Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4520703
label
Nixon Pardon - Hungate Subcommittee Transcript
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4520703
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Nixon Pardon - Hungate Subcommittee Transcript
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Nixon, Richard M. (Richard Milhous), 1913-1994
Governmental investigations
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4520703
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1974-10-01
month
10
year
1974
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-10-01
month
10
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
791a32cb27afec31
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 34, folder "Nixon Pardon Hungate
Subcommittee - Transcript" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential
Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
Digitized from Box 34 of the Philip Buchen Files
at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Bonnie in
In marolis
office brought
this transcript
up for you
GERALD LIBRARY FORD GERALDR.
OCTOBER 17, 1974
APPEARANCE BY THE PRESIDENT
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
10:00 A.M. EDT
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: The subcommittee will be
in order.
The subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the
House Committee on Judiciary today welcomes the
President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford. We
appreciate your willingness, voluntarily, to appear
to respond to the questions proposed the two privileged resolutions
of inquiries and to accept inquiries from the subcommittee
as it carries out the responsibilities assigned it by
the House of Representatives.
This is perhaps the first documented appearance
of a President of the United States before a committee
or subcommittee of the United States Congress.
Now, the chair understands, Mr. President,
that you have a commitment at noon, and the House
convenes at 11:30 a.m. today. With these constraints of
time in mind, we shall proceed as quickly as possible
to accomplish as much as we can in the available time.
The questioning will be done by subcommittee
Members only, and under the five-minute rule.
President Ford's appearance demonstrates his
commitment to be open and candid with the American
people. It is absolutely vital for the restoration of
the public's trust and in their governing institutions
and elected officials that frankness be the hallmark of
this and future Administrations.
MORE
BERRAD FORD LIBRARY
Page 2
The newspaper Le Monde in Paris recently wrote
"No European Republic invests its presidents with the
right of pardon as sweeping and irrevocable as that which
Gerald Ford exercised in favor of Richard Nixon. In a
sense, the royal pardon takes over from Executive
privilege behind which the former President took
refuge so long as a way of preventing Congress and the
law courts from investigating his conduct."
Since September 8 when President Ford issued
a full, free and absolute pardon of former President
Nixon for all crimes he committed or may have committed
while serving as President of the United States, several
questions have been raised relating to the circumstances
and surrounding the pardon and whether, as a result of
the pardon and subsequent agreements entered into by
the former President and officials of the Executive
Branch, whether the full and complete story of Watergate
and related activities will ever be known.
In an attempt to resolve these questions,
more than 70 Members of the House of Representatives,
Republicans and Democrats alike, have sponsored bills
and resolutions seeking to uncover the full story of the
pardon and Watergate.
These several bills and resolutions are
currently pending before the subcommittee. Included
among the 23 bills and resolutions pending before the
subcommittee are the two privileged resolutions of
inquiry considered today.
One, House Resolution 1367, introduced by
Representative Abzug of New York and the second, House
Resolution 1370, introduced by Representative Conyers
of Michigan. The rules of the House of Representatives
require prompt committee action on privileged resolutions
of inquiry. Copies of the privileged resolutions were
forwarded to the President, requesting a response and,
following the exchange of correspondence, the President
offered to appear here, as he voluntarily does today.
The task we undertake is made easier by the
personal friendship and common background we share
in the Congress. But to faithfully perform our respective
tasks, we must, insofar as possible, lay aside personal
relationships and considerations. We are not here
because of friendship, but because of the responsibility
of Governmental system of checks and balances and
separation of powers placed upon us to seek and
reveal the truth to the American people about the workings
of their Government; by cooperation, if possible, by
confrontation when necessary.
MORE
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Page 3
I hope the American people, as well as the
Congress, appreciate the importance of President
Ford's appearance, as well as the need to do
all we can to resolve the questions relating to the
pardon of former President Nixon.
I am convinced the issue of the pardon will
not be behind us until that record is complete.
The chair recognizes Chairman Rodino from
New Jersey.
CONGRESSMAN RODINO: Mr. President, as
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I want to
welcome you here not only as the Chief Executive of
this great country, but as a friend, and one who served
with all of us for so many years.
This historic occasion and your voluntary
appearance here only demonstrates once more the
great institution that we are both proud to be a part of,
and I know that your effort in coming before this
committee voluntarily will assist this subcommittee and
this Committee on the Judiciary in meeting its important
responsibilities.
And with that, Mr. President, I am going to
relinquish the responsibility to the chairman of the
subcommittee and to the Members of the subcommittee who
will direct inquiries to you. Thank you for coming
here.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: The chair recognizes
the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hutchinson.
CONGRESSMAN HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr.
Rodino, and I, as Ranking Minority Member, are ex officio
Members of this subcommittee. But we appear here this
morning only in that capacity, sitting at the foot of
the subcommittee on our respective sides rather than our
familiar places at its head.
In this arrangement, Mr. Rodino does not
displace the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Hungate,
nor do I displace Mr. Smith of New York as Ranking Member
of that subcommittee.
Chairman Rodino and I early agreed that we will
not participate in questioning our distinguished visitor
this morning, leaving that function to the Members of
the subcommittee regularly appointed. Our participation
will be limited to our opening statements.
MORE
FORD LIBRARY
Page 4
Other Members of the Judiciary Committee, the
full Judiciary Committee who are not Members of this
subcommittee, some of whom are present here today, will
not participate at all but are interested in the
event, in the event that the matter under discussion
reaches the full committee.
The subcommittee has before it a couple of
resolutions of inquiry which were introduced in the House
of Representatives, referred by the Speaker to the
Judiciary Committee, and Chairman Rodino designated
this subcommittee to consider them.
By a resolution of inquiry, the House of
Representatives requests the President or directs the
head of one of the departments of Government to furnish
certain factual information, presumably to assist
the House in its legislative function.
Since the pardon power is not subject to
legislative control, I suppose that a question can be
raised as to whether a resolution of inquiry might
legitimately lie on this question since the question
itself cannot be resolved by the Legislative Branch.
In any event the mere introduction of a
resolution does not impose a duty upon the Executive
to respond; neither does committee consideration.
Indeed, a resolution would be expected only if the House
of Representatives itself adopted such a resolution
and even then written communication transmitting the
factual information called for would ordinarily be
sufficient.
The personal appearance of the President of
the United States before this subcommittee does not
humble his high office, nor does it violate the
separation of powers between the Executive and Legis-
lative Branches of Government. It is essential if our
Government is to operate, that the Executive and the
legislature work together.
Your meeting with this subcommittee, Mr.
President, here on Capitol Hill, is symbolic of that
working together in the national interest. But you
do not come, Mr. President, in response to any commands
of the subcommittee, nor even in response to its request,
for it made no demands upon you or even a request for
your presence.
Your appearance is entirely voluntary on your
part. Your personal appearance here today must not be
construed to mean that you will personally appear before
this or any other committee of Congress in the future,
and Presidents in the United States in the future will
be expected to respond to resolutions of inquiry in the
future as they have in the past, by written communication.
MORE
LIBRARY
Page 5
But, Mr. President, I cannot adequately
express to you my personal feelings of warm friendship
and welcome and my sense of the high honor that you
do this subcommittee, the full Judiciary Committee and
the House of Representatives in meeting with us here
today.
Thank you, Mr. President.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: The chair recognizes
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Smith.
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. President, I too join in welcoming you
here in your voluntary appearance before this
subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary.
You have come to answer questions in regard to
your pardon of Richard M. Nixon on September 8, 1974.
MORE
Page 6
These questions have been propounded by
certain Members of Congress and generally speaking
the Members of Congress and the people of the United
States of America have a right to know the answers
as far as this may be possible.
Your appearance here has been voluntary and
on your own motion, and I commend you for taking this
initiative. I do not think it establishes any precedence
but on the other hand, it is an example of the splended
cooperation between the Executive and Legislative
Branches of our Government which I trust may be
followed many times in the future by those who may
come after you as President of the United States of
America, the world's toughest job.
Mr. President, I have known you for almost
ten years and in that time I have always found you to
be a man of frankness and candor, a man in whose word
one could have implicit trust, a man of the utmost
integrity.
It is in this spirit that I know you will
answer the questions that have been raised about your
pardon of Mr. Nixon, and it is in this spirit that I
know this committee will receive your answers and will
interrogate you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: Mr. President, you
have an opening statement. Without objection, it will
be made part of the record, and you may proceed as
you see fit. We welcome you here today.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
We meet here today to review the facts and
the circumstances that were the basis for my pardon
of former President Nixon on September 8, 1974.
I want very much to have those facts and
those circumstances known. The American people want
to know them and Members of Congress also want to know
them.
