Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4520701",
    "label": "Nixon Pardon - Hungate Subcommittee Hearing, 9/24/74",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520701"
}

{
    "id": "4520701",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520701",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Nixon Pardon - Hungate Subcommittee Hearing, 9/24/74",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520701",
    "collections": [
        "Philip W. Buchen Files",
        "Philip Buchen's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Nixon, Richard M. (Richard Milhous), 1913-1994",
        "Governmental investigations"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520701.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520701.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520701.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520701",
    "naId": 4520701,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1974-09-01",
        "month": 9,
        "year": 1974
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1974-09-01",
        "month": 9,
        "year": 1974
    },
    "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-4520701.pdf",
    "mediaId": "c41bbd68b6f9f868",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 34, folder \"Nixon Pardon Hungate\nSubcommittee - Hearing 9/24/74\" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford\nPresidential Library.\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 Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain.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.\nExact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.\nDigitized from Box 34 of the Philip Buchen Files\nat the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nabzug\nCompres\nFish\nButter\nGene\nPresent to\nCoken\nKoch\n456-2140\nThe\nDemocrate\nRepublicans\nHaltyman\nHogan\nMain\nMayne\nEdwards\nDennis\nKastenmier\n1,884\nSmith-Rowking Smith - Ranking\nHungate - Chrm.\nFish (joined)\nConyers(joined)\nMike Blourmer\nCounsel\nKastenmier - Witness: Cong. Gude -\nHow get tapes from Jaworski & White House to\nmake public? Other material & evidence ?\nthese items? ? Doh know\nIs there a legislative vehicle for obtaining\nSmith\nDoes Jawarski have now the authority to make\nrept. to american people releasing E on\nboth sides of care? Even w/out legis?\nDon't know but would take longer to\ngo them cto._ Would Jawarski make a\nfair rept. ? yes\nEdwards\nWhat about representation of nixon by\ncounsel in the making of a rept. by\nJaworski ? Edwards thinks nixon should\nBERACH FORD\nbe represented by attys while rept.\nbeing made so that no one could\nsay he wasn't given a fair shake.\nDennis\nDoes not Jaworski already have authority\nto make public reget? Why need legis. ?\nare we left w/ any possibility of further\nCriminal or imperchable implachment\nproceedings against niyon? no- Then\nonly thing that rept. would do would\nbe to make public the facts, is\nthat true ? yes-\nMann\nWould you respect the rept. a finding of\n90 I day release of E premature?\na group of attys, as final? yes. for a\nMayne Do not prosecutors seek mostly to convict\n$ not to prove innocence? How could\na group of prosentors present an\nassurance of accuracy of fairness?\nFeels that this is a possible problem\nbut still is the best way-\nHotzman would the proposed res. be a barrier\nto any criminal proceedings that may\nevolve in the future? no-\nshould E that hasnot yet been obtained\nbe included in rept. ? yes-\nFORD is LIBRABY 0ERALD\nHogan\nWhy is it necessary to instruct Jawarski\nto make rept. sooner that he would\nnormally do so? Hogan does not behave\nthat begis. is necessary. Isn't the\nissue moot now? Hogan would want an\namend. to the proposed bill that would\nviews in the rept. He also doesn't\nallow defense atty to file dissenting\nsurprise\nfeel that the rept. would be of any real\nvalue to the american people, since they\nmany of them feel Nixon was hounded\nout of office by the news media\ninstead of the true facts anyway.\nHungate\nno questions.\nFish\nno questions.\n- Witness: Me Cong. Kinney -\nKastenmier\nWhat would Cong. do w/ documents once received?\nall obtained materials - why When should\nCong. should publish them & make public\nthis be done? as soon as there is no\ndanger of garejudicing a criminal case-\nme Kinney prefers all documents in her\nof a Jawarski rept.\nSmith\nWhy are you limiting (by amend.) the\nmaking public of only Jawarski E & not\nGrand Jury testimony ? Isn't Jawarski E\ntestinions of witnesses also? yes, but\nthere'sa difference- -\nDennis\nWhat good would it do to make all E\npublic? So people will know facts &\nso Cong. can know how to legislate\nto keep such from happening again -\nWhat about rts of Grand Jury witnesses\nnot to have their test. made public?\nThis should be protected -\nMann\nWhen should material be released to\nCoug. from Jawarski? should be an on-\ngoing process\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\nMayne\nno questions.\nHoltzman\nno questions.\nEdwards\nno questions.\nHogan\nsurprise\nrebuttal in the rept. ? Hogan concerned\nWould there be ample time & space for\nthat sewilous, uncorroborated E would\nbe included in the rept. by Jawarski\nagainst the character of nison. McKinney\nnot objectionable to an amend. to assure\nthe former Pres. a rt. to rebut all\naccusatory E-\nFish\nno questions.\nConyers No questions.\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\n- Witness: Cong. abzug -\n[Privileged Res. to challenge the pardon of\nnevon a res. of injury from a\nlegal standpoint]\nEdwards\nThought letter from Ford to Hungote was\nDoes Bella agree ? yes- are you\ndisrespectful of the House & unsatisfactory.\nquestioning the Const. rt. to pardon or\nthe abuse of the President's abuse\nof his rt to pardon? The legality\nof his pardon- (whatever that meane)_\nSmith\nDo you not feel that many of the questions\nasked in the Hungate letter were\nanswered in the press releases sent\nthe response should have directly\nby the White House? Maybe so but\njust by sending indirect press releases\nanswered the questions posed & not\nMam\nno questions.\nFORD is LIBRARY\nDennis\nDoesn't Mr. Bachen's press release answer\nthe questions? not in baby satisfactory\nform or Can a Pres. issue should a pardon be\nprior to conviction? an\ncrux\nindictment at least or at least\nGarlan decision he statement? There\nan admission of guilt L What about\nsubject of pardows- -\na differing legal interpretations on the\nRECESS T/L 1:30\nCERIAD FORD LIBRARY\nUP-147\n(PARDON)\nWASHINGTON (UPI) -- THE CHAIRMAN OF A HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE\nINVESTIGATING PRESIDENT FORD'S PARDON OF PREDECESSOR RICHARD NIXON\nSAID TUESDAY HE MAY CALL A WHITE HOUSE AIDE TO EXPAND ON FORD'S\nEXPLANATION OF THE ACTION.\nAT LEAST TWO MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE, REPS. BELLA\nABZUG, D-N.Y., AND DON EDWARDS, D-CALIF., SAID THEY CONSIDERED FORD'S\nRESPONSE TO THE PANEL'S INQUIRY INADEQUATE AND EVEN INSULTING.\nIN VIEW OF THAT, SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN WILLIAM HUNGATE, D-MO.,\nSAID HE WAS CONSIDERING A REQUEST FOR TESTIMONY BY EITHER PHILIP\nBUCHEN OR JOHN MARSH, THE PRESIDENT'S TOP LEGAL ADVISERS.\nIN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST BY HUNGATE LAST WEEK, FORD SENT THE\nSUBCOMMITTEE A LETTER SAYING THAT EITHER HE OR BUCHEN HAD ANSWERED\nALL OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PARDON AT NEWS CONFERENCES,\nTRANSCRIPTS OF WHICH WERE ENCLOSED WITH THE LETTER.\nREP. ABZUG, AUTHOR OF A RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY WHICH PROMPTED\nHUNGATE'S REQUEST, SAID FORD'S REPLY \"REVEALS A NON-SERIOUS AND\nTRIFLING ATTITUDE THAT DEMEANS THE AUTHORITY AND DIGNITY OF THIS\nCOMMITTEE AND THIS PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.'\n\"IT IS TOTALLY INADEQUATE FOR MR. FORD TO RESPOND BY SENDING A\nBATCH OF WHITE HOUSE PRESS RELEASES AND AN ACCOMPANYING LETTER, H SHE\nSAID.\n\"I, TOO,\" SAID EDWARDS, \"FIND HIS RESPONSE NOT ONLY CAVALIER BUT\nVERY CLOSE TO BEING DISRESPECTFUL OF THE HOUSE AND THIS COMMITTEE. H\nHUNGATE HAD ASKED FORD TO EXPLAIN THE REASONING BEHIND THE PARDON,\nTHE NAMES OF THE PERSONS WITH WHOM HE CONFERRED ABOUT IT, WHETHER THE\nATTORNEY GENERAL OR THE SPECIAL WATERGATE PROSECUTOR WERE CONSULTED,\nAND WHETHER FORD HAD KNOWLEDGE OF ANY CRIMINAL CHARGES WHICH MIGHT\nHAVE BEEN BROUGHT AGAINST NIXON.