nTHE is LIBRARY 0ERALL\n1/\nIt should be noted for the record that on Monday,\nOctober 25, 1976 at approximately 1:00 p.m the\nGeneral Counsel was contacted in person by\nCommissioner Joan Aikens who related to him the\nphone call she had received Saturday evening from\nBob Perkins at her home. The following day\nCommissioner Aikens provide a written rendition of\nthat phone call for this file.\n- 10 -\nher. As he was now behind schedule to reach Jackson,\nTennessee by 7:00 p.m. that evening, Perkins called his\nwife, Beth Perkins, in Nashville, relayed to her the\nsalient information, and asked that she attempt to contact\nthe individuals he had failed to reach.\nShortly thereafter, Beth Perkins did make contact\nwith Jan Baran and Victoria Tigwell, although the order\nin which this occurred is not clear. She reached Baran at\nhis home in Washington, D.C. Their testimony coincides\non the basic point that she informed him she had heard\nthe Commission had taken certain action in the Sasser case\nand that she wanted to know if Baran knew anthing about it.\nBaran indicated that he did not, that he was sure it was\nconfidential and that he would be unable to find anything\nout about it. Subpoenaed telephone records reflected that\nthis call was under three minutes in duration.\nMrs. Perkins reached Victoria Tigwell at the Perkins'\nhouse at 1100 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C.,\nwhich Miss Tigwell occupied as a tenant. Miss Tigwell has\nknown the Perkins since 1974 when they worked together in\nbehalf of the Republican candidate for the Senate from Iowa.\nMiss Tigwell came to Washington, D.C. in the Spring of 1976\nand rented the Perkins' house early that summer when the\nPerkins moved to Nashville. Bob Perkins had been of\nGERALD R.FORD\nassistance in referring her to the Commission for employment\npossibilities. Miss Tigwell was first employed as a\nCommission auditor and then in the summer became a member\n- 11 -\nof the Commission's Ten Day Non-Filer Team, which monitors\nfailures to file required pre-election reports. A co-worker\non the Ten Day Non-Filer Team testifies that Miss Tigwell\nrecurrently talked openly of the Tennessee Senatorial race\nand expressed a clear preference for Senator Brock. The\nco-worker similarly testified that Miss Tigwell was aware\nthat a Democratic opponent had filed a complaint against\nSasser. Since the Perkins' departure for Nashville,\nMiss Tigwell testifies that she has been in regular telephone\ncommunication with them on a whole range of matters, notably\nincluding on-going problems having to do with the restoration\nof the Perkins' Capitol Hill property.\nWhen Beth Perkins telephoned her on the evening of\nSaturday, October 23, 1976, Miss Tigwell recalls that\nMrs. Perkins stated that they had heard in Tennessee that\nthe Commission had subpoenaed Sasser's campaign records.\nMrs. Perkins asked whether Miss Tigwell knew anything\nabout it. Miss Tigwell states that she told Mrs. Perkins\nshe knew nothing about it. In the course of this conversation\nMrs. Perkins learned that Miss Tigwell would be out that\nevening for dinner with Daniel Reese, the Executive Assistant\nto the Commission's Staff Director. However, Mrs. Perkins\ndenied that she suggested that Miss Tigwell question Mr. Reese\nGERALD\nwith respect to the subpoenas.\n1/\nBob Perkins testified, with regard to this point: \"I\nthink Beth indicated [to her husband] she had asked\nVicky to find out what she could.\" Bob Perkins Tr. p.82.\n- 12 -\nMiss Tigwell's parents were visiting Washington at\nthe time and she went with them to dinner in the company\nof Mr. Daniel Reese, with whom she had developed a close\nsocial relationship. After dinner she and Reese returned\nher parents to the Maryland Avenue, N.E. residence and\nthen went on to continue the evening elsewhere. In transit\nin Reese's automobile, Miss Tigwell said that she had heard\nthat the Commission had subpoenaed Sasser's records. She\nmay have preceeded this by saying that Beth Perkins had\ncalled her with this information. In any event Reese knew\nthat the Perkins had made this inquiry because, whether she\noffered the information at the outset or only in response\nto his later question, there is no doubt Miss Tigwell told\nhim that the question had been posed by the Perkins.\nReese confirmed that the Commission had in fact issued\nsubpoenas against Sasser. In later reviewing his deposition\nand in response to a question, Reese said that he \"may have\"\nsaid something about a unanimous vote. Reese testified\nthat he warned her in the car that she should not talk about\nthe matter. In any event Miss Tigwell had been thoroughly\nwarned on numerous earlier occasions with regard to the\nconfidentiality requirement of the Federal election laws.\nAccording to Mr. Reese, this portion of their conversation\ni\nFORD\nthat evening was very brief, and the Sasser matter was not\nGERALD\nadverted to again after the exchange in Reese's automobile.\nAt approximately 9:00 a.m. the morning of Sunday,\nOctober 24, 1976, Miss Tigwell telephone Bob Perkins from\n- 13 -\nher Maryland Avenue, N.E. residence. Perkins was at his\nhome in Nashville. In a conversation which lasted four\nminutes and thirty seconds, she confirmed that the Commission\nhad issued subpoenas for Sasser's records. Perkins, under\nclose questioning, testified that he must have received the\ninformation regarding the 6-0 vote from her that Sunday\n-\nmorning.\nThe state of the record regarding contact between\nPerkins and Bell on this subject that Sunday, October 24th,\nis somewhat confused. Bell and Perkins do agree that they\nwere together at Bell's home that evening, along with other\nBrock campaign staffers for the regular weekly meeting at\nwhich campaign activity was reviewed, and that during that\nmeeting Bell and Perkins spoke in a separate room by\ntelephone to Tom Ingram of The Nashville Banner. Ingram\nis the reporter whose by-line appeared on The Banner story\nof October 25, 1976 regarding the Commission's subpoena action.\nIn variant terms, Bell's and Perkins' testimony is\nin agreement on the point that at least one of them\ndiscussed subpoenas with Ingram in the telephone conversa-\ntion with him that Sunday evening; but only Perkins is strong\non the point that either he or Bell told Ingram that the\nvote was 6-0; Bell's recollection of this is very hazy.\n1/ Bob Perkins Tr. p. 84. Perkins did not recall whether\nTigwell indicated during this phone call that Reese\nwas the source. He does say Reese was discussed by\nTigwell and him at the Thursday morning breakfast,\nOctober 28, 1976.\nFORD LIBRARY\n- 14 -\nDuring this same conversation with Ingram, and pursuant\nto discussion they had previously had with each other, either\nBell or Perkins suggested to Ingram that one way for the\nreporter to proceed would be to call Sasser's campaign staff\nand ask for a simple affirmation of the fact that the subpoenas\nhad been issued. Very early the following morning, October 25,\n1976, Ingram did just that. He first called Jerry Grant,\nSasser's Campaign Manager, and said that he had learned that\nthe Commission had issued subpoenas which were to be returned\nduring the coming week. Grant was noncommittal since he was\ntotally ignorant of the facts. Ingram then called Gary\nBlackburn, Sasser's Campaign Treasurer, and found him at\nbreakfast. Blackburn was accurately quoted in The Banner\nstory that appeared later in the day. He fairly successfully\nevaded the question of whether subpoenas had been issued,\nmanaging to characterize the Federal Election Commission's\ncommunication as no more than a request for additional\nrecords which would be supplied in the ordinary course.\nIngram then called David Fiske in Washington, D.C. at\nFiske's home. Fiske is accurately quoted in the October 25,\n1976 story as saying that there could be no comment on a\ncompliance matter. Ingram then went with the story in the\nFORD\nearly edition of The Banner, which is Nashville's afternoo\n/\nnewspaper.\nGERALDOR\nLIBRARY\n1/\nParenthetically, it should be noted for the record that on\nSunday, October 24, 1976, at approximately noon (after\nTigwell's call to Perkins that morning), William Loughrey\nExecutive Assistant to the Commission's Chairman, came to\nthe Commission and there encountered Miss Tigwell\n- 14a-\nand another member of the Ten Day Non-Filer Team,\nMiss Suzanne Callahan. Miss Tigwell indicated to\nMr. Loughrey that Bob Perkins was looking for him\nor \"wanted to talk to you about the Sasser case. \"\nLoughrey testified that at that point he responded\nby saying \"yeh, it must be about the subpoenas\" or\nhe may have said \"yeh, do you think it's about the\nsubpoenas?\" In any event he indicated that he\nneeded a phone number from Mr. Perkins. Miss Tigwell\ngave him one. Loughrey subsequently tried that\nnumber and found it was incorrect, although the\nparty at the other end indicated that Bob Perkins\nhad once lived there. Loughrey's and Perkins'\ntestimony is in accord on the point that Perkins\nnever was re-contacted by Loughrey.\nFORD is LIBRARY 038ALD\n- 15 -\nIII. The Investigatory Process\nFollowing preliminary discussion of the article in\nThe Banner at its Tuesday, October 26, 1976 Executive Session,\nthe Commission met in special Executive Session on Wednesday,\nOctober 27, 1976 and there authorized the Commission's General\nCounsel to proceed with an inquiry into the apparent breach\nof confidentiality reflected by that article. The initial\nprocedure approved was to take the testimony of all Commission\nstaff who had been present at the October 19th Executive\nSession, as well as the testimony of any other employees\nidentified as possibly possessing knowledge of details of\nCommission actions in the Sasser case.\nOn October 29, 1976, the first staff depositions were\ntaken, including those of Victoria Tigwell and Daniel Reese.\nAmong other things to which Miss Tigwell testified, she\nstated she had had a breakfast meeting with Bob Perkins on\nThursday morning, October 28th at the Hyatt Regency Hotel\nin Washington, D.C., at which time her pending deposition\nwas discussed. During Perkins' deposition, he stated that\nat that breakfast meeting they had made passing reference\nto her phone call to Perkins on Sunday morning, October 24,\n1976. Neither Miss Tigwell nor Mr. Perkins proved willing\nto describe the details of that breakfast conversation with\nany great specificity. Under deposition Tigwell was not\nadequately questioned with respect to her conversation\nwith Daniel Reese on the evening of Saturday, October 23,\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n1976; the only details she divulged with regard to it were\n- 16 -\nthat she told Reese that Beth Perkins had called and that\nshe had relayed to Reese what Beth Perkins had said about\nsubpoenas. The additional details were supplied subsequently\nby Reese's testimony. Tigwell failed, in response to\nquestioning, to admit the telephone conversation she had had\nwith Perkins on the morning of Sunday, October 24, 1976\nOn Saturday, October 30, 1976, all of the voting\nCommissioners were deposed. During the ensuing week of\nNovember 1, 1976 further depositions were taken of staff\npersonnel identified as having attended the October 19, 1976\nExecutive Session, or as otherwise having familiarity with\nthe Sasser matter.\nOn November 10, 1976, the General Counse and Mr. Hershman\ntravelled to Nashville, Tennessee, and during the course of\nthe following morning, November 11, 1976, interviewed a number\nof individuals connected with the Sasser compliance matter.\nThese included George Barrett, Mr. Sasser's attorney; Gary\nBlackburn, the Sasser Campaign Treasurer; representatives\nof the First National Bank of Tracy City, Tennessee and the\nUnited American Bank of Nashville, Tennessee; and an attorney\nassociated with the firm serving the United American Bank.\nTheir responses to close questioning strongly support the\nproposition that the breach of confidentiality at issue here\nwas not occasioned by careless talk on the part of persons\n&\nFORD\n1/\nTigwell 10/21/76 TR. P. 18.\nGERALD\n- 17 -\nassociated with the subpoenaed banks or the Sasser campaign.\nThe fact that the subpoenas had issued was very closely\nheld, on instructions by George Barrett. The fact that\nThe Banner story did not mention the bank subpoenas makes\nit relatively clear that the banks were not the source of\nany leakage of information; had Ingram known of the\nadditional subpoenas, he surely would have included that\ndetail in his article. Within the Sasser campaign, only\nBarrett, Blackburn and eventually Sasser's campaign\nchairman knew that the subpoenas had issued (Jerry Grant,\nthe Campaign Manager, did not know this as a fact but had\nonly heard it on the morning of October 25, 1976 from\nIngram). It was the investigators judgement that, except\nfor what Blackburn told Ingram during the early morning\nconversation of October 25, 1976, there had been no\nleakage of information from the Sasser structure. Moreover,\nno one in the Sasser campaign or at either of the banks\ncould have been aware of what the Commission's vote was\nand accordingly could not have supplied that detail for\nThe Banner article.