The two Congressional resolutions of inqury
now before this subcommittee serve these purposes.
That is why I have volunteered to appear before you
this morning, and I welcome and thank you for this
opportunity to speak to the questions raised by the
resolutions.
MORE
GEBRLO FORD 1
Page 7
My appearance at this hearing of your distinguished
committe of the House Committee on the Judiciary has been
looked upon as an unusual historic event, one that has no
firm precedent in the whole history of Presidential relations
with the Congress.
Yet I am here not to make history but to
report history.
The history you are interested in covers so
recent a period that it is not well understood. If, with
your assistance, I can make for better understanding of
the pardon of former President Nixon, then we can help
to achieve the purpose I had for granting the pardon when I
did.
The purpose was to change our national focus. I
wanted to do all I could to shift our attentions from the
pursuit of a fallen President to the pursuit of the
urgent needs of a rising nation. Our Nation is under
the severest of challenges now to employ its full energy
and efforts in the pursuit of a sound and growing
economy at home and a stable and peaceful world around
us.
We would needlessly be diverted from meeting
those challenges if we, as a people, were to remain
sharply divided over whether to indict, bring to trial,
and punish a former President who is already condemned
to suffer long and deeply in the shame and disgrace
brought upon the office that he held.
Surely we are not a revengeful people. We
have often demonstrated a readiness to feel compassion
and to act out of mercy. As a people, we have a long
record of forgiving even those who have been our
country's most destructive foes.
Yet to forgive is not to forget the lessons of
evil in whatever ways evil has operated against us. And
certainly the pardon granted the former President will
not cause us to forget the evils of the Watergate type
offenses or to forget the lessons we have learned that
a government which deceives its supporters and treats its
opponents as enemies, must never, never be tolerated.
The pardon power entrusted to the President
under the Constitution of the United States has a long
history and rests on precedents going back centuries
before our Constitution was drafted and adopted.
MORE
FORD LIBRARY
Page 8
The power has been used sometimes, as
Alexander Hamilton saw its purpose -- in seasons of
insurrection, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the
insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the
commonwealth, and which, if served to pass unapproved,
it may neverbe possible afterwards to recall.
Other times it has been applied to one person
as an act of grace which exempts the individual on whom
it was bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for
the crime he has committed.
When a pardon is granted, it also represents
the determination of the ultimate authority that the
public welfare will be better served by inflicting
less than what the judgments fixed.
However, the Constitution does not limit the
pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even
indicted offenders. Thus I am firm in my conviction
that as President I did have the authority to proclaim a
pardon for the former President when I did.
Yet I can also understand why people are moved
to question my action. Some may still question my
authority, but I find much of the disagreement turns on
whether I should have acted when I did. Even then, many
people have concluded, as I did, that the pardon was
in the best interest of the country because it came at
a time when it would best serve the purpose I have stated.
I came to this hearing, Mr. Chairman, in the
spirit of cooperation to respond to your inquiries.
I do so with the understanding that the subjects to be
covered are defined and limited by the questions and
they appear in the resolution before you.
But even then, we may not mutually agree on
what information falls within the proper scope of
inquiry by the Congress. I feel a responsibility, as
you do, that each separate branch of our Government must
preserve a degree of confidentiality for its internal
communications.
Congress, for its part, has seen the wisdom
of assuring that Members be permitted to work under
conditions of confidentiality. Indeed earlier this
year the United States Senate passed a resolution which
reads in part as follows:
MORE
FORD
LIBRARY
Page 9
"No evidence under the control and in the
possession of the Senate of the United States can by the
mandate of process of the ordinary courts of justice,
be taken from such control or possession, but by its
permission.
In the United States versus Nixon, the
Supreme Court unanimously recognized a rightful sphere
of confidentiality within the Executive Branch of the
Government, which the court determined could only be
invaded for overriding reasons of the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments to the Constitution.
As I have stated before, Mr. Chairman, my own
view is that the right of Executive Privilege is to be
exercisedwith caution and with restraint.
When I was a Member of Congress, I did not
hesitate to question the right of the Executive Branch
to claim a privilege against supplying information to the
Congress, even if I thought the claim of privilege was
being abused.
Yet I did then and I do now respect the right
of Executive Privilege when it protects advice given
to the President in the expectation that it will not be
disclosed. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, no President could
any longer count on receiving free and frank views from
the people designated to help him reach his official
decisions.
Also, it is certainly not my intention or
even within my authority to detract on this occasion
or in any other instance from the generally recognized
rights of the President to preserve the confidentiality of
internal discussions or communications whenever it is
properly within his Constitutional responsibility to do
SO. These rights are within the authority of any President
while he is in office, and I believe may be exercised as
well by a past President if the information sought pertains
to his official functions when he was serving in office.
I bring up, Mr. Chairman, these important
points before going into the balance of my statement,
so there can be no doubt that I remain mindful of the
rights of confidentiality which a President may and
ought to exercise in appropriate circumstances.
MORE
FORD
SEQUEST
Page 10
However, I do not regard my answers as I
have prepared them for the purpose of this inquiry to
be prejudicial to those rights in the present
circumstances or to constitute a precedent for
responding to Congressional inquiries different in
nature or scope or under different circumstances.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I shall proceed
to explain as fully as I can in my present answers
the facts and the circumstances covered by the present
resolutions of inquiry.
I shall start with an explanation of these
events which were the first to occur in the period covered
by the inquiry before I became President. Then I will
respond to the separate questions as they are numbered
in House Resolution 1367 and as they specifically
relate to the period after I became President.
House Resolution 1367 before this subcommittee
asks for information about certain conversations that
may have occurred over a period that includes when I was
a Member of Congress or the Vice President. In that
entire period, no references or discussions on a possible
pardon for then President Nixon occurred until
August 1 and 2, 1974.
MORE
GERALD
LIBRARY
Page 11
You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that since the
beginning of the Watergate investigations, I had con-
consistently made statements and speeches about President
Nixon's innocence of either planning the break-in or
of participating in the cover-up. I sincerely believed
he was innocent.
Even in the closing months before the President
resigned, I made public statements that in my opinion,
the adverse revelations so far did not constitute an
impeachable offense. I was coming under increasing
criticism for such public statements, but I still
believed them to be true, based on the facts as I knew
them.
In the early morning of Thursday, August 1, 1974,
I had a meeting in my Vice Presidential office, with
Alexander M. Haig, Jr., Chief of Staff for President
Nixon. At this meeting, I was told in a general way
about fears arising because of additional tape evidence
scheduled for delivery to Judge Sirica on Monday, August
5, 1974. I was told that there could be evidence which,
when disclosed to the House of Representatives, would
likely tip the vote in favor of impeachment. However,
I was given no indication that this development would
lead to any change in President Nixon's
plans to oppose the impeachment vote.
Then, shortly after noon, General Haig requested
another appointment as promptly as possible. He came
to my office about 3:30 p.m. for a meeting that was to
last for approximately three-quarters of an hour. Only
then did I learn of the damaging nature of a conversation
on June 23, 1972, in one of the tapes which was due to
go to Judge Sirica the following Monday.
I describe this meeting, Mr. Chairman, because
at one point it did include references to a possible
pardon for Mr. Nixon to which the third and fourth questions
in House Resolution 1367 are directed. However, the
entire meeting covered other subjects all dealing with
the totally new situation resulting from the critical
evidence on the tape of June 23, 1972.
General Haig told me he had been told of the new
and damaging evidence by lawyers on the White House staff
who had first-hand knowledge of what was on the tape.
The substance of this conversation was that the new
disclosure would be devastating, even catastrophic,
insofar as President Nixon was concerned. Based on
what he had learned of the conversation on the tape, he
wanted to know whether I was prepared to assume the
Presidency within a very short period of time and
whether I would be willing to make recommendations to
the President as to what course he should now follow.
MORE
FORD
Page 12
I cannot really express adequately in words how
shocked and how stunned I was by this unbelievable
revelation.
First was the sudden awareness that I was likely
to become President under the most troubled circumstances;
and secondly, the realization that these new revelations,
or disclosures, ran completely counter to the position
that I had taken for months in that I believed the Presi-
dent was not guilty of any impeachable offense.
General Haig, in his conversation at my office,
went on to tell me of discussions in the White House
among those who knew of this evidence. General Haig
asked for my assessment of the whole situation. He
wanted my thoughts about the timing of the resignation,
if that decision were to be made, and about how to do it and
accomplish an orderly change of the Administration.
We discussed what scheduling problems there
might be and what the early organizational problems would
be. General Haig outlined for me President Nixon's
situation as he saw it and the different views in the
White House as to the courses of action that might be
available and which were being advanced by various people
around him on the White House staff.
As I recall, there were different courses being
considered.