\nFORD'S LETTER SAID IN REPLY:\n\"REGARDLESS OF ANY BACKGROUND INFORMATION OR ADVICE I MAY HAVE\nRECEIVED, I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PARDON DECISION. I AM SATISFIED\nTHAT IT WAS THE RIGHT COURSE TO FOLLOW IN ACCORD WITH MY OWN\nCONSCIENCE AND CONVICTION.\"\nHUNGATE DECLINED TO CHARACTERIZE FORD'S RESPONSE, BUT SAID \"IT\nSEEMS TO ME IT MAY MAKE IT DESIRABLE THAT SOME LIVING PERSON AT THE\nWHITE HOUSE COME UP AND RESPOND TO THE COMMITTEE. # HE SAID HE MAY ASK\nBUCHEN OR MARSH TO APPEAR NEXT TUESDAY.\nUPI 09-24 06:37 PED\nLIBRARY\nWITNESS LIFT\nCOMITTEE ON TI JUDICIARY\nSUBCOMETTED OH CRIMINAL JUSTICE\nHEARING\nI'l BE: Le islation relating to: (1) the pardon of former\nBresident Richard M. Mixon; (2) the issuance of\nadditional pardons to persons involved in Watercate\nrelated act vities: (3) the ability and apnropriateness\nof the Watergate Special Prosecution Force to make\npublic the information it has compiled relating to the\nalleged criminal conduct of former President Richard \"A.\nNixon, and (4) the public disclosure of all Watermate\nrelated documents and tanes which were in the custody\nof the United States between January 20, 1969 and\nAugust 9, 1974.\nTuesday, Sert -mbor 211, 1974\n10:00 a.m.\nRoom 22/17 - Payburry HOB\n1. Honorable Gilbert Cude (R.-Md.) H.J.Res. 1126,\nJoint Resolution to require the Watergate Special\nProsecution Force to make available to the public a\nreport of all information it has concerning former\nPresident Richard M. Nixon.\n2. Fenorable Stewart McKinney (R.-Conn) - H.P. 16619,\n2 bill to make available to Congress the information\nobtained by the Special Prosecutor.\n3. Honorable Edward Koch (D.-N.Y.) - H.R. 16750, a\nbill to provide for public access to all Watercate\nrelated facts produced by anv investigation conducted\nby any Federal executive office. H.Con.Res. 632 -\nConcurrent Pesolution expressing the sense of Congress\nwith respect to certain nardons granted or which T\nbe ranted the President.\nLIBRARY GERALD ? FORD\n4. Honorabl B.lla (D.-T.Y.) - I.Res. 1357,\nResolution of insuiry requesting the President to\nfurnish the Hour with certain specified information\nconcerning the pardon of former President Mixon.\n5. Honorable John Conyers (D. -Mich.) - H.Res. 1370,\nResolution of incuiry directing the President to\nfurnish the House with the full and complete story\nconcerning the issuance of a nardon to Fichard 11.\nMixon and the possible issuance of additional pardons\nto persons involved in Waterrate related activities.\n6. Honorable Jonathan Binnham (D.-N.Y.) - H.Con.Res. 639,\nConcurrent Resolution expressing the sense of the Congress\nthat the President should defer granting any additional\npardons until after all the facts about the Watergate\naffair have been revealed by the unfettered operation\nof the criminal justice system.\nFORD is GERALD LIBRARY\nSTATEMENT BY\nHONORABLE WILLIAM L. HUNGATE\nSEPTEMBER 24, 1974\nToday, the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the Committee on\nthe Judiciary begins hearings on bills and resolutions that seek to insure\npublic access to information relative to Watergate and its related\nactivities.\nWithin the last several days, nineteen bills and resolutions\nconcerning Watergate-related events have been referred to this Sub-\ncommittee for its consideration. Sixty-three Members, Democrats\nand Republicans, have sponsored or co-sponsored one or more of these\nmeasures. Because of the importance of preserving the public's right\nto know the full and complete story of Watergate, and the privileged\nnature of certain of these resolutions of inquiry, it is necessary to\nproceed promptly in considering these legislative measures.\nRecent events caused many responsible citizens and Members\nof Congress serious concern that the complete story of Watergate may\nnever be recorded. The pardoning of former President Nixon has certainly\njeopardized the opportunity for full public disclosure of information gathered\nby the Office of the Special Prosecutor bearing on former President Nixon's\nrole in the Watergate affair. Moneover, the agreement entered into between\nthe former President and the General Services Administration has caused\nmany to fear that additional information relevant to Watergate will be forever\nFIT ALD + FORD\n2.\nwithheld from public scrutiny. Unless the complete story of Watergate is\nknown, history may incorrectly record the events of these times.\nThe Congress has dealt responsibly with Watergate, but\nWatergate will not be behind us until the record of Watergate is complete.\nWe now proceed to review the proposals before the Subcommittee\ndesigned to guarantee that the public's right to know is protected. Before\nCongress and the Nation are important questions of ownership and access\nto tapes, materials and related documents prepared and created by public\nofficials while on the public payroll. Many of the resolutions before us touch these\nproblems. We must see to it that there is full public access to all information\nconcerning Watergate, its coverup, and all related events.\nToday, we hear from Members of Congress who have introduced\nlegislation pertaining to these issues. Generally, the proposals to be con-\nsidered relate to the pardon of former President Nixon, the issuance of\nadditional pardons to persons involved in Watergate-related activities, the\ndesirability of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force to make public in-\nformation it has compiled relating to the alleged criminal conduct of former\nPresident Nixon, and the public disclosure of all Watergate-related documents\nand tapes in the custody of the United States Government.\nSTATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN GILBERT GUDE BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE\nHOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY -- SEPTEMBER 24, 1974\nMr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity\nto testify this morning on House Joint Resolution 1118 which I introduced\non September 11, 1974, and House Joint Resolutions 1126 and 1139, which I\nsubsequently introduced with 19 co-sponsors.\nAt his first news conference after assuming office, President Ford indicated\nthat while he thought that former President Nixon had suffered enough, the\nlegal proceedings in the Watergate affair should be allowed to run their\ncourse before any consideration of a Presidential pardon. I fully supported\nthat policy for three reasons. First, it reaffirmed the people's commitment\nto equal justice under the law regardless of power or position. Second, it\ninsured the right of former President Nixon and the country to have a judgment\nby the courts of Mr. Nixon's involvement, if any, in any offense against the\nUnited States. Third, it preserved the President's options if Mr. Nixon by\nfair and due processes had been found guilty of any crime.\nAs a result of the decision to pardon former President Nixon, the courts now\nwill not be able to make a judgment in this matter, and the people will not\nhave the normal judicial resolution of this matter as is appropriate to the\nAmerican way.\nThe American people are entitled to all the evidence on both sides in this case.\nThey can then intelligently examine the evidence and make an informed judgment\nif they so desire. It was in furtherance of the objective of making all the\nfacts known that I introduced my resolution. Basically, it would require the\nWatergate Special Prosecutor to present to the public an objective report on\nall of the evidence in his possession concerning former President Nixon's\ninvolvement in any offenses against the United States. It is my intention\nthat all exculpatory evidence as well as any incriminating evidence be reported.\nThe resolution would not expand Mr. Jaworski's authority to obtain additional\navidence. It would merely require that he make public the evidence he has\nin his possession.