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
4520712
label
Nixon Pardon and Papers - Press Conference,1974/09/08 (Buchen) (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4520712
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Nixon Pardon and Papers - Press Conference,1974/09/08 (Buchen) (1)
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Nixon, Richard M. (Richard Milhous), 1913-1994
Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
Press conferences
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4520712
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1974-09-01
month
9
year
1974
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-09-01
month
9
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
3bf8f0efae79b7ec
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 35, folder "Nixon Pardon and Papers - Press
Conference, 1974/09/08 (Buchen) (1)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 35 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 8, 1974
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
PHILIP BUCHEN
COUNSELLOR TO THE PRESIDENT
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 12:12 P.M.
MR. TER HORST: Gentlemen, if you are ready for
the briefing, we have Philip Buchen, the legal counsel of
the White House to address your questions on the President's
statement and on the documents you have in your hand.
As you know, he is the President's legal adviser.
He was very much a participant in the preparation of this
proclamation and so here is Mr. Buchen to take your questions.
I think he may have an opening statement which
he may like to read first.
MR. BUCHEN: Thank you, Jerry.
I appreciate your all being here on this
Sunday morning, or midday.
I wanted just to say a few things first, because
it may answer questions in advance, and at the conclusion
of these remarks, I will try to field the questions you
throw this way.
In addition to the major developments of this
morning when President Ford granted a pardon to former
President Nixon, I have two other legal developments to
announce which occurred prior to the issuance of the
proclamation of pardon.
The first involves the opinion of Attorney
General William B. Saxbe and President Ford dealing with
papers and other records, including tapes, retained during
the Administration of former President Nixon in the White
House offices.
In this opinion, the Attorney General concludes
that such materials are the present property of Mr, Nixon;
however, it also concluded that during the time the materials
remain in the custody of the United States, they are subject
to subpoenas and court orders directed to any official
who controls that custody. And in this conclusion, I have
concurred.
MORE
(OVER)
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
- 2 -
This opinion was sought by the President from
the Attorney General on August 22.
Q
When you say the President, you mean
President Ford?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
The reason for seeking the opinion was the conflict
created between Mr. Nixon's request on the one hand for
delivery to his control of the materials, and on the
other hand, the pending court orders and subpoenas
directed at the United States and certain of its officials.
The court orders have required that the custody
of the materials be maintained at their present locations.
And both the orders and subpoenas have called for the
identification and production of certain materials allegedly
relevant to court proceedings in which the orders and
subpoenas originated.
In addition, we were advised of interests of
other parties in having certain records disclosed to them
under warning that if they were to be removed and delivered
to the control of Mr. Nixon, court action would be taken
to prevent that move and to protect the claimed rights
to inspection or disclosure.
Therefore, it became fully apparent that unless
this conflict was resolved, the present Administration
would be enmeshed for a long time in answering the
disputed claims over who could obtain information from
the Nixon records, how requested information could, as
a practical matter, be extracted from the vast volume of
records in which it might appear, and how, and by whom
its relevancy in any particular court proceeding could
be determined, and at the same time to try satisfying
the claims of Mr. Nixon that he owned the records.
Within a week of the request by the Attorney
General for an opinion made by President Ford, I was
advised informally of what its general nature would be.
From that time on, I realized that the opinion itself
would mt provide a practical solution to the handling
and management of the papers so as to reconcile rights and
interest of private ownership with the limited but very
important rights and interest of litigants to disclosure
of selected relevant parts of the materials.
Thus I initiated conversations with the Attorney
General's Office, Special Prosecutor Jaw rski, with attorneys
for certain litigants seeking disclosure, and with Herbert
J. Miller, as soon as he became attorney for Mr. Nixon.
The purpose of these conversations was to explore
ways for reconciling these different interests in records
of the previous Administration so that this Administration
would not be caught in the middle of trying on a case-by-
case basis to resolve each dispute over the right of access
or disclosure.
MORE
- 3 -
The outcome of these conversations was the
conclusion on my part that Mr. Nixon, as the principal
party in interest, should be requested to come forth with
the proposal for dealing satisfactorily with Presidential
material of his Administration in ways that offered
reasonable protection and safeguards to each party who
has a legitimate court-supported right to production of
particular materials relevant to his case.
Mr. Nixon and his attorney then agreed to
pursue this approach and in company with White House
Counsel, they were able to accomplish the second of the
developments which I am announcing today.
And that is the letter agreement, of which you
have copies, between former President Nixon and Arthur
F. Sampson, Administrator of the General Services
Administration.
These two developments are, of course, much less
significant than the one you have learned about earlier.
President Ford has chosen to carry out a responsibility
expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution of ensuring
domestic tranquility, and has chosen to do so by exercise
of a power that he alone has under the Constitution to
grant a pardon for offenses against the United States.
About a week ago, President Ford asked me to
study traditional precedents bearing on the exercise
of his right to grant a pardon, particularly with
reference to whether or not a pardon could only follow
indictment or conviction. The answer I found, based on
considerable authority, was that a pardon could be
granted at any time and need not await an indictment or
conviction.
President Ford also asked me to investigate how
long it would be before prosecution of former President
Nixon could occur, if it were brought, and how long
it would take to bring it to a conclusion.
On this point, I consulted with Special Prosecutor
Jaworski and he advised me as follows, and has authorized
me to quote his language, and I quote:
"The factual situation regarding a trial of
Richard M. Nixon within Constitutional bounds is un-
precedented. It is especially unique in view of the
recent House Judiciary Committee inquiry on impeachment,
resulting in a unanimous adverse finding to Richard M.