Number one: Some suggested riding it out by
letting the impeachment take its course through the
House and the Senate trial, fighting all of the way
against the conviction.
Two: Others were urging resignation sooner
or later. I was told some people backed the first
course and other people a resignation but not with the
same views as to how and when it should take place.
On the resignation issue, there were put forth
a number of options which General Haig reviewed with me.
As I recall his conversation, various possible options
being considered included:
One: The President temporarily step aside under
the Twenty-fifth Amendment.
Number two: Delaying the resignation until
further along the impeachment process.
Number three: Trying first to settle for a
censure vote as a means of avoiding either impeachment
or a need to resign.
Four: The question of whether the President
could pardon himself.
MORE
Page 13
Five: Pardoning various Watergate defendants,
then himself, followed by resignation.
A pardon to the President should he resign.
The rush of events placed an urgency on what
was to be done. It became even more critical in view
of a prolonged impeachment trial which was expected
to last possibly four months or longer.
The impact of the Senate trial on the country,
the handling of possible international crises, the economic
situation here at home and the marked slowdown in the
decision-making process within the Federal Government were
all factors to be considered and were discussed.
General Haig wanted my views on the various
courses of action as well as my attitude on the options
of resignation. However, he indicated he was not advo-
cating any of the options. I inquired as to what was the
President's pardon power, and he answered that it was his
understanding from a White House lawyer that a President
did have the authority to grant a pardon even before
any criminal action had been taken against an individual,
but, obviously, he was in no position to have any opinion
on a matter of law.
As I saw it at this point, the question clearly
before me was, under the circumstances, what course of
action should I recommend that would be in the best
interests of the country?
I told General Haig that I had to have some
time to think. Further, that I wanted to talk to James
St. Clair. I also said I wanted to talk to my wife before
giving any response. I had consistently and firmly held
the view previously that in no way whatsoever could I
recommend either publicly or privately, any step by the
President that might cause a change in my status as
Vice President.
As the person who would become President if a
vacancy occurred for any reason in that office, a
Vice President, I believe, should endeavor not to do or
say anything which might affect his President's tenure
in office. Therefore, I certainly was not even ready,
under these new circumstances, to make any recommendations
about resignation without having adequate time to con-
sider further what I should properly do.
Shortly after 8 o'clock the next morning, James
St. Clair came to my office. Although he did not spell
out in detail the new evidence, there was no question
in my mind that he considered these revelations to be
so damaging that impeachment in the House was a certainty
and conviction in the Senate a high probability. When
I asked Mr. St. Clair if he knew of any other new and
damaging evidence besides that on the June 23, 1972 tape,
MORE
Page 14
he said "no." When I pointed out to him the various
options mentioned to me by General Haig, he told me he
had not been the source of any opinion about Presidential
pardon power.
After thought on the matter, I was determined
not to make any recommendations to President Nixon on
his resignation. I had not given any advice or recommenda-
tions with his aides, but I also did not want anyone who
might talk to the President to suggest that I had some
intention to do SO.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I decided I should
call General Haig the afternoon of August 2. I did make
the call late that afternoon and told him I wanted him
to understand that I had no intention of recommending
what President Nixon should do about resigning or not
resigning and that nothing we had talked about the
previous afternoon should be given any consideration in
whatever decision the President might make.
General Haig told me he was in full agreement
with this position.
My travel schedule called for me to make
appearances in Mississippi and Louisiana over Saturday,
Sunday and part of Monday, August 3, 4, and 5. In the
previous eight months, I had repeatedly stated my opinion
that the President would not be found guilty of any
impeachable offense. Any change from my stated views
or even refusal to comment further, I feared, would lead
in the press to conclusions that I now wanted to see the
President resign to avoid an impeachment vote in the
House and probable conviction in the Senate.
MORE
Page 15
For that reason, I remained firm in my
answers to press questions during my trip and repeated
my belief in the President's innocence of an impeachable
offense. Not until I returned to Washington did I
learn that President Nixon was to release the new
evidence late on Monday, August 5, 1974.
At about the same time I was notified that
the President had called a Cabinet meeting for Tuesday
morning, August 6, 1974. At that meeting in the Cabinet
Room, I announced that I was making no recommendations
to the President as to what he should do in light of
the new evidence.
I made no recommendations to him either at
that meeting or at any time after that.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I assure you that
there was never at any time any agreement whatsoever
concerning a pardon to Mr. Nixon if he were to resign
and I were to become President.
Mr. Chairman, turning now to House Resolution
1367, the first question of House Resolution 1367 asks
whether I or my representative had specific knowledge of
any formal criminal charges pending against Richard M.
Nixon. The answer is no.
I had known, of course, Mr. Chairman, that the
Grand Jury investigating the Watergate break-in and
cover-up had wanted to name President Nixon as an unindicted
co-conspirator in the cover-up. Also, I knew that an
extensive report had been prepared by the Watergate
Special Prosecution force for the Grand Jury, and had been
sent to the House Committee on the Judiciary where I
believe it served the staff and the Members of the
committee in the development of its report on the
proposed articles of impeachment.
Beyond what was disclosed in the publications
of the Judiciary Committee on the subject and additional
evidence released by President Nixon on August 5, 1974,
I saw on or shortly after September 4 a copy of a
memorandum prepared for Special Prosecutor Jaworski by
the Deputy Special Prosecutor, Henry Ruth. A copy of
this memorandum had been furnished by Mr. Jaworski to my
counsel and was later made public during a press briefing
at the White House on September 10, 1974.
MORE
Page 16
I have supplied the subcommittee with a
copy of this memorandum. The memorandum lists matters
still under investigation which -- and I quote -- "may
prove to have some direct connection to activities in
which Mr. Nixon is personally involved."
The Watergate cover-up is not included
in this list and the alleged cover-up is mentioned only
as being the subject of a separate memorandum not
furnished to me. Of those matters listed in the
memorandum, it is stated that none of them at the moment
rises to the level of our ability to prove even a probable
criminal violation by Mr. Nixon.
This is all the information I had which
related even to the possibility of formal criminal
charges involving the former President while he had been
in office.
The second question in the resolution asks
whether Alexander Haig referred to or discussed a
pardon with Richard Nixon or his representatives at any
time during the week of August 4, 1974, or any subsequent
time. My answer to that question is: not to my knowledge.
If any such discussions did occur, they could not have
been a factor in my decision to grant the pardon when
I did because I was not aware of them.
Questionsthree and four of House Resolution
1367 deal with the first and all subsequent references
to or discussions of a pardon for Richard M. Nixon,
with him or any of his representatives or aides.
I have already described at length what
discussions took place on August 1 and 2, 1974,
and how these discussions brought no recommendations or
commitments whatsoever on my part.
These were the only discussions related to
questionsthree and four before I became President, but
question four relates also to subsequent discussions.
At no time after I became President on August 9,
1974, was the subject of a pardon for Richard M. Nixon
raised by the former President or by anyone representing
him. Also, no one on my staff brought up the subject until
the day before my first press conference on August 28,
1974.
At that time I was advised that questions on
the subject might be raised by media reporters at the
press conference.
MORE
Page 17
As the press conference proceeded, the first
question asked involved the subject, as did other later
questions. In my answers to those questions, I took a
position that while I was the final authority on this
matter, I expected to make no commitment one way or
the other, depending on what the Special Prosecutor
and courts would do. However, I also stated that I
believed the general view of the American people was
to spare the former President from a criminal trial.
Shortly afterwards, I became greatly concerned
that if Mr. Nixon's prosecution and trial were prolonged,
the passions generated over a long period of time would
seriously disrupt the healing of our country from the
wounds of the past. I could see that the new Administration
could not be effective if it had to operate in the
atmosphere of having a former President under prosecution
and criminal trial.
Each step along the way I was deeply concerned
would become a public spectacle and the topic of wide
public debate and controversy.
As I have before stated publicly, these
concerns led me to ask from my own legal counsel what my
full right of pardon was under the Constitution in
this situation and from the Special Prosecutor what
criminal actions, if any, were likely to be brought
against the former President, how long his prosecution
and trial would take.
As soon as I had been given this information,
Mr. Chairman, I authorized my counsel, Philip Buchen,
to tell Herbert J. Miller as attorney for Richard M.
Nixon of my pending decision to grant a pardon for the
former President. I was advised that the disclosure was
made on September 4, 1974, when Mr. Buchen, accompanied
by Benton Becker, met with Mr. Miller.
Mr. Becker had been asked, with my concurrence,
to take on a temporary special assignment to assist
Mr. Buchen at the time when no one else of my selection
had yet been appointed to the legal staff of the White
House.