\nDuring the afternoon of November 11, 1976, both Robert\nPerkins and Beth Perkins, accompanied by Counsel, were\ndeposed. The depositions commenced at 2:00 p.m. with\nMr. Perkins. His deposition was interrupted to take that\nFORD\n1/\nIt should be remembered that The Banner article was\nLIBRARY\nin error on the vote.\n- 18 -\nof Mrs. Perkins in order that she could make an airplane\nthat day. Mr. Perkins deposition was resumed at approximately\n5:00 p.m. in the afternoon and concluded at approximately\n6:45 p.m. It was during the course of these depositions\nthat Thomas Bell, Brock's Campaign Manager, was first\nidentified as having participated in the chain of communica-\ntion. Both Bob and Beth Perkins testified unequivocally that\nBell had never given them his source.\nOn November 17, 1976, Thomas Bell accompanied by Counsel\nwas deposed in the Office of General Counsel at the Federal\nElection Commission. During this deposition, Dan Kuykendall\nwas first identified as having participated in the chain\nof communication. Bell also identified \"Carl\" as Kuykendall's\nsource but could not further describe him except to\ncharacterize him as perhaps a \"lawyer--lobbyist friend\"\nof Kuykendall.\nOn November 18, 1976 at 10:00 a.m. the General Counsel\nand Mr. Hershman interviewed Mr. Kuykendall at his 16th\nstreet office in Washington, D.C. Mr. Kuykendall stated\n(and later reaffirmed under deposition) that he had received\na phone call at his home one evening late in the week of\nOctober 18th. The caller, whom Mr. Kuykendall would not\nidentify during the course of this interview, told him that\nwithin the last few days the Federal Election Commission\nhad taken a unanimous vote to subpoena records of the Sasser\ncampaign. He described his source as a prominent person,\nR.\nFORD\nLIBRARY\n- 19 -\none who had served in the legislature, although not in an\nelective capacity, and who had also served with the executive\nbranch of government, although not for the last four years.\nHe indicated that he was unwilling to identify the source\nuntil the source had given him clearance to do so. It\nwas agreed that he would attempt to reach his source that\nday and that he would be back in contact during the course\nof the afternoon. He indicated that if his source asked\nhim not to cooperate, he would resist a subpoena. The\ninterview terminated.\nIn the late afternoon of November 18, 1976,\nMr. Kuykendall telephoned the General Counsel to state\nthat he had been unable to contact his source and that\nthat person would be unavailable until Monday, November 22.\nWhile this statement was received by the investigators\nwith skepticism, and while they assumed that the intervening\nweekend would be used by Mr. Kuykendall and other to consult\nwith regard to the investigation, it was decided not to\nissue a subpoena to Mr. Kuykendall at that time.\nWithin the following 24 hours, using the information\nsupplied by Bell and Kuykendall with respect to \"Carl,\" and\ndrawing on informal sources, the investigators conditionally\nidentified Kuykendall's contact as Carl S. Wallace, Vice\nPresident of the Puralator Corporation. It was nonetheless\ndecided to await Mr. Kuykendall's telephone call on Monday,\nGERALD Fun,\n- 20 --\nThat call was received at approximately 10:00 a.m.\non the 22nd. Mr. Kuykendall identified his source as Carl\nS. Wallace and indicated that Mr. Wallace was expecting to\nhear from the Commission.\nMr. Wallace was immediately telephoned and an interview\nwas granted forthwith at Mr. Wallace's office in downtown\nWashington, D.C. Mr. Wallace stated that he had received a\ntelephone call at the Burning Tree Country Club on Friday,\nOctober 22, 1976 from Ms. Laurie Hawley, secretary to\nMelvin Laird. He stated (and has reaffirmed under oath) that\nMs. Hawley had indicated to him that Laird had called her\nand asked to see if Wallace knew anyone in the Brock campaign;\nthat Laird had told her that the Commission was issueing\nsubpoenas for the records of Brock's opponent; and that this\ninformation should be \"checked\nout. 1,2/ Wallace then stated\nthat he passed the information on to Kuykendall at Kuykendall's\nhome that evening.\nLaird's office was then telephoned by the investigators\nfrom the first floor of Wallace's office building. A\nsecretary took the message and said that she would be back\nin touch. Ms. Hawley called the General Counsel during the\nafternoon of November 22, 1976 stating that Laird was\nindisposed that day, and would be out of town November 23,\nbut would be available for a meeting at 10:00 a.m. November 24,\nFORM\n1976.\nGERALD\n1/ Kuykendall testifies that to this day, he has not learned\nthe identify of Wallace's source.\n2/\nWallace's Powell's and Kuykendall's testimony makes it\nplain that they all understood that the information was\nto be put to political use.\n- 21 -\nOn November 24th the investigators met with Melvin\nLaird at his office on Rhode Island Avenue in Washington, D.C.\nPresent at that meeting was Ms. Laurie Hawley. A key detail\nof this interview was Melvin Laird's representation that\nsome time toward the end of October he had received information\nin Washington, which he characterized as rumor, that the\nCommission had acted or was about to act to obtain records in\nconnection with the Sasser investigation. He declined at\nthis time to identify his source. He deprecated the value\nof the information he had received. He indicated that he had\nlearned as early as September, from friends on Capitol Hill,\nthat campaign loans were at issue in the Tennessee Senatorial\nrace, and this had interested him because he had been considering\nan article on abuse of the campaign laws, specifically with\nrespect to campaign loans and personal expenditures by candidates.\nHe set out the Readers Digest policy against revealing the\nidentity of confidential news sources, although he stopped short\nof invoking a newsman's privilege. He represented that he had\nthe impression that the rumor he had received was public\nknowledge, since it was his impression that everything the\nCommission did was done publicly. Notwithstanding these\nimpressions, he did not think the Readers Digest policy\nregarding confidentiality could be breached. He indicated\na willingness to cooperate if there was some way that the\ninvestigators could assure that he and the Readers Digest\nGERALD\nwould remain unidentified. Several alternatives were\ndiscussed, to none of which was he particularly responsive.\n- 22 -\nOn several occasions he declined to state that his source\nwas not within the Commission. The interview terminated\nafter approximately an hour with the understanding that Laird\nwould consult with the Digest Counsel as to whether or not\nhe should answer the questions of 1) who gave him the\ninformation, 2) when and where it was given, and3) who else,\nif anyone, was involved.\nIt is now clear that either on Thursday, November 18,\nor relatively early Friday, November 19, Kuykendall was\nin fact in contact with Wallace, and that Wallace was\nimmediately in contact with Laird. In short, these three\nfigures had in some fashion consulted prior to the morning\nof Monday, November 22, 1976 when Mr. Kuykendall called the\nGeneral Counsel to identify Mr. Wallace. It is also now\nclear that some time between Wallace's contact with Laird\non November 18th or 19th and the investigators' interview\nof Laird on November 24th, Laird telephoned Vernon Thomson.\nThe investigators did not learn at this telephone conversa-\ntion until December 4, 1976.\nBecause of the intervention of the long Thanksgiving\nDay weekend following the Laird interview, nothing further\nwas done with respect to the investigation until the week\nof November 29, 1976. On November 30, 1976, the General\nCounsel spoke with Laird by telephone. The conversation\nwas largely an abbreviated replication of the contents of\nthe November 24th interview. Mr. Laird was informed that,\nFORD\nLIBRARY\n- 23 -\ngiven the state of the record before the investigators at\nthat time, a recommendation would be made to the Commission\nthat formal depositions be taken. He indicated that he\nwould resist such a procedure. He nonetheless indicated\nthat he would talk further with his Counsel.\nSeveral subsequent efforts to reach Laird again prior\nto the Commission's December 2, 1976 meeting failed. At\nthat Commission meeting the General Counsel sought and\nreceived from the Commission subpoenas for Laird, Hawley,\nWallace, Powell and Kuykendall, as well as for the passenger\nlists of several Northwest Airlines flights to Milwaukee on\nOctober 21, 1976.\nAt approximately 10:00 a.m. in the\nmorning of December 3, 1976, telephone contact with Laird was\nresumed. In the early stages of that conversation, it appeared\n1/\nImmediately prior to the December 2nd Commission meeting\nthe General Counsel, accompanied by Mr. Hershman\napproached Chairman Thomson in the Commission's\n5th floor reception area. Counsel told the Chairman\nthat the investigators had tracked the leak back to\nMelvin Laird and that Counsel was about to request\na subpoena for certain airline passenger lists for\nflights to Milwaukee which Laird may have taken on\nThursday, October 21, 1976. The Chairman expressed\nno surprise or other emotion at the mention of\nLaird's name. Counsel stated that as a matter of\ncourtesy he wished to inform the Chairman of this\nimminent request because of the chance that,\nOctober 22nd - 25th having been a long holiday\nweekend, the Chairman, a Wisconsinite, might also\nhave been on one of the flights. The Chairman\nexpressed no concern whatsoever at the time and\nindicated that he normally flew to Wisconsin only\non Tuesdays, to attend certain Board meetings.\nGEBELS FORD LIBRASH\n- 24 -\nthat Laird's position had not changed whatsoever since\nthe last contact. He was then informed that the Commission\nhad authorized subpoenas for him and other persons. He\nexpressed extraordinary concern over this development.\nThis conversation ended with the understanding that he would\nbe in touch with his counsel, and. at some point would\nprobably be back in touch with the investigators. He called\nback at approximately 11:15 a.m. that same morning and\nexpressed great interest in the possibility that some\narrangement could be worked out whereby anonymity could be\npreserved. It was tentatively agreed that he would meet\nwith the investigators the following Monday morning,\nDecember 6, 1976 at 11:00 a.m. at his office. Laird then\nwent to lunch with his counsel and this matter was discussed.\nIt is now clear that sometime during that same day Laird\ncalled Vernon Thomson and, at the very least, indicated\ndisappointment that Mr. Thomsom had voted for a subpoena\nfor information which Thomson already had. 1/\nOn Saturday morning December 4, 1976 at 9:30 a.m. the\nGeneral Counsel received a telephone call at his residence\nfrom Marilyn Early, Vernon Thomson's secretary. Ms. Early\nindicated that the Chairman wished to speak with the Counsel\nand requested that Counsel call. In the ensuing telephone\n1/\nLaird Tr. p. 38. In his December 7th interview with\nthe investigators Mr. Laird had expressed himself\nFORD\nrather more forcefully on this point.\nLIBRA\nX\n- 25 -\ncall, the Chairman told the Counsel that he was disturbed\nabout their brief conversation prior to the Commission\nmeeting of Thursday, December 2, 1976, and by the Counsel's\npresentation to the full Commission in Executive Session\nlater that day, in which Laird had been identified as part\nof the chain of communication. The Chairman indicated that\nhe would like to meet with the Counsel sometime during the\nweekend. It was agreed that Counsel would meet at the\nChairman's home later that afternoon.\nThat meeting commenced approximately 4:15 p.m. The\nChairman indicated that he had reviewed his deposition and\nthat in view of the Counsel's presentation to the Commission\non December 2, 1976 and Laird's apparent involvement, there\nwas an additional matter of which the Counsel should be\ninformed. The Chairman then recounted his meeting with\nLaird at the University Club on the evening of October 19,\n1976. He stated that at that cocktail reception for\nRobert Spitzer he had been aggressively approached by\nLaird who had berated the Commission for not acting expedi-\ntiously on complaints and for apparently pursuing a policy\nof postponing compliance actions until after the election.