Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4520710",
    "label": "Nixon Pardon - Woodward and Bernstein Articles,12/10/75",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520710"
}

{
    "id": "4520710",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520710",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Nixon Pardon - Woodward and Bernstein Articles,12/10/75",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520710",
    "collections": [
        "Philip W. Buchen Files",
        "Philip Buchen's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Nixon, Richard M. (Richard Milhous), 1913-1994"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520710.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520710.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520710.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520710",
    "naId": 4520710,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-01",
        "month": 12,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-01",
        "month": 12,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "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-4520710.pdf",
    "mediaId": "f1ace2531d08d5ac",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 34, folder \"Nixon Pardon - Woodward and\nBernstein Articles, 12/10/75\" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential\nLibrary.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nExact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.\nDigitized from Box 34 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nThursday 12/18/75\n11:00 Gertrude Engel called to talk with you. Said she has her\n293-1707\nown Public Relations firm (Michigan).\nSaid to tell you she is sorry about the article that appeared\nin the Post today. You know that President Ford saved\nNixon's life when he pardoned him.\nHe needed that valve\nrelease. in his body and mind. to make sure he didn't kill\nhimself. The way everybody treated it was pretty bad. She\nsaid she was the one who defended it. Mr. Nixon was a very,\nvery sick man. They're going to make this a terrible issue.\nIt will be so misinterpreted.\nThe only thing that should be said is\n----\nNixon is a sick man\nand President Ford saved his life. Something had to be done to\nsave him.\nIt requires no further explanation than that.\nShe thinks we should come out with a public release and say\n\"Regardless of how it was done, he saved his life when he\npardoned Mr. Nixon.\"\nGERALD FORD VIBRIET\nro copies\nwent out\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 20, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nDICK CHENEY\nFROM:\nPHIL BUCHEN T.\nHere is your information copy of a memorandum\nKAT?\nI have drafted for Bill Greener. In view of the\nsensitivity of the subject matter and the fact\nthat Bill may not be getting any more questions\non this particular subject, please let me know\nwhether I should just keep the memorandum for\nmy files and not send it to Bill.\neBC>\nYES Not\nsend\nDoNoToreener. to\nAttachment\nGERALD LIBRARY R. FORD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 19, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nWILLIAM GREENER\nFROM:\nPHILIP BUCHEN\nA Woodward and Bernstein article on events preceding the Nixon\npardon appeared in the Washington Post December 18, 1975.\nTo give you additional background and comments on this article, I\npoint out the following:\n1. Woodward came to see me on Tuesday, December 9,\nostensibly to check out the veracity of a story he had acquired which\ninvolved material he and Bernstein were developing for the book they\nwere nearly finished writing on the first 100 days of the Ford Administra-\ntion to be published in April. He had much earlier interviewed me for\npurposes of gathering material for the book and now had some new\ninformation that at least partly involved my role in the events.\n2. The story he claimed to have was that Len Garment and\nRay Price had, early in the morning of August 28, prepared a document\naddressed to me advocating that the President act promptly to announce\nhis intention to pardon the former President. According to Woodward's\ninformants, the documents involved were a memorandum from Garment\npointing out the merits of prompt action and attached to it a draft state-\nment by Price for the President to make such announcement at his\nupcoming press conference that afternoon. He also stated that Al Haig\nwas given a duplicate of these documents at the same time, that he had\npresented them to the President early the morning of August 28, and\nthat he then telephoned Garment that the President wanted to go ahead\nwith the suggestion. This development, according to Woodward was\nfollowed an hour and a quarter later by a call from Haig to Garment\nthat, contrary to his previous advice, the President had put a \"hold\"\non doing anything along this line.\nFORD\n3. My response to Woodward was as follows:\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n(a) I did recall that Len Garment, after the staff meeting on\nthe morning of August 28, had handed me a memo addressed to me\n-2-\nwhich presented the case for the President to respond at his press\nconference that he intended to pardon the former President but I\ndid not recall that there was any statement by Price or anyone\nelse attached to this memorandum.\n(b) I had on August 27 prepared a draft question and answer\nfor the President which in effect called for his stating that he was\nnot ready to make any decision on the matter.\n(c) I learned during the course of the morning from the\nPresident that he was planning to answer questions about a possible\npardon in much the manner I had suggested by my proposed question\nand answer, and therefore I returned the Garment memo to him\neither just before the press conference or right afterwards.\n(d) I was not aware that anyone else received a copy of the\nGarment memo or that he had given one to A1 Haig if that was the\ncase.\n(e) I found incredible the story Woodward gave about the\nPresident's having led A1 Haig to believe he was going to state at the\npress conference his intention to grant a pardon, because such story\nwas entirely inconsistent with what I understood from the President\nwas his intention at the press conference and which, as the answers\nto the questions given, he enunciated.