\nFORD\nGERALD\nPage 2\nHaving conducted an extensive investigation and published volumes of evidence\nas part of the Judiciary Committee's impeachment proceedings, some may\nquestion the necessity for the Watergate Special Prosecutor to publish such\na report. While I applaud the outstanding work of the Judiciary Committee\nthroughout the course of the impeachment proceedings, I submit that there\nare two reasons for requiring Mr. Jaworski to issue such a report. First, it\nappears that the standard for impeachment and the standard for an offense\nagainst the United States may not be identical. Indeed, in following your\nCommittee's deliberations during the impeachment proceedings there appeared\nto be some disagreement among committee members as to what constitutes an\nimpeachable offense, some arguing that a crime was not necessary and others\nmaintaining that only certain crimes were sufficient to prove an impeachable\noffense. Thus in view of the fact that the Committee was focusing on an\nimpeachable offense rather than a criminal offense, the evidence which was\nmarshalled during the impeachment proceedings may not include some evidence\nwhich reflects upon Mr. Nixon's involvement in some federal offenses. Second,\nthere appears to be a substantial body of evidence that was not available to\nthe Committee during the course of the impeachment proceedings. As all of you\nare aware, this past summer the Supreme Court required Mr. Nixon to furnish\ncertain tapes to the Special Prosecutor which were never made available to\nthe Judiciary Committee In addition, the impeachment investigation included\nonly limited testimony by witnesses while Mr. Jaworski appears to have\nextensive testimonial evidence which was never made available to Congress.\nSince I believe that the American people are entitled to consider all of the\nevidence in this matter, I think it is apparent that they should not rely solely\non the impeachment evidence and report, even though it was a complete and\nthorough compilation of the evidence with regard to the commission of an\nimpeachable offense by Richard Nixon.\nSome may also question the propriety of making public testimony and evidence\npresented to a grand jury. While I am not a lawyer, it is my understanding\nthat the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure manifests a long established\npolicy of secrecy for grand jury proceedings.\nDALO FORD\nPage 3\nSuch a policy is not completely sacrosanct, however. The Supreme Court\nhas long held that \"disclosure is wholly proper where the ends of justice\nrequire it.\" (United States V. Socony-Vaccuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 234\n(1940).) I submit that there could not be more compelling circumstances\n\"where the ends of justice require\" disclosure than in the present case.\nI readily admit that the question of protecting the rights of those yet to\nbe tried is of great concern to me. However, my resolution provides that\nthe Special Prosecutor will have ninety days from the date of enactment\nto publish his report. This period should be more than ample time to impanel\nand sequester the jury in the impending conspiracy trial. Any future prosecutions\nwould not have the same potential for prejudicing defendants' rights as the\nconspiracy trial. The report would only focus on Mr. Nixon, and any future\nprosecutions would not likely include a conspiracy involving the former\nPresident in which his acts could be attributed to any co-conspirators. In\nany event, I would have to say that the American people's right to have the\nevidence necessary to judge Mr. Nixon's involvement in any federal offense\nis of such overriding importance that it should take precedence, and the\nJudiciary Committee's decision to televise its impeachment proceedings and the\nSenate Watergate Committee's decision to televise its hearings clearly support\nmy judgment on this matter.\nIt seems clear to me that enactment of this resolution is necessary to obtain\nthe goals it is designed to meet. At the present time there is some doubt as\nto whether Mr. Jaworski has the authority to issue such a report. In a letter\ndated September 10, 1974, to Mr. Jaworski eight members of the Senate Judiciary\nCommittee expressed the opinion that his final report to Congress should include\n\"a full and camplete record detailing any involvement of the former President\nin matters under investigation by you.\" In his response of September 17,\nMr. Jaworski stated that it was his \"tentative belief that the existing auth-\nority for the issuance of reports, to which your letter alludes, most likely\ndoes not justify the inclusion of a detailed report on the matters you suggest.\"\nMy resolution would clarify any ambiguities and insure that Mr. Jaworski has\nPage 4\nthe authority to issue a report on former President Nixon's involvement in\nWatergate.\nFor over two years the nation has been confronted by the series of events we\nrefer to as \"Watergate.\" It has had a deep impact on our national conscience.\nIt is now time to make all of the evidence available to the American people so\nthat they can make their own judgment.\nI am certain that members of this committee agree that the American people are\ncapable of good judgment if given all of the evidence. They have demonstrated\ntheir fortitude and strength of character throughout the past two years, and I\nam confident that they will reinforce those qualities in their examination of\nthe evidence in this case.\nIn my opinion this report will serve as a completion and closing of the record\nso that the nation can go forward with its other business.\nGERALD GERALD R. FORD\n(Democrat-Liberal)\nfor further information:\nCongressman\n18th Congressional District\nWashington Office\nNew York (Manhattan)\n1134 Longworth Office Building\n202 225-2436\nEdward I.Koch\nDiane Coffey\nNew York Office:\nRoom 3139\nnews release\n26 Federal Plaza\n212 264-1066\nRonay Arit\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nSEPTEMBER 04, 1974\nKOCH TESTIMONY BEFORE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE\n1) PUBLIC ACCESS TO WATERGATE TAPES\n2) CONTINUATION OF JAWORSKI INVESTIGATION OF NIXON\n#) COURT TEST OF NIXON PARDON\n4) NO FURTHER WATERGATE PARDONS\n(Washington D.C.) In testimony today before the House Judiciary Sub-\ncommittee on Criminal Justice, Rep. Edward I. Koch Manhattan), urged\nlegislation providing \"full public access\" to all Watergate-related tapes\nand documents, continuation of the Jaworski investigation of Nixon, a court\ntest of the Nixon pardon, and a sense of the Congress resolution against\nthe Nixon pardon and any further Watergate-related pardons.\nKoch has introduced legislation with twenty-eight co-sponsors, providing\nfull public access consistent with due process to all tapes and documents\nrelating to Watergate. The only exception would be,\n\"materials clearly vital to the national security interests\nof the United States and required for valid purposes to be\nsealed.\"\nHe condemned the Ford-Nixon tape arrangement as unconstitutional and\nat the very least, illegal. He pointed out that nowhere in the Constitution\nor public law is there \"the right to negotiate the destruction of materials,\nas in the Nixon-GSA agreement.\" Koch said that,\n\"Totalitarian nations, including Nazi Germany, have burnt books\nin an effort to distort the truth. In the United States, no one\nshould have the right to erase history.\"\nKoch urged the Special Prosecuter to continue his investigation and\nto test the timing of the pardon in court. He said that, in his opinion,\n\"An individual cannot be pardoned before it is legally determined that he\ncommitted some crime.\"\nKoch also urged the adoption of his concerrent resolution, now co-\nsponsored by twenty members of Congress stating the sense of Congress that\nthe pardon was \"wrongful and premature\" and that there should be,\n\"no further Watergate related pardons prior to indictment,\nprosecution, and conviction, and then only on an individual\nbasis where warranted by special circumstances.\"\nTESTIMONY OF REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD I. KOCH, SEPTEMBER 24, 1974\nSUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE - HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE\nMr. CHAIRMAN and COLLEAGUES, FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON IS\nFAST BEING GRANTED ALL THE BENEFITS AND HONORS OF A NATIONAL HERO.\nDESPITE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH HE RESIGNED, MR. NIXON IS\nRECEIVING ALL THE EMOLUMENTS OF A CHIEF EXECUTIVE WHO HAS LEFT OFFICE\nAFTER DISTINGUISHED SERVICE. I HOPE THAT YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE WILL INITIATE\nSWIFT ACTION BY THE CONGRESS THAT WILL MAKE CLEAR TO FUTURE GENERATIONS\nTHAT CRIMES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PEOPLE BY ANY PRESIDENT OR\nOTHER HIGH OFFICIALS WILL NOT BE SWEPT UNDER THE RUG, AS THOUGH THEY\nNEVER OCCURED.