The fourth question, Mr. Chairman, in the
resolution, asks about "negotiations" with Mr. Nixon or
his representatives on the subject of a pardon for the
former President. The pardon under consideration was
not so far as I was concerned a matter of negotiation.
I realizedthat unless Mr. Nixon actually accepted the
pardon I was preparing to grant, it probably would not
be effective.
MORE
FORD
Page 18
So I certainly had no intention to proceed
without knowing if it would be accepted. Otherwise,
I put no conditions on my granting of a pardon which
required any negotiations.
Although negotiations had been started
earlier and were conducted through September 6
concerning White House records of the prior Administration,
I did not make any agreement on that subject a condition
of the pardon.
MORE
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Page 19
The circumstances leading to an initial
agreement on Presidential records are not covered by
the resolution before this subcommittee. Therefore,
I have mentioned discussions on that subject with Mr.
Nixon's attorney only to show that they were related in
time to the pardon discussions but were not a basis for
my decision to grant a pardon to the former President.
The fifth, sixth and seventh questions of
House Resolution 1367 ask whether I consulted with
certain persons before making my pardon decision. I
did not consult at all with Attorney General Saxbe
on the subject of a pardon for Mr. Nixon. My only
conversation on the subject with Vice Presidential
nominee Nelson Rockefeller was to report to him on
September 6, 1974 that I was planning to grant the pardon.
Special Prosecutor Jaworski was contacted on
my instructions by my Counsel, Phillip
Buchen. One purpose of their discussions was to seek
the information I wanted on what possible criminal charges
might be brought against Mr. Nixon.
The result of that inquiry was a copy of the
memorandum I have already referred to and have furnished
to this subcommittee. The only other purpose was to
find out the opinion of the Special Prosecutor as to
how long a delay would follow in the event of Mr.
Nixon's indictment before a trial could be started
and concluded.
At a White House press briefing on September 8,
1974, the principal portions of Mr. Jaworski's opinion
were made public and in this opinion, Mr. Jaworski
wrote that selection of a jury for the trial of the former
President, if he were indicted, would require a delay
and I quote, "Of a period from nine months to a year,
and perhaps even longer."
On the question of how long it would take to
conduct such a trial, he noted that the complexities
of the jury selection made it difficult to estimate the
time. A copy of the full text of his opinion, dated
September 4, 1974, I have now furnished to this
subcommittee.
I did consult with my Counsel, Phillip Buchen,
with Benton Becker and with my Counsellor, John Marsh,
who is also an attorney. Outside of these men
serving at the time on my immediate staff, I consulted
with no other attorneys or professors of law for facts
or legal authorities bearing on my decision to grant a pardon
to the former President.
MORE
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Page 20
Questions eight and nine of House Resolution
1367 deal with the circumstances of any statement
requested or received from Mr. Nixon. I asked for no
confession or statement of guilt, only a statement in
acceptance of the pardon when it was granted.
No language was suggested or requested by anyone
acting for me, to my knowledge. My counsel advised me
that he had told the attorney for Mr. Nixon that he
believed the statement should be one expressing
contrition and in this respect, I was told Mr. Miller
concurred.
Before I announced the pardon, I saw a
preliminary draft of a proposed statement from Mr.
Nixon, but I did not regard the language of the statement
as subsequently issued to be subject to approval by
me or my representatives.
The tenth question, Mr. Chairman, covers
any report to me on Mr. Nixon's health by a physician
or psychiatrist which led to my pardon decision. I
received no such report. Whatever information was
generally known to me at the time of my pardon decision
was based on my own observations of his condition at the
time he resigned as President and observations reported
to me after that from others who had later seen or talked
with him.
No such reports were by people qualified to
evaluate medically the condition of Mr. Nixon's health,
and so they were not a controlling factor in my decision.
However, I believed, and still believe, that prosecution
and trial of the former President would have proved a
serious threat to his health, as I stated in my message
on September 8, 1974.
House Resolution 1370 is the other resolution
of inquiry before this subcommittee. It presents no
questions, but asks for the full and complete facts
upon which was based my decision to grant a pardon
to Richard M. Nixon. I know of no such facts that
are not covered by my answers to the questions in House
Resolution 1367.
Also, subparagraphs one and four, there were no
representations made by me or for me and none by Mr.
Nixon or for him on which my pardon decision was
based.
Subparagraph two, the health issue is dealt
with by me in answer to questions ten of the previous
resolution.
MORE
FORD
LIBRARY
Page 21
Subparagraph three, information available
to me about possible offenses in which Mr. Nixon
might have been involved is covered in my answer
to the first questions of the earlier resolution.
In addition, in an unnumbered paragraph at
the end of House Resolution 1370, seeks information on
possible pardons for Watergate-related offenses which
others may have committed.
I have decided that all persons requesting
consideration of pardon requests should submit them
through the Department of Justice. Only when I
received information on any request duly filed and
considered first by the Pardon Attorney at the
Department of Justice would I consider the matter.
As yet, no such information has been received,
and if it does, I will act or decline to act according
to the particular circumstances presented and not on
the basis of the unique circumstances as I saw them
of former President Nixon.
Mr. Chairman, by these responses to the
resolutions of inquiry, I have fully and fairly presented
the facts and the circumstances preceding my pardon
of former President Nixon. In this way, I hope I have
contributed to a much better understanding by the
American people of the action I took to grant the
pardon when I did.
For having afforded me this opportunity, I
do express my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, and to
Mr. Smith, the other Members of the subcommittee and also
to Chairman Rodino of the Committee on the Judiciary,
to Mr. Hutchinson, the Ranking Minority Member of the
full committee, and to other distinguished Members of
the full committee who are present.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
re-emphasize that I acted solely for the reasons I
stated in my Proclamation of September 8, 1974, and my
accompanying message, and that I acted out of my concern
to serve the best interests of my country.
As I stated then, Mr. Chairman, and I
quote, "My concern is the immediate future of this
great country. My conscience tells me it is my
duty, not merely to proclaim domestic tranquility, but
to use every means that I have to insure it."
MORE
BERALD
Page 22
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Members of the
subcommittee for this opportunity to make these views
known.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: On behalf of the
subcommittee, we wish to express our appreciation for
your appearance, bringing us facts that will be
helpful to the American people and to the Congress.
There will be some who will find the answers
fully satisfactory and forthright. There will be
others who will not. But I would hope that all would
appreciate your openness and willingness to come
before the American public and the Congress to discuss
this important matter.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kastenmeier.
CONGRESSMAN KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
I, too, would like to join my colleagues in
welcoming the President. I don't believe any of us
could have anticipated a year ago, when the President
then appeared as a nominee under the Twenty-fifth
Amendment for Vice President, that you would once again
appear before this committee as President of the
United States.
I would only comment that no matter how well
motivated the desire to put Watergate behind us, I can
only acknowledge today that several key issues in the
new S this morning -- the President's appearance before
this committee, the trial downtown, the Watergate trial
itself, and even the nomination of Mr. Rockefeller to be
the Vice President, occasioned by a vacancy due to
Watergate -- all of these still command the attention
of the American people and I guess we will just have to
be patient.
Mr. President, you indicated that you wanted
to spare Mr. Nixon a criminal trial. Did you specifically
have any other end in view in terms of protecting
Mr. Nixon or in terms of a pardon; that is to say,
whatever a pardon would spare the President other than
a criminal trial, were there any other adversities
which a pardon would help Mr. Nixon with, as you saw it?
THE PRESIDENT: As I indicated in the Procla-
mation that I issued, and as I indicated in the state-
ment I made at the time on September 8, my prime reason
was for the benefit of the country, not for any benefit
that might be for Mr. Nixon.
MORE
SORD
GERALD
Page 23
I exercised my pardon authority under the
Constitution, which relates only to those criminal
matters during the period from January 20, 1969,
until August 9, 1974.
CONGRESSMAN KASTENMEIER: I appreciate that,
Mr. President, but it must have been something you foresaw
which could happen to Mr. Mixon which justified a
pardon if in fact you were advised, and perhaps you were
not, that there was no proceeding going to be commenced
against Mr. Nixon, that nothing would happen to him,
and really a pardon may have been an empty gesture in
that event?
THE PRESIDENT: As I indicated, Mr. Kasten-
meier, after the press conference on August 28 where
three questions were: raised about the pardon, the
possibility of a pardon, I asked my counsel to find
out from the Special Prosecutor what, if any, charges
were being considered by the Special Prosecutor's Office.
As I indicated in my prepared statement, I
received from Mr. Jaworski certain information
indicating that there were possible or potential
criminal proceedings against Mr. Nixon.
CONGRESSMAN KASTENMEIER: But you did not
determine, as a matter of fact, that there was any
intention to proceed to indictment with any of those
matters, is that not correct?