\nWoodward then asked whether Ron Nessen could determine from the\nPresident whether he in fact did see the Garment memo on the morning\nof August 28, and I said I would get back to him on the matter.\n4. I discussed the matter with Jack Marsh, who had been\nclosely involved at the same time when I was in the developments\nconcerning the matter of the Nixon pardon, and Jack and I talked to\nthe President on December 11.\n5. The President advised Jack and me that he had no recollection\nof seeing any such memo but suggested that I talk to A1 Haig.\n6. I reached A1 Haig in Brussels on Friday, December 12.\nHe acknowledged that he knew of the Garment memo and thought he\nmight have shown it to the President either before or after the press\n-3-\nconference but it could well have been afterwards. He said he would\ncheck whatever files he had with him but also suggested I check files\nhere to see if there was any indication that the President might have\nreceived a copy of the memo and the date and the time when he did\nreceive it.\n7. Through Jim Connor, both the President's files and\nA1 Haig's files were checked, and I was advised that no copy of the\nmemorandum could be found. I also checked my own files and found\nthat I had no copy, which was consistent with my recollection that I\nhad returned the Garment memo to him.\n8. Al Haig called me back on Tuesday, December 16, and\nsaid he could tell nothing from his records which would indicate\nwhether or when he might have shown the Garment memo to the\nPresident. He did say, however, that he was sure he had some dis-\ncussions with the President on the subject of a possible pardon but he\nagain was unsure whether it was before or after the press conference.\n9. I promised Woodward to get back to him within a few days\nof our original conference, and I talked to him next on Tuesday,\nDecember 16, to advise him that the President had no recollection of\nhaving seen the Garment memo and that a preliminary check of the\nfiles indicated no record of the Garment memo having gone to the\nPresident. In fact, we could not even find a copy. I held off being\nmore decisive until I had heard again from Al Haig.\n10. Al Haig then called me the same day, but after I had talked\nwith Woodward. On that call, A1 said he could not verify anything\nfrom his files but that he did recall discussing the pardon with the\nPresident and might have done so before the press conference. The\nnext day Woodward called me again to ascertain whether I had found\nout anything more and I said that we still had not found anything in the\nfiles about the Garment memo, but, in the course of the conversation,\nI said there could have been some discussions that I didn't know about\nwhich preceded my first learning on Friday, August 30, that the President\nhad pretty much decided to go ahead with the pardon if I was able to\nadvise him that it was legally possible and provided I obtained certain\ninformation from the Special Prosecutor. The portion of the Washington\nPost article which says that \"Buchen acknowledged yesterday that the\nPresident now 'recalls that he talked with Haig about the pardon from\ntime to time' possibly on the day of his first press conference as\nPresident\" is not accurate in that I merely stated that the President\n-4-\nmay have talked to Haig on the subject of the pardon before making\nhis decision but that the decision was made by the President alone\nas he had publicly stated. The other quotes were also not accurate\nin that the President had not asked me to check the files and I did\nnot say SO. Actually, I had caused the search as a result of Haig's\nuncertainty as to what the files might show. I also raised with\nWoodward the possibility that the pardon could have been discussed\nafter the press conference and before I was involved only because it\nwas customary for the President to conduct a post mortem of his\npress conferences to review what questions had been given and how\nthey had been answered, although I was not involved in such a post\nmortem. I also mentioned that the first indication of the President's\ndesire to consider a pardon came to me as a surprise when we met,\nalong with Hartmann, Marsh and Haig, on August 30 as an indication\nthat he had not really addressed the matter until after his press con-\nference when he had had time to reflect on the effect of his answers to\nthree or four different questions on the same subject at the press con-\nference. I also made no statement about Haig's involvement except\nto say that, so far as I was concerned, he withdrew himself entirely\nfrom any followup to the President's tentative plan to go ahead with\nany pardon if I could advise that he was legally permitted to do so and\nif the information from the Special Prosecutor was obtained concerning\nthe length of time before a fair trial could be held in the matters under\ninvestigation by the Special Prosecutor's office.\n11. The Post story says that the question by the House Judiciary\nSubcommittee about Al Haig's discussing a pardon was rephrased in\nanswering the question. Such is not the case because the question did\ninvolve only Haig's discussions \"with Richard M. Nixon or representatives\nof Mr. Nixon\" (see question 2 in the attached resolution).\ncc: Jack Marsh\nDick Cheney\n93D CONGRESS\n2D SESSION\nH. RES. 1367\nIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nSEPTEMBER 16, 1974\nMs. ABZUG (for herself, Mr. BADILLO, Mr. JOHN L BURTON, Mr. DELLUMS, Mr.\nEILBERG, Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia, Mr. HELSTOSKI, Ms. HOLTZMAN,\nMr. Koch, Mr. ROSENTHAL, Mr. STARK, Mr. STOKES, Mr. SYMINGTON, and\nMr. CHARLES H. WILSON of California) submitted the following resolution;\nwhich was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary\nRESOLUTION\n1\nResolved, That the President of the United States is\n2 hereby requested to furnish the House, within ten days, with\n3 the following information:\n4\n1. Did you or your representatives have specific knowl-\n5 edge of any formal criminal charges pending against Richard\n6 M. Nixon prior to issuance of the pardon? If so, what were\n7 these charges?\n8\n2. Did Alexander Haig refer to or discuss a pardon for\n9 Richard M. Nixon with Richard M. Nixon or representa-\n10 tives of Mr. Nixon at any time during the week of August 4,\n11 1974, or at any subsequent time? If so, what promises were\nV\n2\n1 made or conditions set for a pardon, if any? If so, were tapes\n2 or transcriptions of any kind made of these conversations or\n3 were any notes taken? If so, please provide such tapes,\n4 transcriptions or notes.