\nIN YOUR FULL COMMITTEE\"S FINAL REPORT ON IMPEACHMENT, YOU\nSTATED YOUR UNANIMOUS VIEW THAT MR. NIXON COMMITTED AT LEAST ONE\nIMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, AND A MAJORITY VOTED ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT\nON TWO OTHER GROUNDS. THERE IS LITTLE QUESTION THAT HE WOULD HAVE\nBECOME THE FIRST IMPEACHED AND CONVICTED PRESIDENT IN OUR HISTORY,\nAND THIS IS PRECISELY WHY HE WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT IN OUR HISTORY TO\nRESIGN. THERE ALSO WAS THE STRONGEST PROBABILITY THAT, IN UPCOMING\nMONTHS, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN INDICTED FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES.\nTHE PARDON BY THE PRESIDENT AT THIS TIME WAS AN AFFRONT TO OUR\nJUDICIAL SYSTEM. YOUR HEARINGS ON THE PARDON AND RELATED QUESTIONS ARE\nA GREAT SERVICE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I AGREE WITH PROFESSOR PHILIP\nKURLAND OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL, ACKNOWLEDGED AS ONE\nOF THE NATION'S LEADING CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES, WHO HAS ARGUED THAT\nTHE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF GRANTING THE PARDON PRIOR TO CONVICTION SHOULD\nBE CHALLENGED IN THE COURT. PROFESSOR KURLAND ARGUES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL\nCANNOT BE PARDONED BEFORE IT IS LEGALLY DETERMINED THAT HE COMMITTED\nSOME CRIME FOR WHICH HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED. U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE\nCHARLES B. RICHEY, IN THE MCCORD CASE NOW BEFORE HIM, HAS INDICATED\nTHAT HE MAY TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE NIXON PARDON.\nIT IS INCUMBENT ON THE CONGRESS TO TAKE ACTION. IN PURSUIT OF\nTHAT, I HAVE INTRODUCED A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION (H.CON.RES. 643)\nSTATING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT THE PARDONING OF RICHARD NIXON\nWAS \"WRONGFUL AND PREMATURE\", AND THAT \"NO FURTHER WATERGATE-RELATED\nPARDONS SHOULD BE GRANTED PRIOR TO INDICTMENT, PROSECUTION, AND\nCONVICTION, AND THEN ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS WHERE WARRANTED BY\nSPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.\" TWENTY HOUSE COLLEAGUES HAVE JOINED IN CO-\nSPONSORING THIS RESOLUTION, AND THE SENATE ADOPTED A SIMILAR RESOLUTION\nON SEPTEMBER 12.\n-2-\nI ALSO SUGGEST THAT LEGISLATION BE ENACTED DIRECTING THE\nOR\nSPECIAL PROSECUTION TO PROCEED WITH HIS INVESTIGATION OF PRES-\nIDENTIAL ACTIVITIES BOTH IN ORDER TO BRING OUT THE FACTS AND\nTO RAISE BEFORE THE COURT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE TIMING OF\nTHE PARDON. PROFESSOR KURLAND CONTENDS THAT IF MR. NIXON USED\nHIS PARDON AS A DEFENSE AGAINST SPECIFIC CHARGES, THIS WOULD\nDEFINE THE CRIMES COVERED BY THE PARDON. KURLAND BELIEVES\nTHAT THE JUDGE IN THE CASE WOULD THEN BE REQUIRED TO RULE IF\nTHE PARDON WERE APPLICABLE, AS HE WOULD RULE ON ANY DEFENSE MOTION.\nUPON THE JUDGE DETERMINING THAT THE PARDON IS APPLICABLE NIXON\nWOULD THEN BE DEEMED GUILTY AS A MATTER OF RECORD OF THE CRIME\nTO WHICH THE PARDON APPLIES.\nI ALSO BELIEVE THAT AS SOON AS CONS ISTENT WITH FAIR JUSTICE,\nMATERIALS FROM WATERGATE-RELATED INVESTIGATIONS, INCLUDING THAT\nOF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC. I HAVE\nINTRODUCED LEGISLATION, H.R. 16750, NOW BEFORE YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE,\nCO-SPONSORED BY TWENTY-EIGHT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, TO PROVIDE\nPUBLIC ACCESS TO ALL WATERGATE-RELATED FACTS, DOCUMENTS, PAPERS,\nAND TAPES PRODUCED BY INVESTIGATIONS BY ANY FEDERAL EXECUTIVE\nOFFICE, DEPARTMENT, OR AGENCY, AND ALL OTHER RELATED MATERIALS\nATR THE TIME OF MR. NIXON'S RESIGNATION. ONLY BY FULL KNOW-\nLEDGE OF AND AVAILABILITY TO ALL THE FACTS AND RECORDS WILL THE\nAMERICAN PEOPLE BE ASSURED THAT AN ADMINISTRATION COVER-UP HAS\nREALLY STOPPED AND THAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE SINCERE IN\nATTEMPTING TO AVOID THE MISTAKES OF THE PAST. THE ONLY EXCEPTION\nTO FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE ALLOWED BY THE BILL RELATES TO MAT-\nERIALS CLEARLY VITAL TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE\nUNITED STATES AND REQUIRED FOR VALID PURPOSES TO BE SEALED.\nI BELIEVE THAT THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS\nBELONG TO THE UNITED STATES, NOTTO\nPRIVATE CITIZEN NIXON.\nTHE EXTRAORDINARY FACTORS BEHIND HIS INVOLUNTARY RESIGNATION\nFROM\nFORM OFFICE MANDATE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE MATERIALS. I DO NOT\n-3-\nBELIEVE THAT RESIGNATION FROM OFFICE NEGATES PUBLIC ACCESS TO\nTHE MATERIALS. I DO NOT BELIEVE\nTHE AGREEMENT BETWEEN\nG.S.A. AND MR. NIXON DISPOSING OF THE WATERGATE MATERIALS TO BE\nCONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGALLY BINDING. UNDER ARTICLES IV OF THE\nCONSTITUTION, CONGRESS HAS EXPRESS POWER TO\"MAKE ALL NEEDFUL\nRULES AND REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED\nSTATES.\" THE MATERIALS IN QUESTION WERE PRODUCED COMPLETELY\nWITH PUBLIC FUNDS. IN ADDITION, THE U.S. CODE (44 U.S. CODE\nSEC. 2108) STATES THAT ALTHOUGH G.S.A. HAS AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT\nPRESIDENTIAL PAPERS AND OTHER HISTORICAL MATERIALS, IT SHALL\nNEGOTIATE \"THE RIGHT TO HAVE CONTINUOUS AND PERMANENT POSSESSION\nOF THE MATERIALS.\" NOWHERE IS THERE MENTIONED ANY RIGHT TO\nNEGOTIATE THE DESTRUCTION OF MATERIALS, AS IN THE NIXON-G.S.A.\nAGREEMENT.\nIN THE WASHINGTON POST OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1974, PROFESSOR\nARTHUR MILLER ARGUES THAT \"THE AGREEMENT ABOUT DESTRUCTION IS\nA LEGAL NULLITY.\" HE ALSO POINTS OUT THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL\nSAXBE'S CONTENTION THAT THERE IS A CUSTOM OF PAST PRESIDENTIAL\nOWNERSHIP DOES NOT MAKE SUCH A CUSTOM LEGALLY BINDING.\nIF THESE TAPES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, FOR ANY PRESENT LEGALISTIC\nREASON, CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO PUBLIC ACCESS, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT\nSHOULD EXERCISE THE POWER IT PRESENTLY HAS OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND\nRETAIN THEM, EVEN IF DUE PROCESS REQUIRES A PAYMENT TO THE\nFORMER PRESIDENT FOR THIER VALUE. THAT PAYMENT, IF ANY, COULD\nBE OFFSET AGAINST WHAT MR. NIXON OWES THE GOVERNMENT ON MONIES\nILLEGALLY SPENT ON HIS ESTATES. SUCH A PROCEDURE OF EMINENT\nDOMAIN WAS USED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITIES TO OBTAIN THE GUN\nASSERTEDLY USED BY LEE HARVEY OSWALD TO KILL PRESIDENT KENNEDY\nIN 1963. THE GOVERNMENT PAID THE VALUE OF THE GUN TO A PRIVATE\nINDIVIDUAL WHO HAD BOUGHT IT, RETAINING THE WEAPON FOR U.S.\nARCHIVES.\nABOVE ALL, WE MUST NOT ALLOW THE TAPES AND DOCUMENTS TO BE\nDESTROYED, SELECTIVELY OR COLLECTIVELY. TOTALITARIAN NATIONS,\nINCLUDING NAZI GERMANY, HAVE BURNT BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS IN AN EFFORT\nTO DISTORT THE TRUTH. IN THE UNITED STATES, NO ONE SHOULD HAVE\nTHE RIGHT TO ERASE THE FACTS OF HISTORY.\n-4-\nTHE REASONS GIVEN BY PRESIDENT FORD FOR THE PARDON SHED\nINSUFFICIENT LIGHT ON THE MATTER. FIRST AND FOREMOST IS THE\nQUESTION, SPECIFICALLY WHAT CRIMES WAS NIXON PARDONED FOR?\nMR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS PLEASED TO LEARN OF YOUR RECENT LETTER TO\nPRESIDENT FORD ASKING FOR ELABORATION ON THE MATTER AND POSING\nADDITIONAL QUESTIONS WHICH MUST BE ANSWERED. THE RESOLUTION\nOF INQUIRY INTRODUCED BY CONGRESSWOMAN BELLA ABZUG, IF ANSWERED\nWITHOUT EVASION BY THE PRESIDENT, WILL PROVIDE THE CONGRESS\nAND THE PEOPLE WITH INFORMATION VITAL FOR THEM TO MAKE INFORMED\nDECISIONS AND JUDGMENTS IN CRUCIAL MATTERS. SHE DESERVES OUR\nCONGRATULATIONS FOR HER INITIATIVES, AND I AM DELIGHTED TO BE A\nCO_SPONSOR OF THAT RESOLUTION. I HOPE THAT THE RESOLUTION IS\nPASSED WITH RAPIDITY. IF THE PRESIDENT RESPONDS TO THE COMMITTEE'S\nLETTER, THE PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION WILL HAVE BEEN SERVED. THIS\nIS A MATTER WHICH REQUIRES IMMIEDIATE ACTION AND WILL NOT TOLERATE DELAY.