THE PRESIDENT: In the memorandum, I believe
of September 4, from Mr. Jaworski, prepared by Mr.
Ruth, there were two possibilities listed. On the other
hand, there was, I think, well-known information that
there was a distinct possibility of Mr. Nixon being
indicted on the ground of obstructing justice.
CONGRESSMAN KASTENMEIER: The effect of the
pardon in terms of the ten possible areas of investigation
as you saw it at the time was to terminate those investi-
gations, as well as end any possibility of indictment
on those grounds.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the power of pardon does
cover any criminal actions during a stipulated
period, and as the pardon itself indicated, it went from
the day that Mr. Nixon first took the oath of office
until he actually resigned on August 9.
MORE
Page 24
CONGRESSMAN KASTENMEIER: My question is, did
you have reason to believe that other than the ten
areas of investigation and the cover-up, that the former
President might need to be protected in any other area
where possibility of prosecution existed?
THE PRESIDENT: I knew of no other
potential or possible criminal charges, no.
CONGRESSMAN KASTENMEIER: My time has expired,
Mr. Chairman.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: The gentleman from
New York, Mr. Smith.
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Mr. President, in regard
to your answer on page 18 of your statement of whether
you consulted with certain persons and in that connection
and in connection with question number six of H.R. 1367,
you stated in regard to the Vice Presidential nominee,
Nelson Rockefeller, that your only conversation on the
subject withhim was to report to him on September 6,
1974, that "I was planning to grant the pardon.
Now, the question asks whether he gave you any
facts or legal authority and my question is, did he do
so?
THE PRESIDENT: Nelson Rockefeller did not
give me any facts or legal authorities. He was in my
office to discuss with me the proceedings concerning
his nomination, and at the conclusion of a discussion
on that matter, I felt that I should inform him of the
possible or prospective action that I would be taking,
but he gave me no facts, he gave me no legal advice
concerning the pardon.
MORE
GERALD FORD
Page 25
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Mr. President, as you
were Minority Leader of the Congress before you became
Vice President of the United States, did you at any time
discuss the wisdom or advisability of a possible
Presidential pardon for President Nixon with President
Nixon or any of his representatives or any member of
the White House staff?
This was in the period before you became
Vice President.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer is categorically no.
Before I became Vice President, Mr. Smith, I, on several
occasions -- I cantrecall how many -- indicated to
President Nixon himself that I thought he should not
resign.
If my memory is accurate, Mr. Smith, before
I became Vice President, there were individuals both
in the Congress and otherwise who were advocating that
Mr. Nixon resign.
I do recall on one or more occasions telling
Mr. Nixon in my judgment he should not, because I
thought that would be an admission of guilt, and
on the information I had at that time, I did not believe
Mr. Nixon was guilty of any impeachable offense.
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Thank you, Mr. President.
You touched upon your observations of President
Nixon's health and I wonder whether at any time before
you became Vice President of the United States did you
learn any facts about his physical or mental health
which later became relevant to your decision of pardoning
Mr. Nixon?
THE PRESIDENT: Before I was Vice President
I saw Mr. Nixon periodically, coming to the White House
for leadership meetings or for other reasons, and
during that period, I had the distinct impression
that his health was good.
I didn't see any discernible change, in
my own opinion, until the last day or two of his
Presidency. I did notice the last time I saw him in
the Oval Office on August 9 -- I thought he was drawn
and possibly a little thinner, but that is only
observation I made.
MORE
Page 26
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: The gentleman from
California, Mr. Edwards.
CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. President, on pages 10 and 11 of your
statement, you indicate that there were some general
discussions with General Haig and Mr. St. Clair,
before the resignation, about the pardon power in
general.
Did they have any reason to carry a message
to then President Nixon that this pardon power could
possibly be used on his behalf if he resigned?
THE PRESIDENT: None whatsoever. Categorically
no.
CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS: Then why, Mr. President,
those general discussions about pardon?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I indicated in my
prepared statement, General Haig came to me first to
apprise me of the dramatic change in the situation, and
as I indicated in the prepared statement, told me that
I should be prepared to assume the Presidency very
quickly, and wanted to know whether I was ready to
do that.
Secondly, he did indicate that in the White
House among the President'sadvisers there were many
options being discussed as to what course of action the
President should take, and in the course of my discussion
on August 1 with General Haig, he outlined, as I did
in the prepared text, the many options that were being
discussed.
He asked for any recommendations I would make
and as I indicated in the prepared text, I made none.
CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. Buchen said several times, and I believe
you mentioned, that the pardon did involve a certain
aspect of mercy. Would not the same considerations of
mercy apply to the Watergate defendants downtown who now
are putting forth as their chief defense their allegation that
they were merely acting under orders of Mr. Nixon, then
President, and their boss?
MORE
Page 27
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Edwards, in light of
the fact that these trials are being carried out at
the present time, I think it is inadvisable for me
to comment on any of the proceedings in those trials.
CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS: Mr. President, put
yourself in the position of the high school teacher,
shall we say, in Watts or the barrios of San Jose or
Harlem, and if you were such a teacher, how would you
explain to the young people of America the American
concept of equal justice and law?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Nixon was
the 37th President of the United States. He had
been preceded by 36 others. He is the only President
in the history of this country who has resigned
under shame and disgrace.
I think that that in and of itself can be
understood, can be explained to students or to others.
That was a major, major step, and a matter of, I am
sure, grave, grave, deliberations by the former President
and it certainly, as I have said several times, constituted
shame and disgrace.
CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, do you think that it is wise
to pardon a man before indictment or trial for offenses
that are completely unknown to you and which might
possibly be terribly serious?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I indicated, Mr.
Edwards, I did to the best of my ability check with
probably the best authority in the country on what, if
any, charges would be made against Mr. Nixon. Those
were, or potentially were, serious charges.
I think that in taking the action that I did
concerning those charges, I was exercising in a proper
way the pardon authority given a President under the
Constitution.
CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. President.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: The gentleman from
Indiana, Mr. Dennis.
MORE
Page 28
CONGRESSMAN DENNIS: Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. President, I would like to state that I,
too, share with my colleagues, deep appreciation for
your appearance here before our subcommittee this
morning.
Mr. President, on page 7 of your statement
where you were talking about your first or your second
interview with General Haig in the afternoon of August 1,
you state that, "I describe this meeting because at one
point it did include references to a possible pardon
to Mr. Nixon."
I take it that you have spelled out what
those references were over on pages 9, where the options
are spelled out and on page 10 where you state that you
inquired as to what was the President's power pardon.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is spelled out in the
item instances 1 through 6, various options involving
a pardon.
CONGRESSMAN DENNIS: And does that include
everything that was said at that time on the subject of
pardon, substantially?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir.
CONGRESSMAN DENNIS: Mr. President, I note
that on page 10 you state that you asked the General as
to what the President's pardon power was and he very
properly replied that he had certain information but
couldn't give legal opinion.
When, where, and from whom did you ultimately
obtain the opinion that you were entitled under the
Doctrine of Ex Parte Garland and so on, to issue a
pardon when there has been no charge or no conviction?
THE PRESIDENT: When I came back to the Oval
Office, Mr. Dennis, following the press conference on
August 28, where three questions were raised by the
news media involving a pardon, I instructed my counsel,
Mr. Buchen, to check in an authoritative way what
pardon power a President had. And he, several days later --
I don't recall precisely -- came back and briefed me on
my pardon power as President of the United States.
MORE
Page 29
CONGRESSMAN DENNIS: Mr. President, the
exercise of Executive Clemency is, of course, a well-
recognized part of the legal system in this country,
exercised by you and all your predecessors, is that not
the fact?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct, sir.
CONGRESSMAN DENNIS: And you have given this
committee, as I understand your testimony this morning,
your complete statement as to your reasons for exercising
that power in this particular case?
THE PRESIDENT: I have, sir.
CONGRESSMAN DENNIS: And in answer to my
friend, Mr. Edwards, you have stated the fact that you
felt that for an ex-President of the United States to
resign under these circumstances was sufficient, strong
punishment, and that that should answer the problems
of those who have raised the question of equal justice
under the law?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct, sir.
CONGRESSMAN DENNIS: And that you would
consider other possible pardons on the facts of those
particular cases if and when they were presented to you?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
CONGRESSMAN DENNIS: And that there was no
condition attached to this pardon and no sort of
agreement made in respect thereto before it was granted?
THE PRESIDENT: None whatsoever, sir.
CONGRESSMAN DENNIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
I have no further questons, Mr. Chairman.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: The gentleman from
South Carolina, Mr. Mann.