\n5\n3. When was a pardon for Richard M. Nixon first re-\n6 ferred to or discussed with Richard M. Nixon, or representa-\n7 tives or Mr. Nixon, by you or your representatives or aides,\n8 including the period when you were a Member of Congress\n9 or Vice President?\n10\n4. Who participated in these and subsequent discussions\n11 or negotiations with Richard M. Nixon or his representa-\n12 tives regarding a pardon, and at what specific times and\n13 locations?\n14\n5. Did you consult with Attorney General William\n15 Saxbe or Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski before making\n16 the decision to pardon Richard M. Nixon and, if so, what\n17 facts and legal authorities did they give to you?\n18\n6. Did you consult with the Vice Presidential nominee,\n19 Nelson Rockefeller, before making the decision to pardon\n20 Richard M. Nixon and, if so, what facts and legal authorities\n21 did he give to you?\n22\n7. Did you consult with any other attorneys or profes-\n23 sors of law before making the decision to pardon Richard M.\n24 Nixon, and, if so, what facts or legal authorities did they\n25 give to you?\nFRALO FORD FIRRAN\n3\n1\n8. Did you or your representatives ask Richard M.\n2 Nixon to make a confession or statement of criminal guilt,\n3 and, if so, what language was suggested or requested by\n4 you, your representatives, Mr. Nixon, or his representatives?\n5 Was any statement of any kind requested from Mr. Nixon\n6 in exchange for the pardon, and, if so, please provide the\n7 suggested or requested language.\n8\n9. Was the statement issued by Richard M. Nixon im-\n9 mediately subsequent to announcement of the pardon made\n10 known to you or your representatives prior to its announce-\n11 ment, and was it approved by you or your representatives?\n12\n10. Did you receive any report from a psychiatrist or\n13 other physician stating that Richard M. Nixon was in other\n14 than good health? If so; please provide such reports.\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\nLIBRAR\nORO\nFord THURSDAY Disnuted DECEMBER 18, has on Events Preceding Nixon Pardon\n1975\nBy Bob Woodward\nOne, according to the sources, is a\nand Carl Bernstein\ncontinued threat of criminal prosecution.\nsprivate assurance that President Ford\nIt implied that, unless he was pardoned,\ntradict President Ford's public\nwith Haig about the pardon from time to\nbegan seriously on Wednesday, Aug. 28,\nWashington Post Staff Writers\ngave Gen. Alexander M. Haig Jr., Nixon's\nPresident Ford, in apparent con-\nNixon might take his own life, the sources\nstatements, including his- testimony to a\ntime\" - possibly on the day of his first\nGarment drafted his memo in longhand\nchief of staff, that a pardon would be\nsaid.\nHouse Judiciary subcommittee on Oct. 17,\npress conference as President\nthe evening before at home. Using some of\ntradiction of his public statements,\ngranted.\nThe sources said they were unsure if\n1974, when he said:\nHaig acknowledged yesterday that be\nthe same arguments that Mr. Ford was to\ngranted a pardon to Richard M. Nixon\nThis was given to Mr. Haig on Aug. 28,\nPresident Ford saw the memo, but they\n\"At no time after I became President on\nhad discussions with Mr. Ford about the\ncite in announcing the pardon, Garment\nafter hearing urgent pleas from the former\n1974 - the day of Mr. Ford's first press\nsaid Haig used its arguments in making\nAug. 9, 1974, was the subject of a pardon\nmatter, but refused to discuss exactly\nwrote that an immediate pardon would\nPresident's top aides that he be spared the\nconference as President and 10 days\nthe case for the pardon to Mr. Ford.\nfor Richard M. Nixon raised by the former\nwhat was said. \"I don't think I should talk\nspare the country the turmoil of possible\nthreat of criminal prosecution, according\nbefore the pardon was announced.\nIn addition, former Nixon speechwriter\nPresident or by anyone representing\nabout these things or conversations with a\nindictment, trial and conviction of a for-\nto reliable sources.\nA second fact is an impassioned three-\nhim.\"\nRaymond K. Price Jr. drafted a 2 1/2-page\nPresident, especially an incumbent one,\nmer President.\nAlthough Mr. Ford said yesterday\npage memo written by former Nixon\nstatement the same day for President\nDuring that same appearance,\nand I won't,\" he said in response to a\nThere was a need for immediate action,\nthrough his counsel, Philip W. Buchen,\ncounsel Leonard Garment that same day,\nFord to read announcing the pardon at his\nPresident Ford also. said, \"Nobody made\nreporter's questions.\nGarment wrote, because granting a\nthat the pleas did not figure in his decision,\nurging that Mr. Ford grant a pardon to his\nfirst press conference. It was not used,\nany recommendation to me for the pardon\nPreviously, both the President and Haig\npardon would become politically more\nthere are several facts which he has not\npredecessor. The memo, according to\nhowever.\nof the former President.'\nimplied there were no such conversations.\ndifficult as Nixon increasingly became the\ndisclosed in his statements about the\nsources, indicated that Nixon's mental and\nThis information about the events\nAccording to several sources familiar\nleading up to the pardon appears to con-\nBuchen acknowledged yesterday that\ntarget of federal investigators.\npardon.\nphysical condition could not withstand the\nwith events leading up to the pardon,\nthe President now \"recalls that he talked\nPresident Ford's interest in the matter\nSee PARDON, A6, Col.1\nThursday 12/18/75\n5:45 Contacts with Bob Woodward; also Gen. Haig:\nTues. 12/9 12:15 Phone call from Woodward - they talked\n3:30 Meeting\nWed. 12/10 4:00 Phone call from Woodward\n*\nd\nyen Haig\nMon. 12/15\n12:20\nGen. Haig in Brussels; he was not available\nMon. 12/15 6:00 Bob Woodward -- not there\nTues. 12/16\n9:15\nGen. Haig -- not available\n9:45\nGen. Blanchard on secure line---Gen. Haig\ntalked with Mr. Buchen\n9:40\nBotwoodward\nWed. 12/17 10:27 Bob Woodward -- they talked\n* Men. Haig\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\nThis Copy For\nNEWS CONFERENCE\n#395\nAT THE WHITE HOUSE\nWITH BILL GREENER\nAT 12:02 P.M. EST\nDECEMBER 18, 1975\nTHURSDAY\nMR. GREENER: One announcement: The President\nwill attend the swearing-in ceremonies of Judge Stevens\nas Associate Justice of the Supreme Court tomorrow, December\n19, 1975, at 10:00 a.m. The oath will be administered\nin the courtroom.