\nHISTORY MUST RECORD THE TRUTH BEFORE THE MEMORY OF MAN FADES. THE\nPRESIDENTIAL PARDON BEFORE CONVICTION WAS, IN MY JUDGEMENT, WRONG, IF NOT\nILLEGAL. THE CONGRESS MUST REAFFIRM THAT NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT EVEN\nA PRESIDENT AND HIS ADVISORS. I AM HOPEFUL THAT YOU WILL REPORT OUT LEGIS-\nLATION STATING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS IN THIS MATTER, AND GUARANTEEING\nACCESS TO ALL THE FACTS AND RECORDS ABOUT THIS, ONE OF THE SADDEST EPISODES\nIN OUR HISTORY.\nI AM REMINDED OF THE STATEMENT IN THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS OF 1863 WHICH\nSAYS WE ARE A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.\nTODAY, THE PEOPLE WANT THE FACTS SURROUNDING WATERGATE, THEY ARE OWED THE FACTS,\nAND IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE THEM. THE PRESIDENT'S\nCONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF PARDON, IS NOT, I SUBMIT, UNLIMITED, AND THOSE WHO\nABUSE IT MUST BE CALLED TO TASK.\nTestimony of Honorable Stewart B. McKinney\nBefore the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice\nSeptember 24, 1974\nMr. Chairman:\nI appreciate this opportunity to testify before your Committee on my\nbill, H.R. 16619, and companion measures introduced by my colleagues.\nThis opportunity to testify before you means all the more to me because\nI feel strongly that in the past months the concern expressed by so many\nAmericans about the integrity and durability of our governmental and\njudicial institutions was answered by the visibly thorough, deliberate,\nrelentless and, for the most part, non-partisan pursuit of the truth by\nthe Members of this Committee throughout the impeachment proceedings.\nYour deliberations, seen as they were by all America, were a source of\nrenewed confidence for the American people.\nHowever, this confidence in our institutions and in the concept of equal\njustice has once again been brought into question by the controversial\npardon of former President Nixon. I believe the interests of justice and\nnercy would have been better served if the question of a pardon had been\nheld until a more complete account of the facts, attitudes and events\nwhich produced Watergate had been made public. However, this decision was\nthe President's and his alone, and it is now fact.\nIt is =y concern that the pardon may prematurely close the book on Watergate,\nthereby denying the American people their right to view and evaluate the\nPage Two\nfirst-hand data now in the possesion of the Special Prosecutor and in the\nNixon tapes. H.R. 16619, would instruct the Office of the Watergate\nSpecial Prosecutor to turn over to the Congress for inspection and eventual\npublication all materials, documents, and reports obtained, prepared and\ncompiled by that Office in the course of its investigation of the admini-\nstration of the former President. I have introduced this legislation in\norder to guarantee that the American people will be apprised of the facts\nas discovered by the Special Prosecutor regarding affairs in the White\nHouse from 1969 thru August 8, 1974.\nI consider the American people to be mature, wise, and fully deserving\nof complete and accurate information. When reliable data exists, as a\nresult of intensive government investigation, we cannot ask the American\npeople to accept second hand reports or historical interpretations of\nthe events of this incredible period in our history. It is our responsi-\nbility and even more importantly our duty to provide every possible oppor-\ntunity for each citizen to confront the unscreened facts not just to\nprevent the reoccurrance of these tragedies but also to enable each citi-\nzen to draw his own conclusion about the guilt or innocence of each parti-\ncipant.\nOf course, I an aware that the rights of individuals who have been named\nor cited in the date sought to be made public, must be protected. There\nare a number of legal actions which are now or will be before the courts,\nand we must be vigilant in assuring that the release of the data will not\nGERALE\nPage Three\ncompromise the constitutional rights of the parties. Thus, I have in-\ncluded a provision in my bill which would provide for the release of\nthis data to Congress only upon such time as the Attorney General of\nthe United States shall determine that the parties who are named or\nany parties in related litigation have the full protection of the law.\nThe factors which I hope would be taken into consideration in making\nthis determination include the status of any criminal or civil liti-\ngation, its progress through the appellate process and a final deter-\nmination by the highest court in which a litigant can proceed. These\nsafeguards will refute claims that the release of these reports will\nprejudice the rights of those who are currently on trial for the\noffenses discovered by the Special Prosecutor.\nThe Office of the Special Prosecutor was established to investigate and\nprosecute offenses committed against the United States by those including,\nbut not limited to, the White House staff, from 1969 to 1974. The Office\nwas formally established by the President; however it was authorized and\nfunded by the Congress. And any information discovered by such an inves-\ntigation should be disclosed to the Congress. We are the watchdogs of\nthis democracy. It is our responsibility to be aware of the activities\nof other branches of government and insure that these activities are in\nthe best interest of the nation. This was the desire of the framers of\nthe constitution when they included the system of checks and balances as\na guiding principle for our government. Thus the information gathered\nmust be revealed in order to allow us to properly accomplish this function.\nPage Four\nI am not a lawyer but I am advised that Congress has the power to request\nthis information from the Special Prosecutor under its investigatory\npowers which include the authority to make inquiries concerning surveys\ninto defects in our social and political system for the purpose of enabling\nCongress to remedy them. In 1959, Justice Harlan stated, \"The power of\ninquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history over the whole\nrange of national interests concerning which Congress might legislate\nor decide upon due to investigation not to investigate. The scope of the\npower, in short, is as penetrating and as far reaching as the potential\npower to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.\" Watkins V. U.S.\n354 U.S. 178 (1957) In another case involving Congress' power to inves-\ntigate into a situation such as exists today, the Supreme Court stated\nthat the power of Congress to inquire into the Administration of an\nexecutive department and sift the charges of malfeasance in that admin-\nistration was ratified in sweeping terms. (McGrain V. Daugherty, 237 U.S.\n135, 1771 178 (1927) .\nExperts on the subject of Congressional power further state that \"the\nadministrative function, that is the function of direction, supervision,\nand control of the administrative activities of the government resides in\nthe legislative branch of the Government. Upon it falls the legal obli-\ngation to take such action as is necessary to insure that the several\nadministrative organs shall be properly directed, supervised and controlled.\n(W.F. Willoughby, Director Brookings Institute). In Kendall V. U.S.\nPage Five\n(12 Peters 524, 1838) the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court case\nwhich gave Congress the power to impose certain duties upon the execu-\ntive branch. The Court stated \"But it would be an alarming doctrine\nthat Congress cannot impose upon any executive officer any duty that\nthey may think proper that is not repugnant to the Constitution, and in\nsuch case that duty and responsibility grow out of and are subject to\nthe control of the law and not the president.\nThus Mr. Chairman I submit that the actions which this bill require\nare not beyond the powers of Congress. The legislative power of\nCongress encompasses the ability to seek information for the purpose\nof making the laws and for determining if the laws have been properly\nexercised. This bill will allow us to perform this important function.\nMr. Chairman, I would like to suggest two amendments to my bill which\nwould eliminate any misunderstanding of its mechanical requirements.