\nThe Chairman said that he may have overreacted to Laird's\nattack. He stated that he had defended the Commission's\naction by vehemently replying that the charge of inaction\nwas completely false and that the Commission was moving\nforward on all matters and was acting very vigorously\nFORD\nLIBRA\n- 26 -\nThe Chairman said he did not say anything about the Sasser\ncase or Brock, nor did he mention subpoenas. In response\nto a question, the Chairman said that Laird may have said\nsomething about the Commission improperly permitting bank\nloans to candidates. The Chairman was emphatic that he had\nnot said anything specific about any investigation but had\nmerely spoken in generalities in defense of the Commission's\nposition.\nCounsel asked the Chairman whether Laird had been in\ntouch with him since the October 19, 1976 reception. The\nChairman stated that Laird had called him several weeks\nago to ask who Mr. Murphy was and why Murphy was seeking\nan appointment with Laird. The Chairman stated that he\nexplained to Laird that the Commission had authorized an\ninvestigation and that the Counsel was doing his duty in\ncarrying it out. Counsel asked whether during this\ntelephone conversation the Chairman and Laird had spoken\nabout their previous exchange at the University Club on\nOctober 19, 1976. The Chairman said that that conversation\ndid not come up., The Chairman did not inform the Counsel\nof Laird's telephone call of December 3, 1976.\nApart from Robert Spitzer, the Chairman identified\nHyde Murray as having been present at the University Club\nthat evening, 1/ but was unable to recall who else may have\nRALD FORD LIBRE\nbeen present.\n1/\nHyde Murray was interviewed by the investigators on\nDecember 9, 1976 at his office at the House Committee\non Agriculture. Murray recalls having attended the\nUniversity Club function, and saw Laird and the\nChairman there, but did not overhear the contents of\ntheir conversation.\n- 27 -\nCounsel recommended to the Chairman that he search his\nmemory for the identity of additional persons who may have\nheard his exchange with Laird on October 19, 1976. It was\nalso agreed that the Chairman should in some way supplement\nthe existing record in this investigation. The interview\nterminated shortly before 5:15 p.m. Counsel immediately\ndictated a memorandum of the interview from a public telephone\nbooth at the intersection of Kirby Road and Route 123 in\nMcLean.\n/ Later that evening the Counsel telephoned Mr. Hershman\nand described the interview in detail.\nOn Monday, December 6, 1976 the investigators met at\n11:00 a.m. with Mr. Laird, and Mr. Timothy May, the Readers\nDigest local counsel. At several points during the course\nof this discussion, Mr. May expressed displeasure over the\nfact that Federal law might be applied to a situation in\nwhich one had ascertained certain information during the\ncourse of a cocktail party conversation, or that Federal\ninvestigations should ensue in the wake of comments having\nbeen made in the heat of provocation. He strongly indicated\nthat the Readers Digest would resist the subpoena if it\nissued. This interview terminated with the agreement that\nMr. Laird would talk to his source and seek permission to\ngive the investigators the requested information.\nAt approximately 1:30 the investigators met with the\nChairman who indicated that he had spoken with Laird around\nFURO\nnoon. After a limited discussion, the Counsel asked if\n1/\nA copy of that memorandum is attached hereto.\n- 28 -\nthe Chairman would telephone Mr. Laird and grant permission\nto him to talk to the investigators. The Chairman agreed\nthat he would, and thereafter at approximately 2:00 p.m.\nhe notified Counsel that permission had been granted.\nCounsel was unable to arrange for a further meeting with\nMr. Laird that day, but an appointment was made for 10:00 a.m.\nthe following morning, December 7, 1976.\nAt that December 7th meeting, accompanied by Mr. May,\nLaird indicated that he had approached Mr. Thomson aggressively\nat the October 19 University Club function and had needled him\nabout the Commissioners' failure to act on compliance matters.\nHe said that at that time he had specifically mentioned loan\nproblems in Tennessee, Minnesota and Maryland. He recalled\nthat the Chairman had said that the Commission was acting to\ninvestigate records in these campaigns. He could not recall\nthat either he or the Chairman had used the word subpoena\nnor did he have any recollection of receiving information\nabout a specific Commission vote. He indicated that he did\nreceive a strong impression that the Commission was acting\nvigorously and currently in these cases. He did not recall\nwhether the name Sasser came up, but was certain that the\nname Brock had not been mentioned.\nHe recalled thereafter calling the Chairman, sometime\nbetween November 19, and November 23, to inquire about\nMr. Murphy and why the latter was seeking an appointment\nwith him. He stated he wanted to know what was going on.o\nHe stated that during that phone call the October 19th\n- 29 -\nUniversity Club meeting was probably mentioned and that\nhe had told the Chairman that the Chairman was the only one\nwith whom he had discussed the Tennessee matter. He stated\nfurther that upon receiving notice on December 3, 1976 from\nMr. Murphy that the Commission had issued a subpoena,\nhe had called the Chairman to ask why the Chairman voted for\na subpoena when the Chairman was fully informed of the\nrelevant facts.\nOn December 15, 1976, Mr. Laird was deposed. Under\noath, he showed great reluctance to be as specific as he\nhad been in informal meetings. The transcript of that\ndeposition is attached hereto and should, as earlier\nsuggested, be read in its entirety. Pages 5-16 and 25-45\nare particularly relevant.\nDuring the course of the deposition (pp. 48-49) the\ninvestigators first learned that Mr. Thomson was apparently\nrepresented by an attorney named Jerris Leonard, who earlier\nthat week had talked to Carl Wallace and to two assistants\nin Laird's office. Through each of these individuals\nMr. Leonard sought to obtain an appointment to see Mr. Laird\nprior to Laird's deposition (Tr. p.48), but Laird had\nreferred him to Mr. May, the Digest counsel, and never did\ntalk to him. Leonard had asked Wallace what Wallace had\ntold the investigators; Wallace told him.\n1/\nAgain, this December 3rd telephone call was not\nmentioned by the Chairman when he met the General\nDecember 4th.\nCENTER\nFORD\nCounsel at his McLean home the next day, Saturday\nLIBRARY\n- 30 -\nAfter returning to the Commission from this deposition,\nthe General Counsel informed the Chairman of the Leonard\nreference during the deposition, and the Chairman confirmed\nthat Leonard was representing him. Counsel indicated\nthat perhaps Mr. Leonard should be present during the\nChairman's upcoming re-deposition. The Chairman indicated\nthat Counsel should talk to Leonard about that and provided\nCounsel with Leonard's telephone numbers. The General\nCounsel talked with Leonard late that afternoon and an\nappointment at Leonard's office was arranged for 2:00 p.m.\nThursday, December 16th.\nAt that meeting, the investigators spoke candidly and\nat length with Mr. Leonard about the state of the record\nin this case. There was prolonged discussion of what further\ndevelopments in the case might conceivably be, from referral\nfor criminal prosecution at one end of the spectrum, to\ninformal internal reprimand on the other. By the close of\nthe conversation, the investigators had identified, and Mr.\nLeonard had duly noted, six. significant discrepancies or\nomissions on the record which bore on the Chairman's credibility.\nThese were:\n1. The Chairman's failure to disclose to the Commission\nor the staff, prior to December 2, the telephone call from\nMr. Laird that came in sometime between November 19 and 23.\nis\nFORD\n2. The failure of the Chairman to disclose the\nOctober 19, 1976 meeting with Mr. Laird and the initial Laird\nLIBRARY\ntelephone conversation, once the General Counsel had made a\n- 31 -\npresentation identifying Mr. Laird at the December 2, 1976\nCommission meeting, a meeting at which Commissioner Harris\nhad promptly stated that he had met with Mr. Laird sometime\naround October 19 at the Hay Adams Hotel.\n3. The failure of the Chairman to dislcose the\nOctober 19, 1976 meeting with Laird and the initial Laird\ntelephone conversation until thirty-six hours after the\nDecember 2, 1976 Commission meeting, when disclosure was\nfinally made to the General Counsel at the Chairman's\nhome in McLean, Virginia.\n4. The Chairman's statement during the December 4,\n1976 meeting at his home with the General Counsel that in the\ncourse of Laird's initial telephone conversation, the\nUniversity Club meeting of October 19, 1976 \"did not come\nup\"; Mr. Laird had informed the investigators on December 7,\n1976 that that October 19, 1976 meeting probably was\ndiscussed in the first telephone conversation, and the\nChairman now testifies that it was mentioned.\n5. The failure of the Chairman to disclose in his\nSaturday, December 4, 1976 meeting with the General Counsel\nthat the October 19, 1976 meeting at the University Club\nhad included specific reference to the Tennessee, Minnesota\nand Maryland loan complaint situations. The General\nCounsel pointed out to Mr. Leonard that in the December 4,\n1976 meeting with the Chairman, the Chairman had stated\nFOND\nthat he defended the Commission against Mr. Laird in very\ngeneral terms and had in no way been specific. Mr. Laird,\nof course, had informed the investigators on December 7, 1976\n- 32 -\nthat Tennessee had in fact been mentioned on October 19, 1976.\n6. The failure of the Chairman to disclose at his\nSaturday, December 4, 1976 meeting with the General Counsel that\nMr. Laird had telephoned him the day before, December 3rd.\nMr. Leonard met with Mr. Thomson at 10:00 a.m. on\nFriday, December 17, 1976. At noon on that day , Mr. Leonard\ntelephoned the General Counsel and the Chairman's re-deposition\nwas arranged for 9:30 a.m. on Monday, December 20th at\nMr. Leonard's office.\nOn December 20, under deposition, Mr. Thomson stated:\n1. That he had told the General Counsel at the\nSaturday, December 4th meeting that Tennessee, Minnesota and\nMaryland had been mentioned in the conversation with Laird\non October 19;\n2. That he had told the General Counsel at the meeting\nof Saturday, December 4th that Laird had called him not\nonce but twice;\n3. That in the initial telephone conversation with\nLaird sometime between November 19 and November 23, the\nUniversity Club conversation had been mentioned in some\nfashion;\n4. That he had been \"struck like a thunderclap\" by the\nGeneral Counsel's presentation of December 2, 1976 to the\nfull Commission regarding Laird's involvement, and that\nafter he had pondered over the General Counsel's presenta-\ntion, it came to him that he should correct his deposition\nand thus call the General Counsel in a timely fashion on\nGENATO R. FORD\nSaturday morning, December 4th.\n5. That Commissioner Harris' prompt declaration\nduring the meeting of December 2nd that Harris had met with\nLaird around October 19 should be viewed as involving\n- 33 -\n\"different circumstances.\" The implication of this statement\nby the Chairman was that Harris' December 2 declaration did\nnot bear on the Chairman's silence at that same meeting with\nregard to his own contact with Laird.\nDue to the pressures of time, this report at this\njuncture does not purport to fully review either Mr. Laird's\nor Chairman Thomson's deposition. It is recommended that\nboth be thoroughly read. Suffice it to say that Chairman\nThomson's testimony completely and unequivocally denies that\nin his conversation with Mr. Laird on October 19, 1976 he\ndid more than defend the Commission in general terms, although\ncertain States were indeed mentioned; that he gave Mr. Laird\nthe specifics of any complaint; or that he gave Mr. Laird\nany information regarding any Commission vote on a compliance\nmatter.\nAt the close of the deposition, Mr. Leonard expressed\nthe hope that he would be able to meet with the General\nCounsel prior to the time when the latter made his report\nto the Commission. The General Counsel was noncommittal.\nIII. Possible Further Investigatory Steps\nTwo additional classes of persons who arguably maybe\nable to supply an additional relevant information have not\nbeen interviewed. First class is comprised of the\napproximately 50-75 persons who attended the University Club\nfunction on October 19, 1976. The investigators do not have\nthe names of these individuals but could probably obtain them.\nFORD : LIBRARY GERALD\n- 34 -\nThe second class is comprised of the Brock campaign staff\npeople other than Perkins and Bell, who attended the staff\nmeeting at Thomas Bell's home in Nashville on October 24,\n1976.