\nThose wishing to cover the ceremonies should\napply for special passes to the Court Information Officer,\nroom 30, on the ground floor of the Court. The passes may\nbe picked up at room 30 between 8:00 a.m. and 9:45 a.m.\non Friday.\nThe President is expected to depart the White\nHouse at around 9:45, and return at 10:55.\nAny other additional information concerning\ncoverage should be directed to Mr. Frank M. Hepler, Marshal\nof the Court, at 393-1640.\nQ\nI assume there will be a travel pool?\nMR. GREENER: Yes.\nQ\nWill the President have remarks there?\nMR. GREENER: No, I don't believe SO.\nQ\nThat does not apply to the travel pool or\nanything, does it?\nMR. GREENER: Well, he may have remarks. I will\nhave to check on that, Aldo.\nThe question is, what about the travel pool.\nDo we get their passes?\nMR. SPEAKES: We will take care of that.\nMR. GREENER: That does not apply to the travel\npool.\nMORE\n#395\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n- 2 -\n#395-12/18\nQ\nBill, in light of the President's statement\nthat truth is the glue that holds Government together --\nQ\nExcuse me. Before you get into that, could\nI ask a question?\nIs that going to be in the Supreme Court Chamber?\nMR. GREENER: Yes, in the courtroom.\nQ\nSo that means there is no coverage of that,\ntelevision or radio; is that correct?\nMR. GREENER: I don't know. Those wishing to cover\nthe ceremonies -- the information should come from Mr.\nHepler.\nQ\nThe procedure is you never get anything.\nQ\nBill, in the light of that statement about\ntruth, I am just wondering how do you explain the President's\ntelling the Judiciary Committee \"At no time after I became\nPresident was the subject of a pardon for Richard Nixon\nraised\" in light of the Garment memo and the reported\nconversation with General Haig?\nMR. GREENER: Well, let's get that in some context.\nOne, in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee,\nor the Hungate subcommittee, to be exact, and I am sure\nyou have gone over it very thoroughly --\nQ\nIt was not under oath I discovered.\nMR. GREENER: Well, at any rate, whether under\noath or not --\nQ\nAre you sure of that?\nQ\nYes, I checked.\nMR. GREENER: He stated in that that \"At no time\nafter I became President on August 9, 1974, was the subject\nof a pardon for Richard M. Nixon raised by the former\nPresident or by anyone representing him. Also, no one on\nmy staff brought up the subject until the day before my\npress conference on August 28, 1974.\"\nSecondly, as for any assurances, as the story reports,\nthat were given to General Haig by the President on the\npardoning, the President gave no assurances to General Haig\non the pardoning of President Nixon on August 28 or any\ndate prior to that.\nMORE\n#395\nCOMLOR FORD VISRARY\n- 3 -\n#395-12/18\nQ Bill, if my memory of the transcript serves\nme correctly, where he says \"until the day before August\n28\" he said then the subject was only raised in reference\nto the possibility of a pardon being discussed at the\npress conference.\nMR. GREENER: That is correct.\nQ\nWell, Mr. Buchen is quoted as saying, \"The\nPresident now recalls\" --\nMR. GREENER: Mr. Buchen is not being reported\nas saying \"now.\"\nQ\nIt was quoted on the front page of the paper\nthis morning, Bill, was it not?\nMR. GREENER: Read it, Les. It does not say that.\nQ\n\"Now recalls he talked with Haig.\" Isn't\nthat the quote?\nMR. GREENER: The President did talk with Haig as\nnoted here in reference to the press conference.\nQ\nI see.\nQ\nIs that the only way in which the President\nbefore August 28 ever discussed the matter with Haig or\nanyone else?\nMR. GREENER: Except as outlined in the testimony\non August 1, which is also in the testimony.\nQ\nWhat did he do on August 1, Bill?\nMR. GREENER: I will have to find it for you.\nIn his testimony before the House Judiciary\nSubcommittee on October 17, the President testified that\nthe first talk about a pardon with General Haig came in a\nmeeting with General Haig at 3:30 p.m. on August 1.\nQ\nBill, the implication of the Washington\nPost story is that the President was somewhat less than\ntruthful in his prior comments on the matter. The pardon\notherwise -- if we are picking nits, you don't run it eight\ncolumns across the top of the page.\nAre you prepared to say here that the President's\nposition is absolutely without any change or evasion at\nany time?\nMR. GREENER: Yes.\nMORE\n#395\nFORD LIBRARY\n- 4 -\n#395-12/18\nQ\nWould you ask the Washington Post for a\nretraction, Bill?\nMR. GREENER: Pardon me?\nQ\nWould you be willing to ask the Post for a\nretraction if they put this on the top of the page?\nMR. GREENER: I don't know what I should ask them\nto retract, the report sources and things, and that is\nthe way they plan to report it.\nQ Bill, let me put it another way: Are you\nsaying that the President has always dealt with the public\non the matter of the pardon with complete candor?\nMR. GREENER: Yes, I am.\nQ\nNow Bill, let me see if I can understand\nthis. On October 17 he says, \"At no time after I became\nPresident on August 9 was the subject of a pardon for\nRichard M. Nixon raised,\" right?\nMR. GREENER: Until --\nQ Now, you are saying that --\nMR. GREENER: Let me finish reading the sentence.\nDon't stop in the middle of the sentence.\nQ I am sorry.\n\"At no time after I became President on August\n9, 1974, was the subject of a pardon for Richard M. Nixon\nraised by the former President or by anyone representing\nhim.\"\nMR. GREENER: That is correct.\nQ Okay.\nMR. GREENER: \"Also, no one on my staff brought\nup the subject until the day before my first press conference\non August 28, 1974.'\nQ Can you keep reading beyond that a little?\nMR. GREENER: \"At that time I was advised that\nquestions on the subject might be raised by media reporters\nat the press conference.\"\nQ\nDid President Ford consider --\nMR. GREENER: Tom, let Mort finish his question.\nQ I am sorry.\nMORE\n#395\nFORD is LIBRARY CTUNED\n- 5 -\n#395-12/18\nQ\nNow, did you say that the President testified\nthat the first talk about the pardon came on August 1?\nMR. GREENER: In the same testimony, yes.\nQ\nBut aren't those on the very face of them\nconflicting?