\nFirst, I think it should be made quite clear that the Congress does\nnot expect the Special Prosecutor to turn over any grand jury minutes.\nThis I believe would be a gross invasion on the Constitutional rights\nof the individuals who testify before the grand jury. The secrecy of\nthe Grand Jury testimony must be maintained if we are to feel secure\nin our rights under our judicial system. Second, it is not necessary\nfor the Special Prosecutor to release to Congress the original documents\nwhich he might have acquired through his investigation. Copies of such\ndocuments or tapes can be submitted in their place.\nPage Six\nThis will prevent any litigation on the question of whether the Congress\ncan maintain control of private property, such as private papers and tapes.\nFinally Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress the necessity for a bill\nwhich provides for Congressional action. I firmly agree with the former\nChief Justice Warren, who stated in Watkins V. U.S. (1957) that \"there is\nno Congressional power to expose for exposure's sake\". Given the circum-\nstances which exist today, I believe that exposure which I have proposed\nis necessary not solely because Congress will be exercising its over-\nsight function by being informed of what is happening in our government,\nbut more importantly, to inform the American people of these acts in order\nto help identify and deal with them in the future.\nFORD\nLIBRARY\nTESTIMONY OF REP. BELLA S. ABZUG\nHOUSE COMMITTEE ON_THE JUDICIARY\nSubcommittee on Criminal Justice\nSeptember 24, 1974\nH. Res. 1367: An inquiry relating to Presidential pardon of Richard Nixon.\nIn behalf of myself and 13 co-sponsors, including members of the Judiciary\nCommittee, I welcome this opportunity to appear before you to testify for our\nResolution of Inquiry on the unconditional pardon of Richard M. Nixon.\nNot since the storm of public reaction to the Saturday night massacre\nand the Nixon tape disclosure of August 5th that led to his forced resignation\na few days later has there been such an overwhelmingly negative response by\nthe American people to a White House action.\nPresident Ford says the parden was motivated, at least in part, by his\ndesire to heal the wounds of Watergate. He clings to this rationale despite\nthe clear evidence that this totally premature, confusing, and unprecedented\npardon is opposed by a majority of Americans and is viewed as a further cover-up\nof Watergate.\nThe wounds have, in fact, been reopened, leaving to fester suspicions\nof White House deals, deception, abuse of Presidential power, and perhaps\nfurther blanket pardons of the Watergate culprits. Most wounding of all is\nwhat Mr. Ford's action has done to our concept of equal justice for all and\nthe belief that the Preddent is accountable for his actions and not above the\nlaw. This is the very concept that was supposed to have been reaffirmed by\nthis committee in its impeachment proceedings and vindicated in Mr. Nixon's\nforced resignation.\nIt would be a disservice to that concept to leave unchallenged the many\ncontradictory and self-serving statements that have been issued by the principals,\ntheir subordinates and others in this affair. Further, I believe the legality\nof both the pardon itself and the arrangement under which the tapes are to be\nreturned to Mr. Nixon should be challenged.\nThe Congress and the Committee on the Judiciaryhave a primary responsibility\nto act in behalf of the American people on all aspects of these issues. I am\naware that a number of resolutions dealing with these matters are before the\ncommittee. I will address myself here primarily to my Resolution of Inquiry,\nwhich is privileged and can be called up on the floor of the House within seven\nlegislative days after introduction, and to some observations on the legality\nof the pardon.\nRep. Abzug/September 24, 1974/Page 2\nI believe approval of the Resolution of Inquiry is a necessary step in\nan investigation this committee should conduct to determine all the facts\nin the events leading up to the issuance of the pardon. The American people\nhave a right to know these facts. They have a right to get answers to their\nquestions in an appropriate forum from witnesses under oath, instead of in\nspeculative news stories and columns, television interviews and other\npublicized unsupported and contradictory comments by a host of people who\nhave been involved in the pardon controversy in one way or another.\nThe response of the President to the questions propounded in the\nResolution of Inquiry which was sent to him by the Chairman of this subcommittee\nreveals a nonserious and trifling attitude that demeans the authority and\ndignity of this committee and this parliamentary procedure. It is totally\ninadequate for Mr. Ford to respond by sending a batch of White House press\nreleases and an accompanying letter.\nI have in the past introduced a number of Resolutions of Inquiry which\nhave been addressed either to the President or to members of his cabinet.\nThis is the first time in my experience that there has not been a point by\npoint specific response to specific questions even though in some cases I\nhave not felt the answers to be satisfactory.\nIt should also be noted that this Committee is still operating under\nHouse Resolution 803, adopted on Feb. 6, 1974, which authorized and directed\nthe Judiciary Committee \"to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient\ngrounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional\npower to impeach Richard M. Nixon.\"\nThe committee has not been discharged of this duty. The articles of\nimpeachment voted out by the full committee ware never debated or voted\nupon by the full House, despite its voter to accept the committee report.\nIncidentally, I said at the time that the House should vote on approving\nthe articles of impeachment, instead of evading this issue, and I believe\nthat events since then have shown it was a mistake not to do SO, I would\nalso note in passing that the House can still vote on impeachment, and if there\nis no other way to enter on the record books the political crimes for which\nRichard Nixon was forced to resign, then I believe the House should proceed\nto a vote.\nUnder Resolution 803, this committee is fully empowered to determine\nwhether there is any new evidence relevant to the conduct in office of the\nformer President.\nMy resolution requires the President to answer specific questions\nabout the circumstances leading up to the pardon proclamation.\nRep. Abrug/September 24, 1974/Page 3\nThere are, of course, many other questions that can and should be asked of\nthe President and others involved in this affair, and I have munmitted to\nthe chairman a list of those who I believe should be called before this\ncommittee. including: President Gerald Ford\nAttorney General William Saxbe\nSpecial Prosecutor Leon Jaworski\nAlexander Haig\nBenton Becker\nPhilip Buchen\nHerbert J.Miller\nRon Zeigler\nDr. Walter Tkach\nDr. John C. Lundgren\nJulie Nixon Eisenhower\nand Richard M. Nixon\nBut as a preliminary, it is vital that we get answers to the following\nquestions from Gerald Ford:\n1. Did you or your representatives have specific knowledge of any\nformal criminal charges pending against Richard Nixon prior to issuance of\nthe pardon? If so, what were these charges?\n2. Did Alexander Haig refer to or discuss a perdon for Richard M. Nixon\nwith Richard M. Nixon or representatives of Nr. Nixon at any time during the\nweek of August 4, 1974 or at any subsequent time? If so, what promises\nwere made or conditions set for a pardon, if any? If so, were tapes or\ntranscriptions of any kind made of these conversations or were any notes taken?\nIf so, please provide such tapes, transcriptions or notes,\n3. When was a pardon for Richard M. Nixon first referred to or discussed\nwith Richard M. Nixon, or representatives of Mr. Nixon, by you or your\nrepresentatives or aides, including the period when you were a Member of\nCongress or Vice President?\n4. Who participated in these as a swisegdent dischasions or negotiations\nwith Richard M. Nixon or his representatives regarding 7. pardon, and at what\nspecific times and locations?\nS. Did you consult with Attorney General William Saxbs or Special\nProcecutor Lecn Jaworski before making the decision to pardon Richard M. Nixon\nand, if so, what facts and legal authorities did they give to you?