\nIt is the Counsel's current recommendation that further\ninterviews of persons present at the University Club not be\nheld; it would appear that no one overheard the conversation\nbetween Mr. Laird and Chairman Thomson. Nor does there seem\nto be great merit to preceeding with interviews of persons\npresent at Bell's home on October 24, 1976; the relevant\nconversation with Tom Ingram took place in a room apart from\nthe room in which the main staff gathering occurred. And\nthere is no indication on the present record that the\nCommission's action was a subject of discussion except among\nBell, Perkins and Ingram. Nonetheless, the Commission may\nwish to examine the option of having these people examined.\ni\nFORD\nCERALD\nLIBRARY\n- 35 -\nIV. Legal Analysis\nThe first issue is to what extent 2 U.S.C. $437g is\napplicable to the conduct of various individuals involved\nin the above-described chain of communication. In relevant\nportion, that section states:\n2 U.S.C. $4378 (a) (1)\n(2) the Commission upon receiving any\ncomplaint under paragraph (1), and if it has\nreason to believe any person has committed a\nviolation of this Act or of Chapter 95 or\nChapter 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of\n1954, or, if the Commission on the basis of\ninformation ascertained in the normal course\nof carrying out its supervisory responsibilities,\nhas reason to believe that such a violation has\noccurred, shall notify the person involved of\nsuch alleged violation and shall make an investi-\ngation of such alleged violation in accordance\nwith the provisions of this section.\n(3) (A) Any investigation under paragraph\n(2) shall be conducted expeditiously and shall\ninclude an investigation, conducted in\naccordance with the provisions of this section\nof reports and statements filed by any\ncomplainant under this title, if such complainant\nis a candidate.\n(B) Any notification or investigation made\nunder paragraph (2) shall not be made public by\nthe Commission or by any person without the\nwritten consent of the person receiving such\nnotification or the person with respect to whom\nsuch investigation is made.\n(c) any member of the Commission, any employee\nof the Commission or any other person who violates\nthe provisions of subsection (a) (3) (B) shall be\nfined not more than $3,000. Any such member,\nemployee, or other person who knowingly and\nwillfully violates the provisions of subsection\n(a) (3) (B) shall be fined not more $5,000. (Emphasis\nsupplied.)\nFORD i LIBRARY 03RALD\n- 36 -\nThe above quoted language $437g(a) (3) (B), to the effect\nthat \"any notification or investigation made under paragraph\n2 shall not be made public\" has not been formally construed\nby the Commission, nor, of course, by any court. The\nlegislative history of the 1976 amendments to the Federal\nElection Campaign Act is not helpful as to the meaning of\nthe phrase \"made public\"; the only indication there is that\nCongress meant \"disclosure.\" S. Rep. No 1237, 93rd Congress\n2nd Sess. 94 (1974). There has been no judicial review of\nthe constitutional permissibility of imposing a confidentiality\nrequirement upon persons other than Commission employees. That\nthat confidentiality requirement may appropriately be imposed\nupon Commission employees would appear at least inferentially\nto be the lesson of cases such as Swaaley V. U. S. 376 F.2d\n857 180 Ct. C1. (1967) and Iantiarelli V. Morton, 327 F. Supp.\n873 (E.D. Penn. 1971), remanded on other grouds, 463 F.2d 179.\nA. Commission Personnel\nIt is the General Counsel's recommendation that the\nCommission interpret the statutory language regarding\nmaking investigations public in the following manner: When-\never a Commission employee communicates information, other\nthan in the ordinary course of an investigation, to any\nperson not officially employed with the Commission, a\nviolation of the confidentiality requirements of 2 U.S.C.\n§437g may be found if the communication directly results\nin knowledge on the part of the recipient of the information\nGERALD\nLIBRA\n- 37 -\nthat the Commission is conducting an investigation with\nrespect to a specific individual, committee, or other\norganization or group.\nSo interpreted, the concept of making a matter public\nwould not encompass communications between Commission\nemployees regarding specific Commission compliance activity.\nApplying this interpretation to the actions of Commission\nprsonnel involved in this case leads to the following\nconclusions:\n1. Victoria Ann Tigwell\nThe evidence is clear that Miss Tigwell on Sunday,\nOctober 24, 1976, \"made public\" the Commission's investigation\nof the Senatorial campaign of James Sasser of Tennessee by\nspecifically communicating to an individual in the private\nsector, namely Robert Perkins, a part-time aide in the campaign\nof incumbent Senator William Brock, the fact that the\nCommission had supboenaed Sasser Committee records.\nRECOMMENDATION: The Staff Director placed Miss Tigwell on\nadministrative leave with pay on November 29, 1976. I\nrecommend that the Staff Director now initiate appropriate\nprocedures to terminate Miss Tigwell's employment with the\nCommission, Such procedures may appropriately include a\nprovision for argument by her Counsel before the Commission\nthat a personnel sanction short of dismissal be imposed.\nIn the meantime, I recommend that the Commission find reason\n1.\nto believe that Miss Tigwell violated the confidentiality\nSTATE\nFORD\nLIDRERY\nrequirement of 2 U.S.C.$437g (a) (3) (B). Conciliation\n1/\nThis statement of the test is not exhaustive. There may be\ncases where the Commission is about to investigate, or has\nconcluded an investigation, where the matter is not yet\nproperly public. Such instances would be subject to variant\nwording of the cited proposition.\n- 38 -\nagreement negotiations with Miss Tigwell's attorney are\nongoing and may well result in a settlement, as well as a\nwaiver by her of further formal Commission findings to\nwhich she would otherwise be entitled.\n2. Daniel Reese and William Loughrey\nThe foregoing recommended interpretation of the \"made\npublic\" language of 2 U.S.C. $437g does not cover the\ncommunications of Reese to Tigwell on the evening of Saturday,\nOctober 23, 1976 nor of Loughrey to Tigwell on Sunday,\nOctober 24, 1976. Both communications were Commission\nemployee to Commission employee. Accordingly, there is no\nreason to believe that either Reese or Loughrey violated\n§437g (a) (3) (B). I am of the view, however, that Mr. Reese's\nOctober 23rd confirmation to Miss Tigwell that Sasser\nsubpoenas had issued, at a time when Reese knew that Brock\nsupporters, i.e. the Perkins in Tennessee, had asked about\nthis subject, amounted to an extraordinarily serious error\nof judgement. Severe disciplinary action is indicated, in\nmy judgement. I say this nothwithstanding my appreciation\nof the fact that Mr. Reese, during his deposition, was\nforthcoming with regard to his confirmatory statement to\nMiss Tigwell that Saturday evening.\nWith respect to Mr. Loughrey, both his remarks to\nMiss Tigwell during the afternoon of Sunday, October 24th\nand the context in which they were uttered, are somewhat\nunclear on this record. He would appear to have been carel RSS275\noffhand in indicating to Miss Tigwell that Perkins might\nbe\nGEROLD\n- 39 -\nchecking out the subpoenas, but I have no recommendation\nas to what disciplinary action may be in order.\n3. Vernon W. Thomson\nThe question of whether there is reason to believe\nMr. Thomson \"made public\" a Commission investigation turns\nin part upon whether his recollection or that of Mr. Laird\nis better with regard to their conversation at the University\nClub on October 19, 1976. Mr. Thomson states emphatically\nthat he said nothing specific to Laird, that \"subpoenas,\"\n\"Brock\" and \"Sasser\" were not mentioned, and that he does\nnot recall saying the Commission was \"investigating the\nrecords\" or \"moving to obtain records\" in compliance actions\ninvolving Tennessee and other named jurisdictions. Mr. Laird's\nbest recollection under oath, on the other hand, is that\nMr. Thomson had used the terminology \"investigation of records,\"\nand had indicated \"that these records or these complaints\nwould be investigated, and that the Commission was going to\npursue this matter and try to get answers.\n1,1/\n1/\nLaird's testimony differs from Mr. Thomson's testimony\nin three additional salient respects:\n1) Laird states that he and Thomson reviewed the\ncontents of their October 19th conversation,\nprobably on Friday, December 3rd; Thomson\nstates that no such review occurred;\n(Laird Tr. P 44, Thomson tr. P. 18)\n2) Thomson does not agree that Laird expressed\ndisappointment to him on December 3rd that\nthe Commission had issued subpoenas (Laird\nTr. P. 38, Thomson Tr. p. 16)\n3) Thomson does not agree that on December 3rd\nLaird \"certainly did\" tell him to tell the\nCommission staff of the October 19th\nconversation (Laird Tr. p. 4, Thomson Tr. P. 17)\nFORD\nGERALD\n- 40 -\nAt several points during the deposition, Laird made\nstatements such as \"I did get the impression that it was\na very active matter, and that the Commission was pursuing\nthese complaints vigorously; I got the impression that it\nwas an immediate, ongoing matter, and that the Commission\nwas pursuing the matter vigorously.\" This testimony\nconforms to earlier statements made by Laird to the\ninvestigators.\nIt is to be remembered that as the information makes\nits way toward Tennessee on October 22nd, its recipients\ngrow increasingly specific as to its contents. Laird\ntestified he told Hawley of a rumor that the Commission\nwas investigating the records of Brock's opponent. Hawley\ntestifies to the same effect. But Wallace was clear that\nHawley had told him the records had been subpoenaed. And\nKuykendall swears Wallace told him the rumor was that\nthe Commission had voted unanimously to issue subpoenas that\nweek. Bell testifies that Kuykendall told him of a unanimous\nsubpoena vote and that Kuykendall had said \"Carl\" [Wallace]\nhad said so to Kuykendall. Powell testifies to learning of\na \"sure\" vote for \"subpoenas.\" It should further be noted\nthat each of these persons swore that they had only spoken\nabout this matter with the individuals they identified on\nthe record.\nThis increasing specificity lends credenceto the idea\nthat Mr. Laird's initial transmission to Hawley was even more\nTXL FORD LIBRE\n- 41 -\nparticularized than either one remembers. Unless something\nhad been said by Mr. Thomson regarding Commission pursuit of\n\"records\" in the several campaigns, it would appear to have\nrequired an extraordinarily intuitive leap by Mr. Laird to\nput in motion information which Mr. Wallace clearly recalls\nas involving at least \"subpoenas\" for Brock's opponent. It\nmay reasonably be inferred from the record as a whole,\nnotwithstanding Mr. Thomson's belief, that he in fact told\nMr. Laird at least that the Commission was acting in some\nfashion to obtain records in connection with Tennessee. The\ninference is reasonable notwithstanding the fact that\nMr. Laird did not transmit information to Hawley until two\nand one-half days after the October 19th conversation, a gap\nthat has not thus far been satisfactorily explained.\nIn the General Counsel's view, such an inference may\nproperly be drawn at this time and should be. That\nsomething compromising may have been uttered by Mr. Thomson\non October 19th is implicitly buttressed by his remarkable\nfailure until December 4th to report to Commission staff\nthat he had spoken by telephone with Mr. Laird about this\ninvestigation and the University Club conversation perhaps\nas early as November 19th and certainly not later than\nNovember 23rd.\nThe question then becomes whether a preliminary finding\nthat Mr. Thomson was sufficiently specific in his October 19th\ndiscussion with Mr. Laird provides a basis for finding reason\nGERALD\n- 42 -\nto believe that he violated the Act. It is the General\nCounsel's view that the test set forth above is applicable\nto communications possessing the degree of specificity reflected\nby Laird's testimony and reasonable inference; in short, this\nrecord supports a preliminary finding that Mr. Thomson's\ncommunication on October 19th directly resulted in knowledge\non the part of Mr. Laird that the Commission was conducting\nan investigation with respect to the Sasser campaign.\nAccordingly, it is recommended that the Commission find reason\nto believe that Vernon W. Thomson violated $437g (a) (3) (B) of\nthe Act.\nB. Application of §437g to Persons Not Officially\nEmployed with the Commission\n$4378 (a) (3) (B) expressly states that non-Commission\nindividuals have the same confidentiality obligation that\nCommission employees bear with respect to investigations.