CONGRESSMAN MANN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. President, Mr. Kastenmeier asked you
about the termination of the investigation by the
Special Prosecutor's Office. Was it your intention,
by the pardon, to terminate the investigation by the
Special Prosecutor's Office in the ten areas that you
received the report from that office upon?
MORE
Page 30
THE PRESIDENT: I think the net results of
the pardon was, in effect, just that; yes, sir.
CONGRESSMAN MANN: And is that part of the
reason that you didn't consult with Mr. Jaworski with
reference to the tape agreements as to how that might
affect his further investigations?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I pointed out, the
tape agreement was initiated between my legal counsel
and Mr. Nixon sometime before the question of a
pardon ever arose.
The reason for that, Mr. Mann, is that I
came into office and almost immediately there were demands
and requests, not only from the Special Prosecutor, as I
recall, but from other sources as to those tapes and
other documents. And one of the first things I did when these
problems came to my desk was to ask the Attorney General
for his opinion as to the ownership of those tapes, or
any other documents.
And once we got that information, then we felt
that there ought to be some discussion as to where the
tapes and other documents would be held and under what
circumstances.
CONGRESSMAN MANN: Of course the mandate of the
Special Prosecutor's Office was not directed solely at
President Nixon.
But is it not so that the pardon in effect
terminated that investigation insofar as other parties,
other possible defendants, in getting to the true facts
of the matters that have disturbed our national political
life during these past two years?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not believe that the action
I took in pardoning President Nixon had any impact on
any other mandate that that Special Prosecutor's Office
had.
CONGRESSMAN MANN: What response would you
have if the Special Prosecutor's Office now requested
access to certain of the tapes now in the custody of
the Government?
THE PRESIDENT: The material that is still held
by the Government, in my understanding of the Supreme
Cour decision, permits the Special Prosecutor to obtain
any of that material for its responsibilities and I,
of course, not in a personal way, would make certain
that that information was made available to the Special
Prosecutor's Office.
MORE
Page 31
CONGRESSMAN MANN: According to press reports,
Mr. Clements Stone visited Mr. Nixon on September 2
and thereafter met with you in Washington. Are you
at liberty to tell us the gist of the communication
involving President Nixon from Mr. Stone to you?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Stone came to see me about
a program that he has used very successfully in his
business, a program which he is very proud of and he was
urging me to institute it in the various bureaus and
departments of the Federal Government.
There was no other message conveyed by him
from Mr. Nixon to me.
CONGRESSMAN MANN: Did you ever discuss the
pardon with former President Nixon after his resignation
and prior to the granting of the pardon?
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat that again?
CONGRESSMAN MANN: Did you have any personal
conversation with former President Nixon concerning the
pardon, between his resignation and September 8?
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely not.
CONGRESSMAN MANN: Now, in response to Mr.
Edwards' question about equal justice under the law,
I know that you make a distinction that here we are
talking about the office of President of the United
States.
But let's assume that we are talking about the
President of a bank, or Governor of the State, or Chief
Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and in our
minds those are very high political offices.
Do you think any of those persons who are
allegedly criminally culpable through resignation should
be entitled to any treatment different from any other
citizen?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Mann, I don't think I should
answer a hypothetical question of that kind. I was
dealing with reality and I have given, in my best judgment,
the reasons for the action that I took. And to pass
judgment on any other person or individual holding any
other office in public or private, I think it would
be inappropriate for me.
MORE
LIBRARY
Page 32
CONGRESSMAN DENNIS: You have heard the maxim,
The law is no respector of a person." Do you agree
with that?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly it should be.
CONGRESSMAN DENNIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: The gentleman from Iowa,
Mr. Mayne.
CONGRESSMAN MAYNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. President, I believe that the Chairman, and
others in their questions, have established very clearly
that your appearance here today is an entirely voluntary
one on your part, that it was your idea, that you had not
been requested by the committee to come in person, that
we had indicated that it would be entirely satisfactory
as far as we were concerned if some assistant appeared
instead.
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct, sir.
CONGRESSMAN MAVNE: I do not think, however,
that it has yet been made clear in the record, and I
think this should be, that it is also true that you were
willing to come and to tell this full story, as you have
done, before the committee and on television before the
American people, much earlier than today. Is that not
true?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I think the original
schedule was set for about a week ago. I have forgotten
the exact date.
CONGRESSMAN MAYNE: My recollection, and you
can correct me if I am wrong, is that as early as
September 30th, you offered and volunteered to appear
before the subcommittee at our next regular meeting,
which would have been on October 1st, but it was indicated
to you that that would be too early for the committee
to be able to accommodate such an appearance.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't recall that detail, but
when I indicated that I would voluntarily appear, a member
of my staff met with, I think, Chairman Hungate and between
them they tried to work out what was an acceptable, agree-
able time as to when I should appear.
CONGRESSMAN MAYNE: There was, of course, the
concern which developed in the subcommittee as to whether
there would be any possible jeopardy to the impaneling
of the jury in the Watergate cases, but I think this time-
table should be established and I would ask the Chairman
if that is not his recollection, that originally, the
President did say that he would be glad to appear on
October 1st.
MORE
Page 33
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: Not being under oath, the
Chair is glad to reply. The gentleman's recollection
is the same as mine.
CONGRESSMAN MAYNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
just think the point should be made there has been no
stalling at all or delay on the part of the President in
making this appearance, but that he was not only willing
to make the statement, but to do it much earlier.
CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS: If the gentleman would
yield, that is precisely the fact and it was consideration
on behalf of many of us concerning the proper effect on
any trials that held us to this day.
CONGRESSMAN MAYNE: I think there was one part
of Mr. Kastenmeier's questioning of you that was left
unanswered and I am going to try to go into that again.
Did you, by granting this pardon, have any
intention of stopping the investigations of any other
defendants or potential defendants?
THE PRESIDENT: None whatsoever.
CONGRESSMAN MAYNE: Mr. President, ever since
I first heard of the Watergate break-in, I have felt
that this was a matter which should be fully investi-
gated and prosecuted, and that anyone found to be
criminally involved should be punished as provided by the
law, and I have repeatedly stated I thought our American
system of justice, as administered in the courts, was
fully capable of handling the situation if permitted
to proceed without interference.
I have been apprehensive that the activities of
some of the legislative committees and the large amount
of publicity attending upon those activities might make
it impossible for our court system to function as it
should and I have also been fearful that the Executive
Branch would intervene to limit or handicap the normal
functioning of the courts.
Mr. Chairman, and Mr. President, I must say to
you I am deeply concerned that both the legislative and
Executive Branches have indeed interfered with our courts
making it extremely difficult for the traditional American
system of justice to proceed in the regular manner in
this case and I was very disturbed by the granting of this
pardon, particularly at such an early stage, even though,
certainly, there is no question that under the law, you
had the right to act as you did.
MORE
Page 34
Now, I realize that hindsight is always better than
foresight, but I am wondering if after all that has happened
and with further opportunity for reflection, if you do not
now feel that you perhaps acted too hastily in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Mayne, I have thought
about that a great deal because there has been criticism
of the timing. But as I reviewed my thoughts prior to the
granting of the pardon, I had to look at this factually --
if I granted the pardon when I did, it would, as quickly
as possible, achieve the results that I wanted, which was
to permit our Government, both the Congress and the President,
to proceed to the solution of the problems.
Now, some people say in their criticism -- and
I understand it and I am not critical of the points they
raise -- I should have waited until Mr. Nixon was indicted,
inferring that I should have then pardoned him, if I was
going to do SO. Well, other people say that I should
have waited until he was convicted, if he was convicted,
and at that time, I should have pardoned him.
Others have indicated that I should have waited
for a conviction and a jail sentence, if that were the
result. Now, all of that process, whether it is the
indictment, the possible conviction, a conviction plus
a jail sentence, would have taken, as I have tried to
explain, at least a year and probably much longer.
And during that whole period of time, Mr.
Mayne, all of the things that I wanted to avoid, namely
the opportunity for our Government, the President and the
Congress, and others, to get to the problems we have,
would have been, I think, deeply upset and roadblocked.
So, I am convinced, after reflection, as I
was previously, that the timing of the pardon was done
at the right time.
CONGRESSMAN MAYNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: The Representative from
New York, Miss Holtzman.
CONGRESSWOMAN HOLTZMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and Mr. Ford, I too, wish to applaud your historical
appearance here today. At the same time, however, I
wish to express my dismay that the format of this hearing
will not be able to provide to the American public the
full truth and all the facts respecting your assurance
of a pardon to Richard Nixon.
MORE
Page 35
Unfortunately, each Member of this committee
will have only five minutes in which to ask questions
about this most serious matter and unfortunately,
despite my urging, the committee declined to provide such
time for each committee Member to ask the questions that
were appropriate.