\n6. Did you consult with the Vice Presidential nominee, Nelson Rockefeller\nbefore making the decision to pardon Richard M. Nixon, and if so, what facts\nand legal authorities did he give to you?\n7. Did you consult with any other attorneys or professors of law before\nmaking the decision to pardon Richard M. Nixon, and, of so, what facts or\nlegal authorities did they give to you?\nRep. Abzug/September 24, 1974/Page 4\n8. Did you or your representatives ask Richard M. Nixon to make a\nconfession or statement of criminal guilt, and, if so, what language was\nsuggested or requested by you, your representatives, Mr. Nixon, or his\nrepresentatives? Was any statement of any kind requested from Mr. Nixon in\nexchange for the pardon and, if so, please provide the suggested or requested\nlanguage.\n9. Was the statement issued by Richard M. Nixon immediately subsequent\nto announcement of the pardon made known to you or your representatives prior\nto its announcement, and was it approved by you or your representatives?\n10. Did you receive any report from a psychiatrist or other physician\nstating that Richard M. Nixon was in other than good health? If so, please\nprovide such reports.\nWe need direct answers to these direct questions, answers that the\ncommittee can corroborate in the course of an inquiry and hearings. There\nare suspicions that Richard Nixon may have made a deal on the pardon with\nGerald Ford before nominating him to the Vice Presidency. If Richard Nixon\nmade Ford's elevation to VicePresident conditional upon the promise of a pardon\nor even if Nixon conditioned his own resignation on a promise of receiving a\npardon, then conceivably Mr. Ford could be charged with accepting a bribe,\nwhich is an impeachable offerse. Grim as this possibility may be, it is\nnonetheless the duty of this committee to investigate the facts and make a\ndetermination.\nThere are suspicions that General Haig, who reportedly was instrumental\nin convincing Mr. Nixon to resign, may have held out to him the promise of a\npardon. There are suspicions arising from the belief that in the negotiations\nfor the pardon, the roles appear to have been switched, with Mr. Ford acting\nas supplicant and Mr. Nixon dictating the terms of the pardon, the socalled\nstatement of contrition, and the agreement on the tapes. There are grave\nquestions as to whether, in issuing a pardon before Nixon was indicted, tried\nor signed a statement of guilt, Mr. Ford abused his pardon powers. And, of\ncourse, there are a multitude of questions about whether Mr. Nixon's physical\nor mental condition justified such an unprecedented pardon.\nI make no judgment here as to whether these suspicions are justified. It\nis a fact, however, that they are widespread and only a full investigation\nby the Committee can either confirm some or any of them, or lay them to rest.\nRep. Abzug/September 24, 1974/Page 1.5\nFor more than two years the American people suffered the consequences of\nhaving a President who lied and misled them at every opportunity throughout\nthe course of the Watergate investigations. The stability of our nation\nrequires that the citizens be able to believe that their President is telling\nthem the truth, at least most of the time. In the wake of the pardon, Gerald\nFord has created an enormous credibility problem for himself and the Presidency.\nHe is in a particularly vulnerable position because he is the first non-elected\nPresident in the history of our nation and because he was named to the Vice\nPresidency by a discredited and impeachable President. The Committee on the\nJudiciary which recommended confirmation and the Congress which confirmed his\nnomination also have a responsibility to the American people to investigate\nand report to them on the conduct of President Ford in connection with the\npardon and the agreement on the tapes.\nPresident Ford's own actions and many conflicting statements have added\nto his credibility problem. On August 28, 1974, in his first news conference\nas President, he advised the American public that he was not going to make any\ncomment on a pardon \"during the process of whatever charges were made.\" He\nfurther stated that it would be \"unwise and untimely\" for him to pardon\nNixon befor e any charges had been brought against him. Yet, just two days\nlater, on August 30, herasked Philip Buchen formally to study the presidential\npower of pardon. Furthermore, according to a report in the September 22\nWashington Post, as early as Friday September 6 Ford had revealed to his\nstaff his intention to pardon the ex-President. Thus it presumably took the\nWhite House less than a week to make a study of and reach a decision on this\nhighly controversial and explosive issue.\nThe question naturally arises as to whether the President consulted\nfully on this question with Attorney General Saxbe and Special Prosecutor\nJaworski to find out whether they considered legally valid a pardon, issued\nbefore indictment or trial, a pardon that the President himself described as\nunprecedented, and that did not specify the offenses for which the pardon\nwas issued, The question also arises as to whether the President asked Saxbe\nor Jaworski what effect the pardon would have on the pending Watergate trial\nand other possible investigations, indictments and trials, or did he already\nhave in mind what he later hinted at--a wholesale pardon for the entire\nWatergate gang.\nRep. Abzug/September 24, 1974/Page 6\nIn his pardon proclamation, President Ford made the prior judgment\nthat Richard Nixon would be unable to obtain a fair trial, implicitly an\nattack on our judicial system, and also expressed his belief that \"ugly\npassions would again be aroused\" during the long period of delay before Mr.\nNixon could be brought to trial. As we know, Mr. Ford has accomplished the\nreverse of what he said he intended to do.\nFinally, President Ford inserted in his statement a sentence which said\nthat \"serious allegations and accusations. . .hang like a sword over our\nformer President's head and threaten his health as he tries to reshape his\nlife. It is this factor that has become the subject of the widest\nspeculation and conflicting reports. Did President Ford receive any new\nevidence in the interval between August 28 and August 30 indicating a change\nin Nixon's health--physical or mental?\nI regret, of course, that Mr. Nixon is ill and has had to be hospitalized.\nThe gravity of his present illness can no doubt be determined by court\nappointed physicians, as may be requested by Special Prosecutor Jaworski.\nCertainly, no one wishes Mr. Nixon ill health or physical punishment, and\nclearly he is suffering over his fall from enormous power. How could he feel\nanything but regret and anguish? But it is a mark of the man and his reputa-\ntion for trickery and deceit that even now, people are questioning whether he\nis seriously ill or whether he has taken refuge in a hospital to escape\ntestifying at the Watergate defendants trial, or to develop sympathy as a\nrationale for the pardon.\nMost of the facts respecting Nixon's health were released following the\npardon. They appeared to be a well-orchestrated after-the-fact attempt to\nprotect the vitality of the pardon by promoting the notion that Nixon was\ngrievously ill. We are all familiar with the alarming statements issued by\nDr. Tkach, Mr. Nixon's personal physician. According to Dr. Tkach, the former\nPresident was a ravaged man who had lost his will to fight, However, after\nDr. Tkach left San Clemente, communications director Kenneth Clausen spent\nthree hours with the former President and said he seemed animated and in\nno visible pain.\nDid Mr. Nixon's condition suddenly worsen after the pardon? or did Mr.\nFord receive new information about Mr. Nixon's health after his first news\nconference? The American people have a right to know. Certainly their deep\nsense of compassion and fair play should not be played upon, if the facts\ndo not warrant it.\nRep. Abzug/September 24, 1974/Page 7\nFinally, beyond the questions raised in my Resolution of Inquiry, I believe\nthe Judiciary Committee should support efforts to obtain a legal test of the\nvalidity of the pardon. I have already called upon Attorney General Saxbe and\nMr. Jaworski to make such a test possibly by proceeding with an indictment of\nMr. Nixon, if the evidence so warrants, and I would like to state my reasons.