\nOn the present state of this record, and given the exigencies\nattending the submission of this report, I am not at this\ntime prepared to make a recommendation to the Commission as\nto whether it should seek to apply §437g to persons identified\nas having participated in the described chain of communication\nwho are not officially employed with the Commission.\nC. Referral to the Justice Department for Possible\nPerjury and Obstruction of Justice Investigation.\nThere is some evidence on this record that perjury may\nhave been committed and obstruction of justice attempted in\nthe course of this investigation. However, for the same\nFORD\nreason that I noted in subsection B above, I am not at the time BEFE\nprepared to recommend to the Commission that it refer any\naspect of this case to the Department of Justice for\n- 43 -\naspect of this case to the Department of Justice for\ninvestigation of these potential charges.\nV. Conclusion\nFind reason to believe with respect to Victoria Ann\nTigwell and Vernon W. Thomson; prepare appropriate transmittal\nletters; defer determinations regarding persons outside the\nCommission who participated in the described chain of communi-\ncation;defer consideration of whether to refer any aspect of\nthe case to the Attorney General.\nDecember 21, 1976\nAddendum\nAs this report makes clear, Mr. Thomson's testimony of\nDecember 20, 1976 is, on a number of points, in direct and\nunequivocal conflict with the General Counsel's clear recol-\nlection of, and a contemporaneous memorandum made with regard\nto, their meeting at Mr. Thomson's home on Saturday, December 4,\n1976. It also conflicts with an account of that meeting related\norally by the General Counsel to Mr. Hershman later that same\nday. The General Counsel is accordingly of the view that the\nCommission may appropriately request that I relinquish control\nof this investigation, since I may be a witness in it.\nJohnD John G. Murphy May high Jr\n333\nDecember 4, 1976\nMEMORANDUM TO: The File\nFROM:\nJohn G. Murphy, Jr.\nyou\nSaturday, December 4, 1976, 5:15 p.m., Intersection\nof Route 123 and Kirby Road, McLean, Virginia.\nI have just spent approximately one hour with Vernon\nThomson at his home at 6213 Kellogg Drive, McLean, Virginia.\nMarilyn Early telephoned me at 9:30 this morning and\nindicated the Chairman wanted me to call him. I telephoned\nhim and he said that he would like to meet with me sometime\nthis weekend because he was disturbed about our brief\nconversation prior to the Commission meeting, Thursday,\nDecember 2. At that time, accompanied by Mike Hershman,\nI had said to the Chairman that I was going to request\nthe Commission to subpoena the passenger list of several\nNorthwest Airlines flights from Washington to Milwaukee\non October 21, 1976. I said that as a matter of courtesy\nI wanted to inform him of this imminent request because\nit seemed to me that there was a chance with the holiday\nweekend coming up he might have been on one of the\nflights. He expressed no concern whatsoever at that\ntime and indicated that he normally flew to Wisconsin\non Tuesday to attend Board meetings. I told him that I\nwas subpoening the plane records because we had tracked\nthe leak back to Melvin Laird who was on one of the\nairplanes for which I sought records. He expressed no\nsurprise or any other emotion when I mentioned Laird's\nname.\nDuring this morning's telephone conversation, I agreed\nto meet with him this afternoon and I went to his home at\napproximately 4:15 p.m. After some preliminaries with regard\nto last evening's staff party, he indicated that he had\nreviewed his deposition and thought there might be an\nomission of importance.\nHe said that on Tuesday, October 19, 1976, he had gone\nto a reception of Wisconsin people for an old friend of\nhis, Bob Spitzer, at the University Club and during the\ncourse of his brief stay had run into Mel Laird. He said\nLaird came up to him with other people standing around and\nberated the Commission for not acting expeditiously on\ncomplaints. He said that he had felt somewhat provoked\nGERALD\n- 2 -\nHe said he may have 12/4pm merreacted,\nand had vehemently replied that that was totally false,\nthat the Commission was moving forward on all matters and\nwas acting very aggressively. Thomson says he did not\nsay anything about the Sasser case or Brock and that he\ndid not mention the word subpoenas. In response to a\nquestion, he said that Laird may have said something about\nthe Commission letting all those banks make those loans.\nIn grost\nhe\ndurens\nThomson's memory is not strong on this. He said that\nLaird's aggressive behavior was characteristic and he\nrecounted another earlier unrelated episode in which Laird\nto explism\nXme\nhad behaved the same way.\nthis\ndedn't\nI asked him if he could remember who was at the party\nwho could have heard this conversation. He was unable to\ngive me a name. He had earlier mentioned a man named\nz\nyears\nLard\nHyde Murray as being present but he did not think Murray\nyou\nheard his exchange with Laird.\nmy\nThomson's manner throughout this interview somewhat\nwas\npuzzled me. I asked him whether Laird had been in touch\nas\nwith him since that reception. He said Laird had called\nhim a couple of weeks ago to ask who Murphy was and why I\nalmergin\nhad been calling Laird seeking an appointment. Thomson\nrepresents that he said to Laird that the Commission was\ndid\nwith\ninvestigating a matter, that I was authorized to act for\nthe Commission, and that he, Thomson, did not know exactly\nwhat I was doing. I asked whether they had talked about\ntheir previous conversation at the University Club. Thomson\nty\nsaid it did not come up. He could not relate any other\npm\ndetails of this telephone conversation. It seems to me\nodd that Laird made this telephone call, as described, since\nthe call was apparently made after I had tried to reach\nhim and therefore well after he had already conferred\nwith Wallace and probably Kuykendall about the fact that\nI was on the track.\nWe left it that he would probably submit a statement\n1.\nwith respect to the University Club meeting, that he would\\\npinpoint the exact date of the meeting and that he would\nsearch his memory for the name of any person at the\nLibrary\nUniversity Club who may have heard his conversation with\nLaird. He also agreed to sign another subpoena for the\nNorthwest Airlines flight we missed with a previous\nsubpoena. [Addendum 12/7 6:30 Pm 2119 -1 At beginning & this sat. meeting,\nVT sard he had groun disturbed since Thursday meeting. thinkms slamed\nLaird involument. seeing Laird's name on chat I had drawn in\nexpe assim, and reflections un my menton 3 her name that morning, VT\nthought A was do \"mcabble \"md remeired his\nUC contact with Land. But then later he says laid caura him\n\"- comple b weeks ago shows me - why didn'd he cell me in then ?\nTEC\nFROM ELECTION COMMISSIN\nFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION\n1325 K STREET N.W.\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20463\nJanuary 12, 1977\nThe Honorable Philip Buchen\nCounsel to The President\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. Buchen:\nEnclosed are two of the deposition transcripts which I\nthought should be in the President's file. There are copies\nof all other depositions taken of Commissioners, staff, and\nothers which are available in my office should you desire them.\nIf you have any further questions, please don't hesitate\nto call me.\nBest regards.\nSincerely yours,\nJoan Jan\nD. Aikens, arkens\nBIERALD\nCommissioner\nJDA:jet\nonei\nEnclosures a/s\nis LIBRARY GERALD\nAMERICAN REVOLUTION WENTENING\n1776-1976\n@\nORIGINAL\nTranscript of Proceedings\nFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION\nDepositions taken by the General Counsel\nfor the\nFederal Election Commission MUR 298 (76)\nDEPOSITION OF VERNON IV. THOMSON\nWashington, D. C.\nMonday, 20 December 1976\nFORO\nACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.\nOfficial Reporters\n415 Second Street; N.E.\nWashington, D-C.- 20002\nTelephone:\n(Code 202) 547-6222\nNATIONWIDE COVERAGE\n1\nCR 1625\n1\nFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION\nJOHNSON\nDepo\n2\nij-all\n3\n4\nDepositions taken by the General Counsel\n5\nfor the\n6\nFederal Election Commission MUR 298 (76)\n7\n8\nDEPOSITION OF VERNON W. THOMSON\n9\nWashington, D. C.\n10\nMonday, 20 December 1976\n11\n12\nDeposition 'of VERNON W. THOMSON, called for examination\n13\nby General Counsel for the Federal Election Commission, at\n14\n1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Suite 1111, Washington, D. C.\n15\nat 9:30 a.m., before Rebekah J. Johnson, a notary public in\n16\nand for the District of Columbia, when were present on\n17\nbehalf of the respective parties:\n18\nJOHN G. MURPHY, JR., General Counsel, Federal Election\nCommission, Washington, D. C.\n19\nMICHAEL HERSHMAN, Chief Investigator, Federal Election\n20\nCommission, Washington, D. C.\n21\nJERRIS LEONARD, Esq., Leonard, Cohen and Gettings,\n1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C.;\n22\non behalf of the Deponent.\nAce- Federal Reporters, Inc.\nBERALD FUND LIBRARY\n2\n1\nCONTENTS\n2\nWITNESS:\nEXAMINATION\n3\nVernon W. Thomson\n4\nBy Mr. Murphy\n3\nBy Mr. Leonard\n34\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\nFORDO j LIBRARY GERALO\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\n3\nCR 1625\n1\nPROCEEDINGS\nJOHNSON\nDepo\n2\nWhereupon,\nij-all\nnily\n3\nVERNON W. THOMSON\n4\nwas called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn,\n5\nwas examined and testified as follows:\n6\nEXAMINATION\n7\nBY MR. MURPHY:\n8\nQ.\nMr. Chairman, this is your second deposition in\n9\nthis proceeding. I would ask you to first state your full\n10\nname and home address and home telephone number, please.\n11\nA.\nVernon W. Thomson, 6213 Kellogg Drive, McLean,\n12\nVirginia, 356-3644.\n13\nQ.\nAnd you continue to serve as Chairman of the\n14\nFederal Election Commission.\n15\nA.\nYes, sir.\n16\nQ.\nMr. Chairman, I direct your attention to a\n17\nmeeting that you and I had at your home on December 4, 1976,\n18\na Saturday, and I ask you whether you recall that at that\n19\nmeeting you informed me that on October 19, 1976, you had\n20\nencountered Melvin Laird at the University Club.\n21\nA.\nThat is correct.\n22\nQ.\nWould you state for the record what occurred\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nFORD i LIBRARY QERALD\n4\n1\nduring that encounter on October 19th.\n2\nA.\nI called you Saturday morning, the 4th of\n3\nDecember, to suggest to you, in line with your transmittal\n4\nletter of November 29th of my original deposition, I might\n5\nwant to suggest corrections, or to elaborate or explain it.\n6\nI called you to say I wanted to talk to you for that purpose.\n7\nYou had asked me a question in the original\n8\ndeposition if I had spoken to anyone outside of the\n9\nCommission with respect to MUR216, the Sasser investigation,\n10\nor any detail with respect thereto, and I said that I had\n11\nhardly thought of the matter at any time before October 19th,\n12\nor the period from the 19th to the 25th, or thereafter, that\n13\nI had met Melvin Laird on October 19th at the University\n14\nClub in Washington, that I had been invited by a long-time\n15\nWisconsin friend, Bob Spitzer, and that I had a 6:30 dinner\n16\nengagement, so I was rushing to get to the University Club,\n17\npay my respects to Spitzer, and get out of there so I could\n18\nmake my 6:30 engagement.\n19\nSometime after I arrived there, I met Melvin\n20\nLaird, and he more or less accosted me or challenged me by\n21\nsaying something to the effect, \"Why doesn't your commission\n22\nget busy and enforce the law?\"\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nFORD : LIBRARY GERALD\n5\n1\nMy reply was a general reply that the Commission\n2\nwas carrying out its duties in accoradance with the law,\n3\nand that we were enforcing the law.\n4\nThen he replied, \"Well, why don't you do something\n5\nabout the banks that are making loans to candidates like\n6\nthose in Maryland, Tennessee, Minnesota, and maybe some\n7.\nothers?\"\n8\nAnd I said, \"There are no exceptions to the\n9\nenforcement policy of the FEC, we're carrying out our\n10\nduty, and it doesn't matter whether it's a bank or anybody\n11\nelse. The Commission is doing its duty in enforcing the law.\"\n12\nThen he said, \"Yes, but you're putting them all\n13\nover until after the election.\"\n14\nI said, \"That's not true, that we have no policy\n15\nto put over anything until after the election; as a matter\n16\nof fact, the statute requires us to act expeditiously, and\n17\nwe're doing our level best to carry out the intent and the\n18\nletter of the law, and you have got to know that we're doing\n19\nour job.