\nMR. GREENER: No, because he was not President\non August 1.\nQ\nBill, how did the President view General\nHaig's role? Haig was Chief of Staff to President Nixon.\nDid the President ever view him after he became Chief of\nStaff to President Ford as a representative of former\nPresident Nixon?\nMR. GREENER: I would have no way of knowing that,\nTom.\nLet me go back to my statement. The President --\nQ\nIt is a crucial point because if the\nPresident in preparation for that news conference considered\nHaig staff it would be a different position than if he\nconsidered him a representative of former President Nixon.\nMR. GREENER: Well, in preparation for the briefing\nhe obviously considered himself part of his own staff at\nthat point.\nQ\nNot an advocate or a representative of the\nformer President?\nMR. GREENER: Not in preparing for a press\nconference, no.\nQ\nDid Haig at any time make a plea to the\nPresident to pardon Nixon?\nMR. GREENER: Not according to General Haig.\nQ\nWell, what about according to the President?\nMR. GREENER: Not according to the President.\nQ\nWhat was the tenor of the discussion on\nAugust 1, then?\nMR. GREENER: According to the testimony, when\nHaig mentioned a pardon as one of the options involved in\na possible Nixon resignation.\nQ\nWell, you are just interpreting that as not\nbeing a suggestion.\nMORE\n#395\nTORO\nLIBRARI\n- 6 -\ni 395-12/18\nMR. GREENER: I am not interpreting it; I am\nreading it from the testimony.\nQ\nYes, but you just said that he never raised\nit as a suggestion and the testimony says he 1 aised it as\nan option. It does not seem to me there is a .ig difference,\nBill.\nMR. GREENER: Bob, I don't know how it can be\na difference. I am going to have to reread the whole\ntestimony for you.\nQ No, you don't have to reread it.\nYou just made a judgment call on what Haig calls\nan option.\nMR. GREENER: No, I didn't. Let me finish reading.\n\"Shortly after noon, General Haig requested\nanother appointment as promptly as possible. He came to\nmy office about 3:30 p.m. for a meeting that was to last\nfor approximately three-quarters of an hour. Only then\ndid I learn of the damaging nature of a conversation on\nJune 23, 1972, and one of the tapes was due to go to Judge\nSirica the following Monday. I described the meeting at\none point. It did include references to a possible pardon\nfor Mr. Nixon to which the third and fourth questions in\nHouse Resolution 1367 are directed. However, nearly the\nentire meeting covered other subjects, all dealing with the\ntotally new situation resulting from the critical evidence\non the tape.\" Then -- I am jumping now.\n\"On the resignation issue, there were put forth\na number of options which General Haig reviewed with me.\nAs I recall his conversation, various possible options\nwere being considered, including:\n\"One: The President temporarily step aside\nunder the 25th Amendment;\n\"Two: Delaying resignation until further along\nin the impeachment process;\n\"Three: Trying to first settle for a censure vote\nas a means of avoiding either impeachment or need to resign;\n\"Four: The question of whether the President\ncould pardon himself;\n\"Five: Pardoning first the Watergate defendants,\nthen himself, followed by resignation;\n\"Six: A pardon to the President should he resign.\nMORE\n#395\n- 7 -\n#395-12/18\n\"The rush of events placed an urgency on what\nwas to be done. It became even more critical in view of\na prolonged impeachment trial which was expected to last\npossibly four months longer.\"\nThen he goes on and he just outlined the various\noptions, Bob, and that is all.\nMORE\n#395\n- 8 -\n#395-12/18\nQ You do not agree that the word \"recommendation\"\nis similar to the word \"option?\"\nMR. GREENER: No, I don't. If I tell you, Bob, we\nhave four or five things we can do today -- we can either go\nhere, we can go there, we can go here, we can go there, we\ncan go there -- and don't tell you which one I recommend\nyou do, then I don't consider myself recommending anything.\nQ But does it not depend a little on how it is\npresented, and that we don't know? All we have is that\nit was presented as an option. We don't know the words that\nwere used.\nMR. GREENER: Well, there is nothing new in the\nconversation we are having today, Bob, beyond what was held\non the Hill at the time of the testimony. I am saying those\nfacts are still there in answering your original question that\nthe President has dealt with candor and truthfulness at all\ntimes on this matter.\nQ\nWas this August 1 that you are reading from?\nMR. GREENER: Yes. Why don't I just have this up\nhere, Ted.\nQ\nThat meeting was the August 1 meeting?\nMR. GREENER: Yes, it was.\nQ\nBefore he was President?\nMR. GREENER: Yes.\nQ\nBill, after General Haig became President Ford's\nChief of Staff, President Ford made the decision to pardon\nformer President Nixon. Can you tell us when General Haig\nwas advised of that decision?\nMR. GREENER: I cannot, Bob, at this time. It was\nnot on August 28 or before and I would have to find the\nexact date from somebody. I don't know.\nQ\nBill, could you tell me,when General Haig\nbriefed the President for the press conference on the pardon\nissue, did he use the words or refer to \"the alarming state of\nPresident Nixon's health?\"\nMR. GREENER: Phil, I don't know the exact words\nnor was anyone else taking a transcript of the discussion\nduring a press conference preparation meeting. I am simply\nstating that there was no impassioned plea by General Haig\nor any other member of the staff to the President to pardon\nPresident Nixon; two, that the President, as reported in the\nstory, did not assure Haig on August 28.\nMORE\n#395\n- 9 -\n#395-12/18\nQ\nExcept that it is possible that in the context\nof at least -- refute me if I am wrong, but isn't it possible\nthat in the context of the discussion of the pardon in\npreparation for the news conference the following day that\nGeneral Haig could have recommended a pardon at that time,\nin the context --\nMR. GREENER: Very doubtful, since Phil Buchen\nprepared the question and answer that they went over.\nQ Bill, could I just make sure that at least I\nunderstand. When you say there was no impassioned plea by\nGeneral Haig or anybody else --\nMR. GREENER: I am refuting the quote in the front --\nthe lead of that story only.