\nI disagree with those who claim the pardon was a constitutional exercise of\npresidential power and cannot be overturned. President Ford himself asserted\nin his statement announcing the pardon that \"there are no historic or legal\nprecedents to which I can turn in this matter, \"and there is already serious debate\nwithin the legal community as to the constitutionality of Ford's granting a\npardon before formal charges were filed and without a formal admission of guilt\nfrom Mr. Nixon.\nDefenders of the pardon are on weak ground in citing as authority for it\nan 1867 case -- Ex Parte Garland 71 U.S. 33 -- a 5-to-4 U.S. Supreme Court\ndecision in which the written opinion explaining the ruling said--\nThat a President's discretion to pardon is unlimited and\nextends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised\nat any time after. commission (of the crime) either before\nlegal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency or after\nconviction and judgment.\nThis language is dictum, was not crucial to the decision in the case, and does not\nconstitute a precedent.\nMoreover, the impact of the Garland case has been eroded for a number of\nreasons, principle among them being that Garland received a grant of amnesty\nrather than a pardon. As you will recall, Garland, who had been a Senator in the\nConfederate Government during the Civil War, was granted a blanket Presidential\namnesty, which applied to all crimes that may have been committed during the war.\nThe courts have come to draw a distinction, not drawn by the Garland court,\nbetween amnesty and pardon, and this is a significant distinction as it relates\nto individual admission of guilt.\nThe phrase \"reprieves and pardons\" as used in article II, section 2 of the\nConstitution has been interpreted as a phrase of art including within its\npurview reprieves, commutations, pardons, both conditional and unconditional,\nand amnesties (Lupo VS. Zerbst, 92 F2d 362, 365 (CA 5th 1937).\nThe Supreme Court has recognized that \"amnesty and pardon\" are distinct\nand different. In an 8-to-0 ruling in Burdick VS. United States, 236 U.S. 79,\n94-95, it stated that they \"are of different character and have different purposes.\nThe one--amnesty--overlooks offense; the other--pardon--remits punishment. The\nfirst is usually addressed to crimes against the sovereignty of the State, to\nRep. Abzug/September 24, 1974/Page 8\npolitical offenses, forgiveness being deemed more expedient for the public welfare\nthan prosecution and punishment. The second condones infraction of the peace\nof the State, Amnesty is usually general, addressed to classes or even\ncommunities, a legislative act, the act of the supreme magistrate.\"\nWhen the Burdick case went to the Supreme Court, the justices were asked to\nrule on whether the President had the authority to pardon Burdick before he had\nbeen indicted, The court, however, ruled on another issue, whether Burdick\ncould decline the pardon. Stating that a grant and acceptance of a pardon\n\"carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it,\" the court\nheld that an individual does not have to accept a pardon.\nThe need for either a confession or judgment in a pardon case is evident\nfrom the language of the Constitution itself: the power to grant pardons\nonly goes to \"offenses.\" Without either a confession or at the very least an\nindictment, there is no offense. Richard Nixon has made no confession\nor admission of guilt and there has been no indictment. Instead, in collaboration\nwith President Ford, he has made a statement of \"contrition\" which is a religious\nrather than a legal concept.\nThe first case examining the power of the President to pardon was United\nStates V. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150 (1833). The question involved there was whether it\nwas necessary for an individual to accept the pardon in order for it to become\neffective. The court held that it was, and that a pardon was without effect if\nthe person refused it. Under this decision, it was also held that a court cannot\ntake judicial notice of a pardon unless it is pleaded in court.\nIt would appear from this ruling that the Watergate grand jury is free to\nproceed with an indictment of Richard Nixon, as it had indicated earlier. that\nit wished to do. The court does not have to take notice of President Ford's\npardon of Richard Nixon unless Mr. Nixon pleads it in court. If he should\nplead that he has been pardoned, he would have to state for which offenses he has\nbeen pardoned.\nSpecial Prosecutor Jaworski has stated that the Presidential pardon of\nMr. Nixon preempts any Federal legal action against him for the period wovered\nby thepardon. However, as demonstrated in my testimony, not only is the\nlegality of the pardon open to serious doubt, but also the pardon itself neither\nprecludes nor preempts grand jury action. Consequently, I would strongly urge\nthat the grand jury proceed with an indictment, if the facts warrant it, and\nthat Special Prosecutor Jaworski or Attorney General Saxbe sign it. so that the\nRep. Abzug/September 24, 1974/Page 9\nAmerican people may be assured that the system of equal justice prevails and\nso that the groundwork may be laid for a court test of the constitutionality\nof President Ford's action.\nIf it is shown that the pardon was intended to prevent an indictment\nor a trial, contrary to the President's stated reasons for the pardon, and\nif it is shown that the agreement on the tapes was intended to prevent\nfurther information from becoming public, then these actions. night well\nbe construed to be an abuse of power by President Ford and/or an obstruction\nof justice.\nIn view of the President's unresponsive reply it seems to me that\nthe subcommittee has no alternative but to act favorably in reporting this\nResolution of Inquiry to the full committee with the recommendation that the\nfull committee likewise report it out favorably to the floor.\nI would also hope that the full committee would support and initiate\nefforts to investigate the validity of the agreement concerning the tapes\nand take appropriate steps to preserve this valuable evidence in whatever\nway it deems possible.\nThe committee should also support the resolution which suggests that\nthe House go on record favoring the grand jury going forward with the indictment\nand Mr. Jaworski signing it.\nThe committee should also consider lending its support to a legal\nchallenge as to the validity of the pardon.\nI want to thank this committee for its consideration of this matter\nand for agreeing to have me come to testify before it.\n#\nLegal authorities on pordon cited to President\nNo formal written opinion VLDS provided\nto the President, but I reviewed form legal\nprocedents, including a compre he examplos nsive of pardons under\nthe U. S.Constitution wh ch hodboen\nreview ot Court decisions and precedents\n1650c prepared by Solicitor (although this General depit with mainly class\n1\nWm. 4.Taft in 1892 A rincipal decisions\norconsistion)\nreported on to him were Ex Parte A. H. Garland,\n71 U.S. 366 (180 and Burdick U.S. 036 U.S. 79(1915)\nThe Lotter involved an individual pardon\nbefore indictment. Numerous other court decisions\nauthorities were checked but not regarted on\nto the President. I did point out that\nthe under certoin to to consti tutions,\nthe pordon power could be exercised\nonly after conviction, but that was\nbecause ot, express limitation which is\nabsent from thell. S, Constitution\nA copyot 2 legsl memorand um\npropored by Guarrs) Prosecutor for the\nSpecial Procecutor by Richard Nixon's\nsttorney waspiven me in\ndraft ftor thepending pordon decision\nwasdisclosed earlier to such oltorney, A find\ndroft is filed, was distributed to the\npross on Sopte mber 10, 1974. Decisions\ndealt with in that memorandum\nroisted to the offect of pre-trial\npublicity on due process require ments\nfor 2 fair trial by on importial jury\nparticularly in reference to Mr. Nixon's\nGxt situation. Thordecisions cited\n/\nsupported the opinion to me\nof the Special Prosentor 25 to\nBERRUD FORD\nthe delay required before a trist of\nthe former President could have been hold,\nbut I believe that oginion was issued\nbefore the legal memorandum had\nbeen filed with the Special Prosecutor,\nFORDS is 071438 LIBRAR,"
}