The committee declined to prepare fully for
your coming by calling other witnesses, such as Alexander
Haig, Mr. Buchen, Mr. Becker, and has failed to insist
also on full production of documents by you respecting
the issuance of this pardon.
I must confess my own lack of easiness at
participating in a proceeding that has raised such high
expectations and unfortunately, will not be able to
respond to them.
I would like to point out, Mr. President, that
the resolutions of inquiry which have prompted your
appearance here today have resulted from very dangerous
suspicions that have been created in the public's mind.
Perhaps these suspicions are totally unfounded
and I sincerely hope that they are. But nonetheless, we
must all confront the reality of these suspicions and
the suspicions that were created by the circumstances
of the pardon which you issued, the secrecy with which
it was issued, and the reasons for which it was issued
which made people question whether or not, in fact,
it was a deal.
THE PRESIDENT: May I comment there? I want
to assure you, the Members of the subcommittee, the
Members of the Congress, and the American people, there
was no deal, period, under no circumstances.
CONGRESSWOMAN HOLTZMAN: Mr. President, I
appreciate that statement and I am sure many of the American
people do, as well. But they also are asking questions
about the pardon, and I would like to specify a few of
them for you so that perhaps we can have some of these
answered.
I think, from the mail I have received from
all over the country, as well as my own district, I know
that the people want to understand how you can explain
having pardoned Richard Nixon without specifying any
of the crimes for which he was pardoned. And how can
you explain pardoning Richard Nixon without obtaining
any acknowledgement of guilt from him? How do you
explain your failure to consult the Attorney General
of the United States with respect to the issuance of the
pardon, even though in your confirmation hearings you
indicated the Attorney General's opinion would be critical
in any decision to pardon the former President?
MORE
Page 36
How can this extraordinary haste in which the
pardon was decided on and the secrecy with which it was
carried out be explained, and how can you explain the
pardon of Richard Nixon, accompanied by an agreement
with respect to the tapes which, in essence, in the public's
mind, hampered the Special Prosecutor's access to these
materials and this was done, also, in the public's mind
in disregard of the public's right to know the full story
about Richard Nixon's misconduct in office.
And, in addition, the public, I think, wants
an explanation of how Benton Becker was used to represent
the interest of the United States in negotiating
a tapes agreement when at that very time, he was under
investigation by the United States for possible criminal
charges?
And how, also, can you explain not having con-
sulted Leon Jaworski, the Special Prosecutor, before ap-
proving of the tapes agreement? And I think, Mr. President,
that these are only a few of the questions that have
existed in the public's mind before and unfortunately
still remain not resolved. And as I have a very brief
time, I would like to ask you, in addition to these
questions, one further one, and that is that suspicions
have been raised that the reason for the pardon and the
simultaneous tapes agreement was to insure that the
tape recordings between yourself and Richard Nixon
never came out in public.
To alleviate this suspicion once and for all,
would you be willing to turn over to this subcommittee
all tape recordings of conversations between yourself
and Richard Nixon?
THE PRESIDENT: Those tapes, under an opinion
of the Attorney General which I sought, according to
the Attorney General -- and I might add according to past
precedent -- belong to President Nixon. Those tapes
are in our control. They are under an agreement which
protects them, totally, fully, for the Special Prosecutor's
office or for any other criminal proceedings.
Those tapes will not be delivered to anybody
until a satisfactory agreement is reached with the
Special Prosecutor's office. We have held them because
his office did request that, and as long as we have them
held in our possession for the Special Prosecutor's
benefit, I see no way whatsoever that they can be
destroyed, that they can be kept from proper utilization
in criminal proceedings.
MORE
DORD
Page 37
Now, those tapes belong to Mr. Nixon according
to the Attorney General, but they are being held for
the benefit of the Special Prosecutor and I think that
is the proper place for them to be kept.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: The gentleman from Maryland,
Mr. Hogan.
CONGRESSMAN HOGAN: : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am frankly amazed at my good friend, the gentlelady
from New York, and her accusatory opening speech, because
certainly, the gentlelady knows it is the usual and
ordinary and routine procedure of this subcommittee and
this committee, to operate under the 5-minute rule.
There is nothing extraordinary about us today
allocating five minutes of time for questioning to each
Member of the committee. We always operate this way.
Her observation about not doing any preparatory
work by calling other witnesses was rejected as far as I
recall by all other Members of the subcommittee on the
basis that this resolution of inquiry is directed to
the President of the United States and properly SO.
So, it would be totally inappropriate for the
resolution of inquiry to address itself to individuals
other than the subject of that resolution of inquiry.
Mr. President, I would like to join, too, in
commending you for your statement and your openness and
candor in coming in this very historic event.
Frankly, I am concerned about some of the
questioning by my colleagues, asking questions, if all
men are not equal under the law, because certainly,
being the outstanding lawyers that they are, they know
that the pardoning power, itself, is inherently inequitable,
but for a larger purpose, it grants to the Chief Executive
of the Federal Government or the State, in the case of
State crimes, to pardon individuals who may or have been
indicted or convicted of crimes.
So, we should not expect this to apply as if
there were a trial of these criminal offenses. And
furthermore, we also know that in our system of criminal
justice, even the prosecutors, themselves, exercise
prosecutive discretion. There is no question whatso-
ever that the Constitution gives to the President of
the United States broad and absolute power to pardon
individuals of criminal offenses.
MORE
Page 38
We also know, from the debates of the framers
of the Constitution, that they specifically rejected,
including in the Constitution the words "after
conviction."
They also, in the debate at that time, indicated
situations where it might be necessary or desirable
to grant a pardon even before indictment, as was the
case in this instance.
MORE
FORD
LIDRARY
Page 39
CONGRESSMAN HOGAN: Mr. President, I know that
you followed very carefully the deliberations of this
committee during the impeachment inquiry, and I know
you are also aware that this committee unanimously
concluded that the President was guilty of an impeach-
able offense growing out of obstruction of justice.
So, in a sense, couldn't we not say that this
was at least the basis for a possible criminal charge
which was already spread on the record with ample
evidence to justify it? So, those who say you should
have waited until there were formalized charges really
are overlooking the fact that there was a very formalized
charge and indictment, if you will, by this committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the unanimous vote of
the House Committee on the Judiciary, all 35 Members,
certainly is very, very substantial evidence that the
former President was guilty of an impeachable
offense.
There is no doubt in my mind that that
recommendation of this full committee would have carried
in the House, which would have been even more formal
as an indication of criminal activity, or certainly
to be more specific, an impeachable offense. And, of
course, the prospects in the Senate with such a formid-
able vote in the committee and in the House would have
been even more persuasive.
CONGRESSMAN HOGAN: Mr. President, referring
to the memorandum from Mr. Ruth to Mr. Jaworski
enumerating the ten possible criminal offenses, it is
true that this committee addressed itself, if I am
not mistaken, to every single one of these charges
and assessed evidence as to each one of them and we
found them wanting, that they were not sufficient
justification for an impeachable offense.
The last paragraph of that memorandum says,
and I quote, "None of these matters at the moment rises
to the level of our ability to prove even a probable
criminal violation by Mr. Nixon."
Now, this memorandum does not include the
obstruction of justice which I addressed myself to
earlier, so I think we can logically assume that there
would not have been any indictments resulting from Mr.
Jaworski's activities other than in the area of
obstruction of justice and with further corroboration
of that point, I alluded to a story in the Wall Street
Journal yesterday where Mr. Jaworski -- who, incidentally,
not only agrees with your pardon but also the legality
and the niceties of it -- and he says very specifically
that there was going to be no additional disclosures
resulting from his activities that the public was not
already aware of relating to Mr. Nixon.
MORE
Page 40
So, those who are saying we should wait
until there is a formal charge I think are missing the
point that there already has been a formal charge
approved by this committee.
Mr. President, don't you feel that the very
acceptance of the pardon by the former President is
tantamount to an admission of guilt on his part,
THE PRESIDENT: I do, sir.
CONGRESSMAN HOGAN: So, those who say again that
they would have preferred that the President admit
his culpability before a pardon being issued again
are overlooking that fact?
THE PRESIDENT: The acceptance of a pardon,
according to the legal authorities -- and we have
checked them out very carefully -- does indicate that
by the acceptance, the person who has accepted it does
in effect admit guilt.
CONGRESSMAN HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. President,
and again I would like to express my personal appreciation
for your candor and your opennes and your cooperation
with the co-equal branch.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: Mr. President, as you
can see, the peculiar strength of this subcommittee
lies in the fact that the subcommittee Members bring
so much knowledge to it and the subcommittee chairman
takes so little away.