\nQ\nYou are referring --\nMR. GREENER: I am not trying to use any technical\nterms that the plea was made but not impassioned. Is that\nwhat you mean?\nQ No. What I mean is that you are referring to\nAugust 28 or prior to that, is that correct?\nMR. GREENER: No. On the plea, there was none made\nby any member of the staff, to the President, prior to his\ndecision as he stated in his testimony.\nQ Prior to his decision?\nMR. GREENER: As is stated in his testimony.\nQ Did he ever see that Garment letter or the\nmemo or whatever it is?\nMR. GREENER: Not to his knowledge; nothing --\nnor to General Haig's knowledge.\nQ Representative Elizabeth Holtzman questioned\nthe President at that subcommittee meeting about a deal\nand he interrupted her and he said, \"Miss Holtzman, there was\nno deal.\" Does he still stand on that? Can you speak for him\nfor that point?\nMR. GREENER: I can speak for anything in this\ntestimony. The President stands on that testimony.\nQ Yes, but he had already, on August 1, had a\nmeeting on the subject of the pardon.\nMR. GREENER: He did not have a meeting on the\nsubject of a pardon. He had a short meeting that covered\na number of subjects and one of the things that was brought up\nwas an option of it and there was no meeting on it and he\nexplains that, evidently, to the satisfaction of Miss Holtzman\nalso.\nMORE\n- 10 -\n#395-12/18\nQ\nBill, did you talk with the President this\nmorning about this matter?\nMR. GREENER: Yes, I did.\nQ\nDid the matter come up in your conversation\nwith the President whether Al Haig recommended or advocated,\nwhichever word you want to use, a pardon for f ormer President\nNixon?\nMR. GREENER: Yes, it did.\nQ\nAnd the answer was?\nMR. GREENER: No.\nQ\nThank you.\nMR. GREENER: Don't you want to ask me if I talked\nto Al Haig?\nQ Yes. Did you?\nMR. GREENER: Yes, I did.\nQ\nAnd?\nMR. GREENER: The same answer.\nQ\nAll right.\nQ\nWhich is what, please? That Haig told you --\nMR. GREENER: Exactly what I have been saying, that\nI talked to both Haig and the President. Well, I did not talk\nto Haig. I sat beside Dick Cheney while he talked to Haig\nand listened to the questions and answers.\nQ\nBill, Leonard Garment says that he gave a copy\nof his --\nQ\nFinish the sentence, please.\nMR. GREENER: What sentence?\nQ\nTell us what Cheney asked and what Haig said\non this subject, if you can approximate his words.\nMR. GREENER: I don't plan to approximate it, I\njust plan to state that the President's testimony remains\nvalid, true and truthful.\nQ\nSo Haig never made any recommendation for a\npardon at any time?\nMORE\n#395\nFORD\nLIBRAR\n- 11 -\n#395-12/18\nQ\nAccording to Haig?\nMR. GREENER: According to Haig.\nQ\nAnd according to the President?\nMR. GREENER: And according to the President.\nQ\nBill, you said you refuted the lead in this\nstory. What part of the story will you accept? (Laughter)\nMR. GREENER: It is not my jot to accept.\nQ\nNo, I just want to know. This is a very serious\ncharge, Bill -- a very serious charge -- raised on the top of\nthe Post.\nMR. GREENER: What is the charge?\nQ Well --\nMR. GREENER: If you can outline the charge to me --\nQ\nThis is what other people have been asking\nabout this, Bill, and I never got a good answer.\nMR. GREENER: Well, I have answered everybody\nelse. If you can give me a new charge, I will answer it.\nQ\nAll right. You refute the lead in the story,\nthat's it? Is there anything else in the story that you\nrefute?\nMR. GREENER: Yes, the second paragraph.\nQ\nAnd the second. Anything else?\nMR. GREENER: I don't know.\nQ\nDoes the President have any reaction to the\nHouse sustaining his veto on the tax bill?\nMR. GREENER: He is, ,obviously, quite pleased with\nit.\nQ\nWe could not hear you.\nMR. GREENER: It was something about the tax bill.\nHe asked me if the President was pleased about the\nHouse sustaining the veto and I said he was, obviously,\nquite pleased.\nMORE\n#395\n- 12 -\n#395-12/18\nQ\nBill, does the President expect any kind of\naction between now and the end of the year, a new tax bill or\nanything else?\nMR. GREENER: Well, the President outlined that\nlast night in his message that he read down here.\nQ\nHe only said if there is time.\nMR. GREENER: Well, he certainly hopes that something\nwill be done.\nQ\nBill, what steps is the President taking\nbetween now and Christmas to get something done? Is he\ngoing to send another bill up there?\nMR. GREENER: I don't know exactly what they are\nworking on up there but the President stated last night what\nhe thought should be done.\nQ\nHas the President indicated his intention to\nsign or veto the energy bill?\nMR. GREENER: He has not.\nQ\nWhen do you expect him to disclose his decision\non that?\nMR. GREENER: When he makes up his mind.\nQ\nBill, House Democratic leaders previously said\nthat if the veto is upheld on this bill they will simply\nsend the same bill back to him. Would it be his intention to\nveto the same bill again and would he hold Congress over in\na special session until he gets a bill he can accept?\nMR. GREENER: Those are decisions that have not been\nmade at this point, Russ.\nQ Bill, last night he indicated a commitment to\nholding down Federal spending accompanied with another bill\nlike the one he vetoed would satisfy him. Is he tempering\nhis previous demand for a specific figure on a spending\nceiling?\nMR. GREENER: I think I will just stand on his\nwords.\nQ Bill, is it the President's belief that the\nCongress will go home without passing an extension of the\ntax cut?\nMORE\n#395\n- 13 -\n#395-12/18\nMR. GREENER: It certainly is not the ?resident's\nhope that they will.\nQ\nThat was not my question. My question was\ndoes the President now think that Congress will just go home\nand let the taxes jump in January?\nMR. GREENER: I have not heard him address that\nparticular point. He certainly said last night that there was\nplenty of time and he hopes that they will take the necessary\naction.\nQ\nBill, can we pursue that question about the\nspecial session?\nMR. GREENER: I don't have an answer on that for you\nbeyond what he has already stated.\nMORE\n#395\n- 14 -\n#395-12/18\nQ\nWell, we were led to believe last week,\nI guess, that if the President were to call them back into\nspecial session he would not do so until after New Year's.\nIs the President still considering a special session now,\nand has he indicated that he would not ask them to come\nback until after the recess?