\"\n20\nWell, that was about the extent of our\n21\nconversation. Mel turned and said something about, \"Let's\n22\ntry some of this food.\"\nAcc- Federal Reporters, Inc.\nGERALD FORD JEBRARY\n6\n1\nI said, \"I have got a 6:30 engagement; I don't\n2\nwant to eat because I'm going out to dinner.\"\n3\nThen that was about the extent of it, and I never\n4\nthought for a moment that I --\n5\nMR. LEONARD: That's the answer to the question,\n6\nit seems to me.\n7\nBY MR. MURPHY:\n8\nQ.\nDid he mention Senator Brock?\n9\nA.\nNo, sir.\n10\nQ.\nDid you mention Senator Brock?\n11\nA.\nI did not.\n12\nQ.\nDid you mention Mr. Sasser?\n13\nA.\nNo, sir.\n14\nQ.\nDid he mention Mr. Sasser?\n15\nA.\nNo, he didn't.\n16\nQ.\nDid you mention the word \"subpoenas\"?\n17\nA.\nNo, sir.\n18\nQ.\nDid he ask about subpoenas?\n19\nA.\nNo, sir.\n20\nQ.\nDid you say that the Commission was investigating\n21\nthe records in these cases?\n22\nA.\nNo, I don't think I said \"We're investigating the\nAcc- Tediral Reporters, Inc.\nFORD : LIBRARY\n7\n1\nrecords. \" I was very general, because I thought he was\n2\ntalking about a policy of enforcement by the Commission, and\n3\nI simply said that we were doing our best to carry out our\n4\nstatutory mandate, and do it expeditiously, as the law\n5\nrequired.\n6\nQ.\nDid you say that the Commission was moving to\n7\nobtain records in Tennessee or in the other jurisdictions?\n8\nA.\nI don't think I said that, Jack; I was just\n9\ntrying to defend the Commission's activities as doing the\n10\njob that the statute required us to do. I wasn't getting\n11\ninto any details.\n12\nQ.\nHOW. long was this conversation, Mr. Chairman?\n13\nA.\nWell, I said it was very brief. I don't know\n14\nhow many minutes I could assign to it other than to say\n15\nit was a brief conversation.\n16\nQ.\nFive minutes?\n17\nA.\nItdidn't run that long, I don't think.\n18\nΩ\nWould you characterize Mr. Laird's approach to\n19\nyou as hostile?\n20\nA.\nWell, I've told you about Mel Laird; he's\n21\nextremely aggressive and domineering; he's the \"take-charge\"\n22\nguy; he moves right in on you and you get the impression\nAcer-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nGERALD LISERAY P. FORD\n8\n1\nthat he is extremely aggressive.\n2\nQ.\nDid you consider that he was seriously upset or\n3\nthat he was needling you in a form of jest about the\n4\nCommission's inaction?\n5\nA.\nWell, I would characterize it as ribbing me. I\n6\nthink he used that term subsequent to that time, needling\n7\nme, sort of a provocative type of questions, which aren't\n8\nunusual for Mel. Laird.\n9\nQ.\nDid you say that the Commission was taking\n10\naction that very week?\n11\nA.\nNo, I think the extent of my reply was that we\n12\nwere acting expeditiously, as the statute required us to\n13°\nact.\n14\nQ.\nDo you recall whether anyone was standing with\n15\nyou when Mr. Laird approached you?\n16\nA.\nOh, Jack, I have thought about that for -- I\n17\nthought about it the other day when I was down at the\n18\nWhite House. I was getting bombarded by Congressmen down\n19\nthere. If I had to say who was standing nearby, I couldn't\n20\nidentify anybody that was standing nearby, although I knew\n21\nmaybe 80 percent of the people there.\n22\nI don't know who was standing there, Jack. There\nAcc-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nFORDO is LIBRARY 9ERALD\n9\n1\nwere a lot of people there, the room was filled; you could\n2\nhardly take a step before you encountered someone.\n3\nQ.\nOn the question of whether or not you specifically\n4\nmentioned that the Commission was investigating records,\n5\ndo I understand you to say you don't recall whether you\n6\nsaid that?\n7\nA.\nI said I don't think I said anything about\n8\nexamining records; I said that we were trying to enforce\n9\nthe law the way it was written and I don't think ---\n10\nQ.\nIs the answer the same with respect to the use\n11\nof the words \"obtaining records\"?\n12\nA.\nI don't remember saying anything about records.\n13\nWhen somebody asks you a question involving two, or three,\n14\nor four areas where the same type of action might exist,\n15\nI wasn't about to identify any one of those that he\n16\nmentioned. As a matter of fact, I wasn't familiar with it\n17\nspęcifically. If somebody had said to me that day, naming\n18\nthree or four places where this type of an action exists,\n19\nI don't think I could put it together without going to the\n20\nrecord to determine that.\n21\nQ.\nDid he ask you whether you were moving to\n22\nobtain records?\nAcco-Fedoral Reporters, Inc.\nBERALB FORD\n10\n1\nA.\nNo, I don't think he asked whether we were\n2\nmoving to obtain records.\n3\nQ.\nDid he ask any questions of that character\n4\nseeking information about what specifically the Commission\n5\nwas doing?\n6\nA.\nNo, I don't think -- he just seemed to be bearing\n7\ndown on me in a general way over a wide geographical area\n8\nas to a policy the Commission was operating under.\n9\nQ.\nDid he demonstrate any familiarity with the loans\n10\nin these jurisdictions that were a question?\n11\nA.\nHe didn't say anything about them except to\n12\nsay there were loans in such places as Maryland, Tennessee,\n13\nMinnesota, I think he named another one, maybe two or\n14\nthree others, but I think mentioning those names would\n15\nindicate some familiarity with something.\n16\nQ.\nDid he indicate he knew what size the loans\n17\nquestion were?\nBERALD FORD LIBRETT\n18\nA.\nNo, there was no discussion of that.\n19\nQ.\nDid he indicate that he talked with someone else\n20\nabout these loans or about these compliance actions?\n21\nA.\nWell, I didn't ask him; he didn't say anything.\n22\nHe's a man with wide-ranging sources of information; I don't\nAce-Jederal Reporters, Inc.\n11\n1\nknow where he gets his information.\n2\nQ.\nWas this particular portion of the conversation\n3\npreceded by any kind of preliminaries, or did he simply\n4\nwalk up and start in on this?\n5\nA.\nHe just generally walks up to you and pokes\n6\nyour chest with his finger.\n7\nQ.\nIn this instance did he?\n8\nA.\nI don't think he did in this instance, but\n9\nthat's an habitual approach of his. I don't recall that he\n10\ndid this time. He has done it frequently to me.\n11\nQ.\nIn this instance is it your recollection he\n12\napproached you rather more gently?\n13\nA.\nIt was more gently than some of his approaches.\n14\nQ.\nCan you recall specifically what he said when\n15\nhe walked up to you, apart from hello?\n16\nA.\nI think he said something to the effect, \"Why\n17\ndoesn't your commission, or you guys over at the Commission,\n18\ndo something to enforce the law?\"\n19\nQ.\nWhat was your response to that?\n20\nA.\nMy response was that we were doing everything\n21\nwe should do to enforce the law.\n22\nQ.\nThen what did he say?\nGERALD ?\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\n12\n1\nA.\nThen he said something to the effect about,\n2\n\"Why don't you do something about the banks that are\n3\nmaking loans to candidates,\" like they are doing in these\n4\nstates he mentioend.\n5\nI replied to that. He came back with the\n6\nquestion, \"But you're not doing anything until after the\n7\nelection is over. \"\n8\nQ.\nAt my meeting with you on December 4th at your\n9\nhome, you said that you may have over-reacted to Mr. Laird;\n10\nwould you continue to characterize your responses that way?\n11\nA.\nWell, I didn't think I was over-reacting, but\n12\nwhen I got all through talking to him, I just thought that\n13\nthat was another meeting with Mel Laird, and that I had\n14\ngiven him the assurance that we were doing our duty, we\n15\nwere doing it expeditiously, as the law required, and that\n16\nwas the end of it.\n17\nQ.\nDid you discuss this conversation with Mr. Laird\n18\nwith anyone else thereafter prior to the time you revealed\n19\nit to me?\n20\nA.\nWell, as I told in my home, I had had at that time\n21\nat the instigation of Mr. Laird two conversations; the first\n22\ntime he called me he said something to the effect, \"What's\nAce- Jederal Reporters, Inc.\nFORD : LIBRARY GERALD\n13\n1\nthat Murphy doing? He's pestering me; he's calling me.\"\n2\nI told him that the Commission had authorized\n3\nan investigation involving making public information that\n4\nthe Commission should have confidential, and that you\n5\nprobably wanted to talk to him about our conversation at\n6\nthe Spitzer reception. That's when he said something to\n7\nthe effect, \"Oh, that time when I was ribbing you?\"\n8\nI said, \"Yes, the time when you were ribbing\n9\nme; that's probably what Murphy wants to talk to you about. \"\n10\nQ.\nDo you recall, Mr. Chairman, that at your home\n11\non December 4th I asked you with respect to that telephone\n12\nconversation you're describing whether the University\n13\nClub meeting had come up and you said it did not come up?\n14\nA.\nNo, he called me to find out what you were\n15\npestering him about, and I must have told him that I\n16\nreplied to him that it was at the Commission's direction\n17\nthat you were authorized to do it, and that what you\n18\nprobably wanted to talk to him about was the conversation,\n19\nbut there wasn't any discussion about what the conversation\n20\nwas about.\n21\nQ.\nNow, we met, as we said, on the 4th of December;\n22\nat that time you described the details of your earlier\nAca- Feileral Reporters, Inc.\nFORD LIBRARY\n14\n1\ntelephone conversation with Mr. Laird.\n2\nA.\nBoth of them.\n3\nQ.\nAt that time my records reflect you did not\n4\nreveal to me the conversation of December 3, 1976, the day\n5\nbefore we met; do you now recall that conversation?\n6\nA.\nMy recollection is that I told you that he had\n7\ncalled me twice; the first time he wanted to know why you\n8\nwere pestering him; the second time he wanted to know what\n9\nauthority the Commission had to issue subpoenas.\n10\nI told him that it was a vote'of the Commission\n11\nto issue the subpoenas, and you were lawfully in possession\n12\nof the subpoenas, and that they had been issued.\n13\nI \"told you, and you said to me, \"What dates\n14\ndid Laird call you?\"\n15\nI said, \"I don't have a record of the dates\n16\non which he called me, but you, Mr. Chairman, would have\n17\nthose dates, because you are --\" excuse me, \"Mr. Counsel,\n18\nyou would have those dates because you were the individual\n19\nwho was pestering Laird, and who was talking to him about\n20\nsubpoenas.\"\n21\nI didn't know what dates you were talking with\n22\nhim, and I didn't have any record, but I told you about\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\n15\n1\nthose two conversations at that December 4th meeting.\n2\nQ.\nOur meeting of December 4th was one day after\n3\nthe phone càll from Mr. Laird to you with respect to the\n4\nsubpoenas; you couldn't recall on the 4th of December\n5\nthat you heard from him on the 3rd?\n6\nA.\nI didn't have any log; I didn't remember what\n7\nthe date was, but I told you -- I advised you of the tele-\n8\nphone call and told you that you should know better than I\n9\ndid because I didn't know when you were pestering him, or\n10\nwhen you were talking to him about subpoenas. There isn't\n11\nany doubt in my mind but what I told you about both of\n12\nthose conversations, just as I have told you about them\n13\nhere today.\n14\nQ.\nI would respectfully differ, but I don't want\n15\nto argue with the witness over a deposition. My recollection\n16\ndistinctly is different, that you did not tell me of the\n17\nDecember 3rd conversation.\n18\nA.\nDon't you remember that I told you about two\n19\nconversations, Jack?\n20\nQ.\nNo, sir, I do not.\n21\nA.\nYou asked me what were the dates for either of\n22\nthem, and I didn't know the dates for either of them.\nAce- Federal Reporters, Inc.\nFORD : LIBRARY GERAL\n16\n1\nQ.\nThe record should reflect my disagreement with\n2\nthe Chairman's information of December 4th on the\n3\nDecember 3rd phone call.\n4\nWould you tell me again what Mr. Laird said\n5\nto you at that time.\n6\nA.\nHe wanted to know how the Commission could issue\n7\nsubpoenas and if it was lawful. I said the Commission\n8\nfelt that we had the authority to issue subpoenas, that\n9\nthe general counsel had recommended the issuance of\n10\nsubpoenas; the Commission had voted to issue subpoenas,\n11\nand you were proceeding with the authority of the\n10\n12\nCommission and, not on your own.\n13-\nQ.\nDid he indicate to you his disappointment that\n14\nyou had signed a subpoena for information which you already\n15\npossessed?\n16\nA.\nNo, I don't think he -- he said, \"Well, your\n17\nagency is the only agency in government that doesn't\n18\nrespect the privilege of a journalist.\"\n19\nQ.\nDo you recall whether he asked you to disclose\n20\nthe October 19th meeting with him to the Commission staff,\n21\nor specifically to me, that is, during this December 3rd\n22\ntelephone call?