And I noticed in your page ten of your state-
ment that when you were first hit with the possibility
of this responsibility, you indicated you wanted to
talk to your wife before making a decision.
Mr. President, did you do that?
THE PRESIDENT: I certainly did, Mr. Chairman,
because the probability or possibility of my becoming
President obviously would have had a significant impact
on her life as well as our lives.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: That destroys my
theory that, if you had talked to her, you would have
waited until indictment or Christmas Eve, one or the
other.
Let me ask if any attempt was made by you
or your representative to contact the Federal pardon
attorneys for his opinion as to customary procedures
followed in issuing a pardon?
MORE
Page 41
THE PRESIDENT: I did not, sir.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: Mr. President, I go to
page 20 of the statement, and I am addressing myself
to the health question. In the first responses
provided, the press releases, in one of these, page 3,
it refers to September 16 now as the date of this
press conference after the pardon decision in which
you were quoted, "I asked Dr. Lukash, who is head
physician in the White House, to keep me posted in
proper channels as to the former President's health.
I have been informed on a routine day-to-day basis,
but I don't think I am at liberty to give information."
My question is, Mr. President, had he reported
prior to the pardon date or only after?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lukash gave me no infor-
mation concerning President Nixon's health prior to the
time that I issued the pardon. He did, at my request,
when I heard rumors about the former President's health,
keep me posted in proper channels, but that all occurred
after the pardon took place.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: The gentleman from
Indiana is seeking recognition.
CONGRESSMAN DENNIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to request that we make a
part of the record the text of the opinion of the United
States Supreme Court in Ex Parte Garland 4 Wall. 333
and also the opinion of the United States Supreme Court
in Burdick against the United States, 236 U.S. 79,
which deals with the point that a pardon must be
accepted.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: Without objection, it
will be made part of the record.
CONGRESSMAN DENNIS: Mr. Chairman, I would
also like to make a part of the record, if I may, the
article referred to by my colleague Mr. Hogan, which
appeared in the Wall Street Journal of October 16,
1974, and is headed "The Pardon of Nixon Was Timely,
Legal, Jaworski Believes."
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: Without objection, it
is so ordered, and now briefly --
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Chairman, may I add
something I said just to make it correct?
MORE
FORD
LIBRARY
Page 42
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Somebody askedabout when I
last saw the President. I said that I had seen him
on the 9th. I did as he departed, but I had also seen
the President the morning of the 8th at the time I was
asked to come and see him, and at that time we spent an
hour and 20 minutes together, or thereabouts, when he
told me that he was going to resign.
So, I saw him both the 8th and the 9th,
just to make the record accurate.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: All of us are aware of
our time constraints. I yield to the gentleman from
Wisconsin for a question.
CONGRESSMAN KASTENMEIER: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
I would like for the record to indicate that
the statement of the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hogan,
the effect that the proposal that this subcommittee
tried to contact certain staff members, such as General
Haig and others, was supported by me.
I think it would have been excellent. We
have in the past done very well in terms of staff work
preliminary to hearings that might have helped put
some of the questions Mrs. Holtzman had to rest.
Mr. President, you indicated that as far as
Mr. Haig was concerned, that he had suggested certain
options to you, but did not in fact make a recommendation
to you with respect to the pardon, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct. I answered
that, I think, as fully as I could in my prepared state-
ment. He discussed the options. He made no recommendation.
CONGRESSMAN KASTENMEIER: Which other persons
to you personally made recommendations that the former
President be pardoned from that time in early August
to the day of September 6 when you made your decision?
THE PRESIDENT: No other person, to my
knowledge, made any recommendation to me from that time
until the time that I made a decision about September 6;
nobody made any recommendation to me for the pardon of
the former President.
MORE
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Page 43
CONGRESSMAN KASTENMEIER: With respect to
discussions between General Haig and Mr. Nixon, or
other matters in question, too, you indicated you had
no personal knowledge, both in writing and I think
in your statement today.
I take it you would have no objection if the
subcommittee sought to question Mr. Haig or others on
the subject before us this morning to supplement this
hearing and this inquiry?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that is
within my prerogative. I have come here to testify as
to the specific facts, as I know them, but what the
subcommittee does is a judgment for the subcommittee
and not me.
CONGRESSMAN KASTENMEIER: The chair has advised
that the House is in recess waiting for the conclusion
of this hearing before reconvening, so if I might, I
will yield to Mr. Hogan for a question at this point,
and then to Miss Holtzman for a question, and we will
then conclude.
Mr. Hogan.
CONGRESSMAN HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. President, on page 20 of your statement
you talk about the health issue and that you had not gotten
any official reports from physicians that were controling
in your decision. You state that observations were
reported to you from others.
Now, there have been press reports that Dr.
Kissinger is alleged to have said to you that he feared
that former President Nixon would commit suicide. That
appeared in several news accounts.
Is there any truth to that?
MORE
FORD
LIBRARY
Page 44
THE PRESIDENT: There is no truth to it
whatsoever as far as I know.
CONGRESSMAN HOGAN: It appeared in the New
York Times, the Washington Post, on two occasions, and is
alluded to in a research paper prepared for the subcommittee.
THE PRESIDENT: There was no discussion between
Dr. Kissinger and myself that included any such comment.
CONGRESSMAN HOGAN: I think if I might add
a gratuitous comment, Mr. Chairman, that much of the
controversy has been generated by the press, by just such
eroneous statements that have been given wide circulation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: I will ask for
one concise question because we want to respect the
time.
CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS: What were the precise
instructions given to Benton Becker by you when he
went to San Clemente to negotiate Mr. Nixon's acceptance
of the pardon?
THE PRESIDENT: The precise instructions
given to Mr. Becker were actually given by my counsel,
Mr. Buchen. In general I knew what they were. They
were instructions to negotiate the protection of those
documents, including the tapes, for the benefit of
the Special Prosecutor in whatever use he felt was
essential, and at the same time to keep them inviolate
during a period of time which we felt was a proper one.
CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS: But not to offer the
pardon unless that agreement had been negotiated?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Edwards, those negotiations
as to the custody or ownership of the documents, including
tapes, were undertaken prior to August 27, because we
were more or less beseiged -- we, I say "we", the White
House -- as to what to do with those documents, including
tapes.
That negotiation had no relevance whatsoever
to the decision on my part to pardon the President.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: The Chair would remind
all of the constraints of time, and call on Miss Holtzman
for one final question. Congresswoman Holtzman.
MORE
7046
LIBRARY
Page 45
CONGRESSWOMAN HOLTZMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ford, you stated that the theory under which
you pardoned Mr. Nixon was that he had suffered enough,
and I am interested in that theory because the logical
consequence of that is that somebody who resigns in
the face of virtually certain impeachment or somebody
who is impeached should not be punished because the
impeachment or the resignation in the face of impeachment
is punishment enough.
I wonder whether anybody brought to your
attention the fact that the Constitution specifically
states that even though somebody is impeached, that
person shall nonetheless be liable to punishment
according to law.
THE PRESIDENT: Mrs. Holtzman, I was fully
cognizant of the fact that the President on resignation
was accountable for any criminal charges. But I would
like to say that the reason I gave the pardon was not
as to Mr. Nixon, himself. I repeat, and I repeat with
emphasis, the purpose of the pardon was to try and get
the United States, the Congress, the President, and the
American people focusing on the serious problems we
have both at home and abroad, and I was absolutely
convinced, then, as I am now, that if we had this series --
an indictment, a trial, a conviction, and anything else
that transpired after that -- that the attention of the
President, the Congress and the American people would
have been diverted from the problems that we have to
solve.
That was the principal reason for my granting
of the pardon.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: Mr. Smith.
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Just before we adjoum this
hearing, I again would like to commend the President and
thank him for coming.
I think, Mr. President, that you have probably
opened a new era between the Executive and the Legislative
departments and I am very happy for it.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Chairman, I want to express
to you and to the other members of the committee or
subcommittee my appreciation for the fine manner, and I
think the fair way in which this meeting was held this
morning.
MORE
1
REFORD
LIBRARY
Page 46
I felt that it was absolutely essential because
I am the only one who could explain the background and
the decision-making process. And I hope, as I said in my
opening statement, Mr. Chairman, that I have at least
cleared the air so that most Americans will understand
what was done and why it was done.
And again I trust that all of us can get
back to the job of trying to solve our problems, both at
home and abroad.
I thank you very, very much.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE: On behalf of the subcom-
mittee, we express our appreciation to you for your
appearance here today, and we recognize the responsibility
we all have to complete this work and get on with the
business.
The transcipts will be furnished as quickly as
possible to members of the subcommittee.
The subcommittee will adjourn subject to call
of the Chair.
END
(11:59 A.M.
EDT)
FORD LIBRARY