\nMR. GREENER: Dick, I just said to that specific\nquestion I do not have an answer yet.\nQ\nYou said those decisions which have not\nbeen made yet.\nMR. GREENER: That is correct.\nQ\nThen, in fact, they are still open; is\nthat right?\nMR. GREENER: Yes, they are still open.\nQ\nBill, can you say whether he is considering\ntrying to get this done before Christmas as he stated\nyesterday, or would he be more inclined to try to get\nsomething worked out between Christmas and New Year's?\nMR. GREENER: He is hopeful that it will be done\nbefore Christmas, as he stated last night. As to what he\nis doing on that, Ann, I will just have to get on it. It\nhas only been a few moments since the vote was taken, as\nyou know.\nQ\nBill, is the President considering any kind\nof Executive action that would make it unnecessary to\nincrease withholding?\nMR. GREENER: I don't know that.\nQ Bill, is there concern in the White House\nthat a tax increase in January would harm the economy?\nMR. GREENER: I believe Secretary Simon already\naddressed that question and I will stand on his words on it.\nQ\nBill, a technical question: How does it\nwork if the President wants to keep the Congress in session?\nCan he in fact do so? Does he have the power to do so?\nMR. GREENER: It is my understanding that he does,\nBob, but I would have to get the full parliamentary\nprocedure.\nIt is in the Constitution that he can keep them\nin session.\nMORE\n#395\nLIBRARY\n- 15 -\n#395-12/18\nQ\nHe calls them back into special session.\nHe can't keep them.\nMR. GREENER: They recess and then he calls them\nback into special session; is that correct?\nQ\nBill, does the President have the authority\nto temporarily maintain account withholding rates by\nExecutive Order?\nMR. GREENER: That is the question he asked,\nand I don't know that.\nQ\nHe asked whether he is going to do it.\nMR. GREENER: He does not have the authority.\nJohn checked on it this morning.\nQ\nBill, it has been repeatedly said from\nthat platform that the President would accept a concurrent\nresolution or possibly a sense of Congress resolution. Now,\nif Congress sends the same bill back along with one of\nthese resolutions, would that take care of it?\nMR. GREENER: The President will look at it and\nI think he made a statement last night of what he wanted\nand I will just stand on his words, Howard.\nQ\nBill, do you have any new word for us on the\nAngola situation and the Administration's view on it now?\nMR. GREENER: Nothing beyond what was said\nyesterday, Fran.\nQ\nYesterday a Congressional Black Caucus\ncharged that there were 25 to 50 U.S. advisers in the\nAngolan area. Do you stand by your statement yesterday?\nMR. GREENER: Certainly.\nQ\nAre there any U.S. advisers in the Angolan\narea, neighboring Zaire?\nMR. GREENER: I will have Margie get that double-\nchecked again. I stated on it yesterday and whatever I\nstated yesterday is still true today. I checked on it just\nbefore I came out.\nQ\nBill, the letter to Senator Stennis, if I\ncould -- why has the President changed his mind about\nMr. Bush as a possible Vice Presidential running mate?\nHe had said earlier he would not rule him out and now he\nsays that he will not consider him for Vice President. Why\nthe change?\nMORE\n#395\n- 16 -\n#395-12/18\nMR. GREENER: Well, one, as stated in the letter,\nAmbassador Bush asked him to do that because of the\nimportance of the job and, two, I believe he also outlines\nthe second reason there and that is he did not think that\nthe post should ever be entailed in a six-month job. That\nis in the letter, though, Ted.\nQ\nBill, on Angola again, yesterday I had a\nvague feeling we were not asking the right questions and\nI am going to try again.\nMR. GREENER: I can't believe it.\nQ\nYou said in several different ways yesterday\nthat there are no Government sponsored advisers in Angola.\nThere is a report today that there are from five to eight\nCIA \"reporters\" or employees reporting on Angola and\ndevelopments there. Is that true? They are there not\nadvising.\nMR. GREENER: I have nothing beyond what I said\nyesterday. I will run that down again, if you like.\nQ Now wait a minute.\nMR. GREENER: You want me to answer?\nQ\nI am very aware of what you said yesterday.\nMR. GREENER: And you want me to answer whether\nor not there are five to eight CIA employees in Angola?\nQ Right.\nMR. GREENER: I don't have the answer to that;\nI will try to get it, Bob.\nQ\nBill, a related question: What information\ndoes the Government have about technical representatives\nof American firms in Angola at this point?\nMR. GREENER: Technical representatives of American\nfirms in Angola?\nQ\nRight.\nMR. GREENER: That is another question I will\nhave to run down.\nQ\nBill, on the Post story, did Dick Cheney\nask Haig whether he had told other people in the White House\nthat the President had assured him there would be a pardon?\nThe Post story says that various people, including Buchanan\nand Garment and others, were informed by Haig that the\nPresident was favorable toward a pardon.\nMORE\n#395\n- 17 -\n#395-12/18\nMR. GREENER: That is not quite what it says,\nis it? What does it say?\nQ\nWell, it says here, for one example, \"A day\nor two after his meeting with Mr. Ford, Haig told another\nNixon speech writer, Buchanan, that the President had\nagreed to a pardon for Nixon. This was after the 28th\nmeeting.\"\nMR. GREENER: Keep reading.\nQ\n\"Buchanan confirmed yesterday that he, too,\nhad urged Haig to bring up the matter of a pardon and that\nafterward Haig indicated that a pardon was assured. Haig\nimplied strongly that it was his personal intervention with\nthe President that had secured the pardon, Buchanan said\nyesterday.\"\nDo you want me to continue reading?\nMR. GREENER: No. What is your question?\nQ\nThe question is whether Cheney asked Haig\nwhether he had been going around the White House saying\nthat a pardon was assured and that he had had an agreement\nfrom the President that there would be a pardon?\nMR. GREENER: No, that question didn't come up.\nQ\nWhat happened to the Leonard Garment\nmemorandum that went to Buchen and to Haig?\nMR. GREENER: I have no idea what happened to it\nexcept Mr. Buchen gave it back to Leonard Garment.\nQ\nWas the President aware that this existed?\nYou said he didn't see it. Was he aware that it existed?\nQ\nDid Buchen discuss it with him?\nMR. GREENER: No, he did not.