\nBERATO FOND LIBRARY\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\n17\n1\nA.\nWould you repeat the question?\n2\nQ.\nDo you recall whether during the December 3rd\n3\ntelephone call \"he asked you to reveal the October 19th\n4\nmeeting with him to the staff or to me?\n5\nMR. LEONARD: I don't understand the question.\n6\nI don't know who you mean with all the \"yous\" you're using.\n7\nBY MR. MURPHY:\n8\nQ.\nDo you recall whether during the December 3rd\n9\ntelephone conversation with Mr. Laird Mr. Laird indicated\n10\nor stated that you, Mr. Chairman, should disclose the fact\n11\nthat you and he had met on October 19th at the University\n12\nClub reception?\n13\nA.\nJack, I think the only discussion of disclosing\n14\nthe conversation we had came on the next Monday, the 6th,\n15\nand when he called me, I immediately called you, and you\n16\nand Mike Hershman came up to my office and I told you\n17\nthat Laird had called me and that I had intended to call him\n18\nand tell him that I had no objections, no objections at\n19\nall, to his discussing with you the conversation I had\n20\nwith Mr. Laird on November 19th --\n21\nMR. LEONARD: October 19th.\n22\nTHE WITNESS: October 19th, yes.\nFORD is LIBRARY 07/170\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\n18\n1\nBY MR. MURPHY:\n2\nQ.\nDo you recall at any time after October 19th\n3\ndiscussing with Mr. Laird the details of your conversations\n4\nof the 19th with him?\nin\nA.\nNo, I don't think -- I told him to respond to you,\n6\nto describe what was discussed there, but I don't have any\n7\nrecollection of discussing the conversation that I had\n8\nwith Laird with him, except to tell him that that was the\n9\nconversation that you probably wanted to talk to him about.\n10\nQ.\nSo, to the best of your recollection, you did\n11\nnot discuss\nthe details of that conversation with him\n12\nat any time except as you have described the conversation.\n13\nA.\nThat is correct.\nSEAL R. FORD LIBRARY\n14\nQ.\nGoing back to the first telephone call you\n15\nreceived, which you characterized as one in which Mr. Laird\n16\nasked why Murphy was pestering him, do you recall whether\n17\nMr. Laird said anything at that time about who he had\n18\ntalked to other than you with regard to Commission compliance\n19\nmatters?\n20\nA.\nWell, I don't think we -- I don't think there\n21\nwas any discussion of who else he had talked to.\n22\nQ.\nDid he indicate that he had talked to no one else?\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\n19\n1\nA.\nWe didn't discuss it; I don't have any\n2\nrecollection of that.\n3\nQ.\nOn December 6th, which was the Monday following\n4\nour meeting at your home, you have referred to a. conversation\n5\nyou had with Mr. Laird by telephone later in the morning\n6\nafter which you met with Mr. Hershman and myself; would you\n7\nstate for the record what Mr. Laird said during that\n8\nconversation?\n9\nA.\nWell, Mr. Laird said that he had a policy as a\n10\npublisher, or writer, of not discussing with anyone any\n11\nconversations he had unless the other party to the\n12\nconversation gave approval to that, and he said that you\n13\nhad been talking to him and requesting or demanding\n14\nthat he disclose the conversations that he had had with\n15\nwhat you termed to be \"his source.\"\n16\nI just said, \"Mel, I have no objections to your\n17\ndiscussing with Murphy the conversation we had at the\n18\nSpitzer reception at all. You can tell Murphy that or I\n19\nwill tell him.\" I said; \"I will tell Murphy that I have\n20\nno objection to it,\" and I called you up to my office and\n21\ntold you that I had no objection to it, and then I called\n22\nMr. Laird immediately after you left and told him that I\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\n20\n1\nhad no objection to it.\n2\nQ.\nDo you recall at any time in meetings with\n3\nMr. Hershman and myself that you stated that you did not\n4\nknow that Mr. Laird was a newsman?\n5\nA.\nWell, I might have said I --\n6\nMR. LEONARD: Excuse me, I fail to see the\n7\nrelevancy of that. The facts lie in the conversation;\n8\nwhether the governor viewed Mr. Laird as a newsman or not\n9\nseems to me to bear little on the conversation of October 19th\n10\nI guess my objection to the question is that it has little\n11\nrelvancy to the investigation, but you can answer the\n12\nquestion.\n13.\nTHE WITNESS: I think said to you that I\n14\nhad read two or three articles that had Mel Laird's\n15\nbyline, which surprised me a little as to him being an\n16\nauthor, but he is a vice president of Reader's Digest, and\n17\nhe does produce articles under his byline.\n18\nWell, I have known Mel for many years; I know\n19\nhe's written a book; I know he's written a few articles.\n20\nBut -- what did you ask me, if I characterized him as a\n21\nauthor?\n0\n22\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nLIBRARY GERALD R. FORD\n21\n1\nBY MR. MURPHY:\n2\nQ.\nDo you recall saying to Mr. Hershman and to me\n3\nthat you did not know that Mr. Laird was a newsman?\n4\nA.\nWell, I didn't know he was an author. I wouldn't\n5\ncall him a newsman.\n6\nQ.\nDo you recall specifically using that word,\n7\n\"newsman,\" that he was not a newsman?\n8\nA.\nNo, I don't recall using the word \"newsman.\"\n9\nIt's possible I did. What I was saying was that I was a\n10\nlittle bit amused that Mel Laird was in the business of\n11\nwriting, but he is, and I said that as a humerous remark,\n12\nI suppose, based, on my long observation of Mr. Laird.\n13\nQ.\nDuring the week of December 6th, the 6th being\n14\nthat Monday, at some later time, did you have occasion\n15\nto call Mr. Laird's office?\n16\nA.\nWell, I called his office on December 6th.\n17\nQ.\nYes. Do you recall a later telephone call on\n18\nWednesday?\n19\nA.\nOn the 8th?\n20\nQ.\nThe 8th of December.\n21\nA.\nNo.\n22\nQ.\nOr on Thursday the 9th of December?\nFORD is 938839 LIBRARY\nAcc- Federal Reporters, Inc.\n22\n1\nA.\nI don't have any recollection of talking to him\n2\nafter I told him to go ahead and talk to you.\n3\nQ.\nAt any time?\n4\nA.\nI just don't have any recollection of calling\n5\nhim; I have no reason to call him.\n6\nQ.\nAre you saying, Mr. Chairman, that you have not\n7\nspoken with Mr. Laird since December 6th?\n8\nA.\nNo, I'm not saying that; I met him at the White\n9\nHouse party, I think it was on the 9th, and I spoke to him,\n10\nbut largely for the purpose of introducing the escort I\n11\nhad at the White House affair.\n12\nQ.\nHas there been any other occasion since\n13\nDecember 6th, apart from the White House reception you\n14\nreferred to, when you talked to Mr. Laird?\n15\nA.\nI don't recall any.\n16\nQ.\nHas there been any other occasion when you have\n17\ncalled Mr. Laird's office?\n18\nA.\nWell, I don't know why I would be calling. I\n19\ndon't recall calling.\n20\nMR. MURPHY: We will take a short recess here.\n21\n(A brief recess was held.)\n22\nMR. MURPHY: Back on the record.\n1980\nAcc-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nBERAL\nLIBRARY\n23\n1\nI just have one or two additional questions.\n2\nFor the record, I might note that by agreement\n3\nwith the witness's counsel, at the conclusion of these\n4\nquestions, Mr. Leonard has been given the liberty to ask\n5\nthe witness additional questions, if he feels the need to do\n6\nso. We're happy to accomodate Mr. Leonard in this respect.\n7\nBY MR. MURPHY:\n8\nQ.\nMr. Chairman, I would like to direct your\n9\nattention once again to the conversation you had with\n10\nMr. Laird by telephone when he was inquiring about my action\n11\nin seeking an appointment with him in which you explained\n12\nto him that I was pursuing the investigation authorized\n13\nby the Commission. I think you stated to me that he was\n14\ncurious about what I was doing, and that you indicated\n15\nthat I was authorized to pursue this matter, and you have\n16\nindicated that the subject of the University Club meeting\n17\ndid come up; it was clear from what you knew, I gather,\n18\nthat I was, in fact, investigating along a line that had\n19\nled me to Mr. Laird.\n20\nThe question I have is why did you not report\n21\nthis telephone call to me at sometime prior to December 4th?\n22\nA.\nWell, Jack, you were investigating; I didn't know\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n24\n1\nanything about who were you investigating except that you\n2\nwere, as Laird said, perstering him. I didn't have any\n3\nreason to withhold any information from you or from anybody\n4\nelse.\n5\nI didn't know that you were investigating\n6\nMr. Laird for the purpose of identifying whoever he had\n7\ntalked to until you said it in the December 2nd meeting\n8\nof the Commission, and I was just struck like a thunderclap\n9\nat that time, as I told you on December 4th when you came\n10\nto my house.\n11\nYou stopped me on my way into the Commission\n12\nmeeting to tell me. you were going to ask for the Northwest\n13\nAirlines' flight to Wisconsin, and I said something about,\n14\n\"For heaven's sake, what will that reveal?\"\n15\nYou said to me, \"It will reveal whether you\n16\nwere on the flight.\"\n17\nAnd I replied to that that if you wanted to know\n18\nabout any flights I made, I would give them to you; further-\n19\nmore, I hadn't been on a Thursday flight in two years, or\n20\nwhatever I could remember.\n21\nI had nothing to withhold so far as your\n22\ninvestigation. I knew you were going to Laird; I didn't\nAcc-Foderal Reporters, Inc.\nLIBRARY GERALD FORD\n25\n1\ncare if you went to Laird, but I didn't know the significance\n2\nof it until long after Laird called me and said you were\n3\npestering him. I told him you were pestering him because\n4\nyou were investigating a matter of importance to the\n5\nCommission.\n6\nQ.\nThe record will reflect correctly, Mr. Chairman,\n7\nthat when Mr. Hershman and I approached you on the morning\n8\nof December 2nd prior to the meeting, you did indeed tell\n9\nme that you flew to Wisconsin on Tuesday for the board\n10\nmeeting.\n11\nA.\nI went to a board meeting on Tuesday night, and\n12\nI said I hadn made a Thursday flight as long as I could\n13\nremember.\n14\nQ.\nThat you were perfectly comfortable with the\n15\nnotion that we would subpoena those airline flight\n16\npassenger records.\n17\nA.\nI did. I said if you wanted my records, I'll\n18\ngive them to you.\n19\nQ.\nI don't recall that you said that. The : record\n20\nshould be clear you were perfectly comfortable with the\n21\nnotion we would obtain records of a Thursday flight.\n22\nA.\nYes, I signed. the subpoena, didn't I.\nAw-Feileral Reporters, Inc.\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\n26\n1\nQ.\nA moment ago you characterized my December 2nd\n2\npresentation to the Commission on this matter as one which\n3\nleft you thunderstruck; may I ask why you did not\n4\ndisclose this information to me that afternoon?\n5\nA.\nWell, the only reason was the connection between\n6\nthe flight to Wisconsin and the fact that you thought\n7\nMel Laird was a critical person in there. I had never\n8\nconsidered that I had in any way violated the law, made\n9\nanything public except the policy of the Commission to do\n10\nits job.\n11\nBut the more I thought about the connection\n12\nbetween those flight manifests and the fact that you were\n13\nidentifying Laird as a critical person, I couldn't believe\n14\nthat I had any involvement in it, and so I -- well, I went\n15\nto your farewell party and enjoyed your limericks, and\n16\nthinking this matter over; so, Saturday morning I called\n17\nyou -- and I probably called you too early for a person that\n18\nhad been to a farewell party -- but I called you at a\n19\nreasonably early hour Saturday morning so I could tell you\n20\nabout it.\n21\nI couldn't believe it. All I had done was\n22\ndefend the Commission; if it had been published in the\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nLIBRARY GERALD P. FORD\n27\n1\nWashington Post, nobody would even remember it probably.\n2\nQ.\nAlthough you were thunderstruck by my presentation\n3\non December 2nd, it did not lead you to discuss the\n4\nOctober 19th meeting that day.\n5\nA.\nYou mean December 2nd?\n6\nQ.\nDecember 2nd; you were in the office on\n7\nDecember 3rd.\n8\nA.\nI was.\n9\nQ.\nMay I ask why during the course of the day,\n10\nDecember 3rd, I was not contacted?\n11\nA.\nI just couldn't come to any belief that I was\n12\ninvolved in this matter So I called you early on the\n13\nmorning of December 4th.\n14\nQ.\nYou called me at 9:30; that isn't early.\n15\nA.\nIt seemed to be early under the circumstances.\n16\nO.\nI. had been up for several hours.\n17\nSo that your statement with respect to December 3rd\n18\nis that you were mulling my presentation over, but the full\n19\nimplications to it with respect to the October 19th meeting\n20\ndid not come clear to you until Saturday morning, the 4th.\n21\nA.\nWell, I couldn't believe that I would be charged\n22\nwith anything. If I was charged with anything, it should be\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nLIBRARY GERALD\n28\n1\nthat I made public the fact that the Federal Election\n2\nCommission was doing its job regardless of who the parties\n3\nwere. Now that might have been news, but that's all I\n4\nshould have been charged with.\n5\nQ.\nYou are familiar with the Commission policy\n6\nwith respect to reporting external conversations having to\n7\ndo with compliance matters.\n8\nA.\nWell, I insisted on drafting the ex-party rule\nFORD\n9\nto that Commission, and I appointed Bill Springer to draw\n10\nANVUST\nthem.\n11\nQ.\nAt the point at which it was clear to you that\n12\nthe investigation had reached Mr. Laird, did it occur to\n13\nyou that at least the spirit of ex-party provisions\n14\nsuggested that you make a record to the Commission staff\n15\nwith regard to your contact with Mr. Laird on October 19th?\n16\nA.\nI didn't think there was anything ex-party\n17\nabout it at all to insist that the Commission was doing its\n18\njob and doing it expeditiously, as the statute required.\n19\nIt never occured to me there was anything wrong.\n20\nQ.\nI'm not referring to the October 19th meeting.\n21\nA.\nWould you repeat the question?\n1\n22\nQ.\nWhen Mr. Laird first telephoned you to indicate\nAcc-Federal Reporters, Inc.\n29\n1\nI was seeking to interview him, you were aware that I was\n2\nconducting an investigation, and you told Mr. Laird that.\n3\nAt that time did not at least the spirit of ex-party policy\n4\nsuggest to you the desirability of entering that\n5\nconversation on the record?\n6\nA.\nNo, I don't think so, he just asked me if you\n7\nhad authority to conduct an investigation, and I told him\n8\nyou did.\n9\nQ.\nDo you recall whether during that first conversation\n10\nhe mentioned the name Carl Wallace?\n11\nA.\nNo, I'm certain he didn't mention Carl Wallace.\n12\nQ.\nDan Kuykendall?\n13\nA.\nI'm certain he didn't mention Dan Kuykendall.\n14\nQ.\nDid he mention anyone?\n15\nA.\nNo, he just mentioned the states where he thought\n16\nwe weren't carrying out our duty. The first I heard about\n17\nthese names you mentioned --\n18\nQ.\nI don't mean during the conversation at the\n19\nUniversity Club; I mean in the conversation on the telephone\n20\nwith Mr. Laird about my involvement, did he mention Carl\n21\nWallace?\n22\nA.\nNo, he didn't mention anybody. He said you were\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nGEBRLD FORD LIBRARY\n30\n1\npestering him, and he wanted to know if it was a legitimate\n2\nactivity of the Commission.\n3\nQ.\nCan you recall what day of the week it was when\n4\nhe called?\n5\nA.\nJack, I have told you, the day of the week or\n6\nthe date, as I said to you on the 4th in my home, you have\n7\nthe best evidence of when it was because you were in contact\n8\nwith Laird. I don't keep any log.\n9\nQ.\nMr. Chairman, it seems clear to that I did\n10\nnot know that you had met with Mr. Laird on the 19th until\n11\nyou told me on the 4th; so, I would have no basis to know\n12\nwhen he made the call. I respectfully differ when you say\n13\nI have the best evidence.\n14\nA.\nYou were pestering Mr. Laird.\n15\nQ.\nI object to that characterization.\n16\nA.\nThat's his characterization I am repeating, as\n17\nI have, that he characterized your phone calls to him as\n18\n\"pestering\" him. So, you were talking with him; whether you\n19\nknew about the October 19th meeting, you were talking with\n20\nMr. Laird.\n21\nQ.\nDo you know if at the time he called you that\n22\nfirst time I had seen him. or not?\nAcc-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nBERALE FORD\n31\n1\nA.\nI don't know; I don't remember whether you had\n2\nbeen in\nto see him, or whether vou were talking to him\n3\non the telephone. I don't think I asked him.\n4\nQ.\nDid you have an impression in one way or the\n5\nother I had been in direct communication with him as\n6\ndistinct from an intermediary?\n7\nA.\nWell, he said, \"Murphy is pertering me.\" I don't\n8\nknow whether you pester people through intermediaries.\n9\nQ.\nHe did not say I had spoken with him?\n10\nA.\nWell, I am telling you the best recollection that\n11\nI have, whether you spoke to him on the telephone or in\n12\nperson, I don't know.\n13\nQ.\nWell, I just want the record to reflect that\n14\nexchange of a moment ago to the effect that at our meeting\n15\nDecember 4th, I learned for the first time of the October 19th\n16\nmeeting between you and Mr. Laird, and there was no way I\n17\ncould have conceivably known of the telephone conversation\n18 .\nyou revealed to me at that time.\n19\nMR. LEONARD: If I might just for a moment, first,\n20\nJack, I don't think that the governor has in any way\n21\nintimated or characterized what he's saying as an atack on\n22\nyou at all. I think the point that he is trying to make\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nFORDO : LIBRARY GERALD\n32\n1\nis that with respect to the first phone call that he had with\n2\nLaird, which is not on the record here today, but which you\n3\nhave indicated to me and I have indicated to the governor,\n4\nwould have taken place somewhere between November 18th and\n5\nNovember 22nd, that as far as establishing the date of\n6\nthat phone call, the point he's making is that your records\n7\nof contact with Laird would be the best evidence of the\n8\ndate of that, because he had, number one, no recollection\n9\nof the date, and number two, he has no record of the date,\n10\ntherefore, if you kept a log -- and he's not suggesting, nor\n11\nam I, that you did -- but if you kept some kind of a\n12\ntelephone log with Laird, it probably would have been a\n13\nday or two, or three or four, after you first contacted\n14\nLaird that Laird would have called the governor.\n15\nMR. MURPHY: I understand that, Mr. Leonard.\n16\nMR. LEONARD: That's the point he's making.\n17\nMR. MURPHY: The point I'm trying to make is that\n18\nthe Chairman in the Saturday meeting on December 4th did not\n19\nmake that statement to me, but I don't want to get into\n20\na swearing match with the witness.\n21.\nMR. LEONARD: You did not know about the\n22\nOctober 19th meeting at the University Club until December 4th\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nexat & LIBRARY 0ERALD\n33\n1\nMR. MURPHY: That is correct, I certainly did\n2\nnot.\n3\nWhat I'm saying is that the Chairman did not\n4\ntell me on December 4th that I was the best source of a record\n5\nas to when the conversation by telephone occurred after the\n6\nOctober 19th meeting.\n7\nMR. LEONARD: Again, I don't know what the\n8\nmateriality of the specific date is; he did reveal to you\n9\nthat he had that conversation with Laird.\n10\nMR. MURPHY: That is correct.\n11\nMR. LEONARD: The \"Murphy-is-pestering-me\"\n12\nconversation.\n13\nMR. MURPHY: That is correct, he revealed that\n14\nphone call.\n15\nTHE WITNESS: Jack, you keep saying that you\n16\nlearned about my conversation of October 19th on December 4th;\n17\nbut long before that you were asking Laird to sit down and\n18\ndiscuss this matter with you, and you didn't have to tell\n19\nme that Mel Laird was involved because you were already\n20\ntalking to him, and I think that ought to be clear on the\n21\nrecord.\n22\nMR. MURPHY: I think it is.\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nBERALD Be FORD <<8\nLIBRARY\n34\n1\nI have no further questions as this time.\n2\nMR. LEONARD: I have just a few.\n3\nBY MR. LEONARD:\n4\nQ.\nGovernor, wouldn't it be more correct with\n5\nrespect to -- strike that.\n6\nMR. MURPHY: Please don't lead the witness,\n7\nMr. Leonard.\n8\nMR. LEONARD: I think you'll agree when I finish\n9\nthe question it's an appropriate one.\n10\nBY MR. LEONARD:\n11\nQ.\nWith respect to your December 6th conversation\n12\nwith Mr. Murphy and Mr. Hershman relative to the question\n13\nof Mr. Laird's hewsman's privilege, you said that you were\n14\namused that he was considering himself to be an author,\n15\net cetera. Would it be more correct to characterize that\n16\namusement as the fact that you were amused that he was\n17\nclaiming a newsman's privilege in view of the fact you had\n18\nnever considered him to be a newspaper man even while he\n19\nwas with Reader's Digest?\n20\nA.\nWell, I think that's true; I don't think Mel Laird\n21\nis a newspaper man; he's probably a publisher and maybe an\n22\nauthor.\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nDERALO B. FORD LIBRARY\n35\n1\nQ.\nWith respect to your October 19, 1976,\n2\nconversation with Mr. Laird at the University Club at the\n3\nSpitzer party, did you at any time during that conversation\n4\ntell Mr. Laird that the FEC had voted unanimously to do\n5\nanything about anything?\n6\nA.\nThere was nothing in that conversation relating\n7\nto any action of the Commission except that we were doing\n8\nour statutory duty.\n9\nQ.\nDid you during that conversation tell him that\n10\nyou, the Commission, had voted to issue subpoenas in any\n11\ncase?\n12\nA.\nNo.\n13\nQ.\nDid you discuss with him in any way the specifics\n14\nof what was later to become known as MUR 216, the Sasser\n15\nbank loan case involved in the Sasser/Brock election?\n16\nA.\nWe didn't discuss anything in regard to the\n17\ndetails; the only discussion went to the general policy of\n18\nenforcement, which was being challenged by Mr. Laird.\n19\nQ.\nNow, if counsel for the Commission will allow\n20\nme, I know that this is a litt bit leading, but --\n21\nMR. MURPHY: Let me hear it off the record first.\n22\nMR. LEONARD: All right.\n&\nFORD\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n36\n1\n(Discussion off the record.)\n2\nMR. MURPHY: Back on the record.\n3\nMR. LEONARD: That's all I have.\n4\nMR. MURPHY: Thank you very much.\n5\nTHE WITNESS: Let me just add one thing, because\n6\nI think Mr. Murphy --\n7\nMR. MURPHY: Off the record.\n8\nTHE WITNESS: I want it on the record; it does\n9\nhave a relevancy to the factual question that you are\n10\nconsidering.\n11\nMR. MURPHY: All right.\n12\nTHE WITNESS: In Mr. Murphy's conversation\n13\nwith Jerris Leonard, he indicated that Commissioner Thomson\n14\nhad failed to reveal on the meeting of December 2nd the\n15\nfact that he had had a conversation with Melvin Laird on\n16\nOctober 19th, whereas one of the other commissioners\n17\nstated that he had met with Melvin Laird at about that\n18\ntime, and that that Commissioner had volunteered that he\n19\nhad spoken to Laird, but the effect of the statement was\n20\nthat he revealed the fact that he had spoken with Mr. Laird,\n21\nwhereas Commissioner Thomson didn't volunteer that at the\n22\nmeeting of December 2nd. I think that is correct, Mr. Murphy.\nAce- Federal Reporters, Inc.\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\n37\n1\nMR. MURPHY: That's correct.\n2\nTHE WITNESS: I have explained to you why I\n3\ncalled you early - or at 9:30, as you said, on December 4th,\n4\nwhen I realized from the talk about the airplane flight and\n5\nwhether I was on it or not, I concluded that I better tell\n6\nyou about it. I not only told you about it, but I told\n7\nMel Laird to talk to you about it.\n8\nI have been just as open and frank with you as\n9\nI possibly can all the way, but I don't like the suggestion\n10\nthat because one Commissioner, who did talk to Mel Laird also,\n11\nmentioned it in the Commission meeting on the 2nd, and I\n12\ndidn't tell you until the 4th. I think there are different\n13\ncircumstances involved in the matter.\n14\nSTATE\nE\nMR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.\nLEVERAL\n15\nAnything further, Mr. Leonard?\n16\nMR. LEONARD: No, Mr. Murphy.\n17\nMR. MURPHY: We will end this now, and I think you.\n18\n(Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the taking of the\n19\ndeposition was concluded.)\n20\n21\n22\n(Signature waived.)\nAce-Federal Reporters, Inc.\n38\nCERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC AND REPORTER\nI,\nRebekah J. Johnson\nthe officer before whom\n,\nthe foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the witness\nwhose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me;\nthat the testimony of said witness was taken in shorthand and thereafter\nreduced to typewriting by me or under my direction; that said deposition is\na true record of the testimony given by said witness; that I am neither\ncounsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action\nin which this deposition was taken; and, further, that I am not a relative\nor employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor\nfinancially or otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.\nDistrict of Columbia\nMy commission expires 14 May 1981"
}