\nQ\nWhy not, Bill? That seems kind of strange.\nMR. GREENER: Well, he said that he used it in\npreparation for the Q and A's that he put together on the\npress conference and that after the press conference he\nhanded it back to Garment.\nQ\nThat Buchen used it --\nMR. GREENER: Himself.\nQ\n-- in preparation --\nMR. GREENER: Just had it there.\nMORE\n#395\nLIBRARY\n- 18 -\n#395-12/18\nQ\nWas he aware that the memo existed?\nMR. GREENER: He does not recall it, no.\nQ Not only did he not see it but he does\nnot recall its existence?\nMR. GREENER: No.\nQ Although it was used as part of the basis\nfor answering questions?\nMR. GREENER: No, it was not used as part of the\nbasis for answering questions. It was used as part of the\nbasis of what Phil Buchen did in preparing Q's and A's.\nQ\nBill, the Vice President said yesterday\nthat he will not campaign in Florida nor in New Hampshire\nbecause in his words Callaway says that he, the Vice\nPresident, is a liability. How does the President feel\nabout, number one, that the Vice President will not campaign\nfor him, and how does he feel about Rockefeller's description\nof being a liability?\nMR. GREENER: It is not a question I discussed\nwith him today, Cliff.\nQ Can you raise it with him?\nMR. GREENER: I certainly will.\nQ\nWhen you said yesterday that if anything\nwas going to be said about the Angola situation from here\nthe President would say it, do you expect a Presidential\nstatement on American involvement in Angola today or any\ntime soon?\nMR. GREENER: There are no plans at this time.\nQ\nBill, can you tell us of any further U.S.-\nSoviet communications on Angola?\nMR. GREENER: No.\nQ\nBill, I believe on a question -- this has\nbeen brought up at the White House, and that is this report\nfor the Secret Service, why does it take so long for them\nto report on how a guy managed to jump over the fence twice?\nI think you said -- I am not sure, but I think you said\nyou would check on that, Bill. I am not sure.\nMR. GREENER: Check on why it took so long?\nQ Yes. What is the Secret Service report?\nI mean, how have they explained it and why are they taking\nso long to do it, and so forth? Could you give us some\nenlightenment on that?\nMORE\n#395\n- 19 -\n#395-12/18\nMR. GREENER: Nothing beyond the fact that I am\nsure they are trying to be as careful and accurate as\npossible.\nQ\nIt takes three days for them to discover\nwhy a guy got over a fence?\nMR. GREENER: I am not an expert on that subject.\nI am just saying that I am sure they are trying to be\ncareful and accurate in their report, Les.\nQ Reflective.\nQ\nBill, to go back to the tax cut thing, you\nwere asked a little bit ago if the President would accept\nthis same bill that he vetoed if it came to him accompanied\nwith a resolution to cut spending by an equal amount and\nyou said, \"I just refer you to the President's statement.\"\nWell, looking at his statement, he said, \"The Congress\nstill has time before Christmas to send me back a tax cut\nextension for 1976 coupled with a clear commitment to cut\nthe growth of Federal spending.\"\nCan we take that to mean he will accept just\nan extension of this year's package rather than the $28\nbillion one he proposed if it has the equal spending cut?\nThat seems to be what the President is saying here but, is\nthat right?\nMR. GREENER: I don't think I want to interpret\nhis words. It is right there; it is exactly what he said.\nQ\nBill, have you talked to Phil Buchen about\nthis story?\nMR. GREENER: Yes, I have.\nQ\nThe story says that Buchen indicated that\nthe President probably discussed the pardon with Haig after\nFord's August 28 press conference. According to Buchen,\nthe discussion occurred because Haig could have been upset\nat the answers at the press conference.\nDoes Buchen, in fact, think that the President\ndid discuss with Haig a pardon after the press conference?\nMR. GREENER: There is no recollection of it\non the part of the President or General Haig.\nQ\nWhat about Buchen? Does Buchen still think\nthat they probably had that discussion?\nMR. GREENER: They may have had a discussion\non the questions and answers as given at the press conference\nbut not to the extent that this --\nMORE\n#395\nLIBRARY\n- 20 -\n#395-12/18\nQ\nDid they in fact have a discussion about\nthe answers and questions at the press conference?\nMR. GREENER: Not to the President.\nOh, on the questions?\nQ\nYes.\nMR. GREENER: What did you ask me? Excuse me.\nQ\nDid Haig and the President talk after the\npress conference about the answers on the subject of the\npardon that the President had given?\nMR. GREENER: Yes.\nQ\nAnd what did Haig say about the answers?\nMR. GREENER: There were five questions and\nGeneral Haig mentioned that he thought that answer 4\nwas a little bit confusing in the context of the other four\nthat were asked, and the President said to General Haig\nthat as he recalls, to me, that he said to General Haig that\nhe felt that he could have answered that question a little\nbit better himself in light of the other four.\nQ\nAnd you are saying that the substance of\nthe question -- that is, whether Nixon would be pardoned or\nnot -- did not come up in that August 28 discussion?\nMR. GREENER: Mort, all I can try to say once\nand for all is that the President of the United States has\ntestified on this completely; he did it with candor and\nwith truthfulness, and he stands on that testimony. I\nchecked on the two specific items which everyone seemed to\nbe interested in and that is, one, the allegation that he\nassured him on August 28, and he did not do that -- both\nGeneral Haig and the President say it. I just don't see\nwhat we can gain by me going through that story step-by-step-\nby step, line-by-line-by-line, except to say that the\nPresident's statement was truthful and candid and clear.\nQ\nI understand. Did Haig on the 28th, after\nthe press conference, urge the President to pardon Nixon?\nMR. GREENER: Again, the President states and\nGeneral Haig states that at no time-and, as a matter of fact,\nas long as you are quoting from it, General Haig says in\nthe same story that he did not do it; that is in the last\nparagraph if you want to find it.\nMORE\n#395\n- 21 -\n#395-12/18\nQ\nDoes President Ford feel that the American\naid to Angola has accomplished its purpose?\nMR. GREENER: What American aid to Angola?\n(Laughter)\nTHE PRESS: Thank you.\nEND (AT 12:35 P.M. EST)\n#395"
}