Nixon on the article involving obstruction of justice.
"The massive publicity given the hearings and
the findings that ensued, the reversal of judgment of a
number of Members of the Republican Party following the
release of the June 23rd taperecording, and their
statements carried nationwide. And, finally, the
MORE
- 4 -
resignation of Richard M. Nixon require a delay before
selection of a jury is begun of a period from nine months
to a year, and perhaps even longer.
"This judgment is predicated on a review of the
decisions of the United States courts involving prejudicial
pre-trial publicity."
Q Is that the end of the quotes?
MR. BUCHEN: No, I am going on to indicate
something else that will be of interest to you. That is
the end of that quote.
Another quote from his communication to me is as
follows: "The situation involving Richard M. Nixon is
readily distinguishable from the facts involved in the
case of United States versus Mitchell, et al, set for
trial on September 30th.
"The defendants in the Mitchell case were
indicted by a grand jury operating in secret session.
They will be called to trial, unlike Richard M. Nixon,
if indicted, without any previous adverse finding by
an investigatory body holding public hearings on its
conclusions."
That is the end of the quotation.
Q Would you end that last sentence again?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, It is an important one.
"They," meaning the defendants, "will be called to
trial, unlike Richard M. Nixon, if indicted, without any
previous adverse finding by an investigatory body holding
public hearings on its conclusions."
Except for my seeking and obtaining this
advice from Mr. Jaworski, none of my discussions with
him involved any understandings or commitments regarding
his role in the possible prosecution of former President
Nixon, or in the prosecution of others.
President Ford has not talked with Mr. Jaworski,
but I did report to President Ford the opinion of the
Special Prosecutor about the delay necessary before any
possible trial of the former President could begin.
I would also like to add on another subject,
no action or statement by former President Nixon, which
has been disclosed today, however welcome and helpful, was
made a pre-condition of the pardon.
That is a negative because of the word "na"
at the beginning. I might add that whether or not it
was disclosed today, it was not a pre-condition.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
There were no secret agreements made?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
President Ford in determining to issue a pardon
acted solely according to the dictates of his own con-
science. Moreover, he did so as an act of mercy not
related in any way to obtaining concessions in return.
Q Would you go over the last phrase?
Q
After "mercy".
MR. BUCHEN: Mercy not related in any way to
obtaining concessions in return. However, my personal
view --
Q
Is that yours or Ford's?
MR. BUCHEN: Mine. -- is that former President
Nixon's words, which I have had a chance to read, as you
have, that followed the granting of a pardon, constitute
a statement of contrition which I believe will hasten the
time when he and his family may achieve peace of mind and
spirit and will much sooner bring peace of mind and spirit
to all of our citizens.
Q
Would you review that sentence?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
However, my personal view -- these are my own
words -- is that former Presidon Nixon's words expressed
upon his learning of the pardon, constitute a statement
of contrition which I believe will hasten the time when
he and his family may achieve peace of mind and spirit
and will much sooner bring peace of mind and spirit to all
of our citizens.
Now I have only one other paragraph that I would
like to bring out in conclusion. I want to express for
the record my heartfelt personal thanks and appreciation
to a dear firend of the President's and of mine. He is
Benton Becker, a Washington attorney, who has served
voluntarily as my special and trusted consultant and
emissary in helping to bring about the events recorded
today.
Q
Emissary to Mr. Jaworski or Mr. Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: To Mr. Miller and Mr. Nixon, not
to Mr. Jaworski.
MORE
- 6 -
I also acknowledge with deep gratitude the
services of William Casselman, II, who is the highly
valued counsel -- who was the highly valued counsel to
Vice President Ford for his whole tenure in that office,
and is now my close associate in the service of the
President of the United States.
Q
Who informed President Nixon that he was
getting a pardon, and also is President Ford basing this
pardon only on the fact that it would have taken a long
time to try the Presidency in his own conscience?
MR. BUCHEN: Let me take the first question
first.
When Mr. Becker went to San Clemente on
Thursday evening, he was authorised to advise the former
President that President Ford was intending to grant a
pardon, subject, however, to his further consideration
of the matter because he wanted to reserve the chance to
deliberate and ponder somewhat longer, but he was
authorized to say that in all probability a pardon would
be issued in the near future.
The second question?
Q The second question is: There is no admission
of guilt here at all and despite your assumptions that it is
contrition, there is no actual admission of guilt. Do you
agree?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, my interpretation is that it
comes very close to saying that he did wrong, that he did
not act forthrightly.
Q Mr. Buchen, what is the linkage between
the agreement between Mr. Sampson and Mr. Becker's negotia-
tions at San Clemente?
MR. BUCHEN: The initiative for getting an
agreement that would help solve our problems came from me
and I advised Mr. Miller as attorney for Mr. Nixon that
that was my desire. I so advised him before I knew anything
about a contemplated pardon.
Q Mr. Buchen --
MR. BUCHEN: May I finish, please?
However, as we purused talks on what to do with
the papers, I made it very clear to Mr. Miller that I wanted
the initiative to come from him and his client as to the
specifics of what he and his client would be willing to do
regarding the management and ultimate disposition of the
papers and tapes.
MORE
- 7 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, what will this mean as far as
former President Nixon's role as a witness in the upcoming
trials are concerned?
MR. BUCHEN: It would have no effect on that.
If the documents do get transferred in a timely fashion,
it may permit him to review the pertinent material more
adequately so far as his testimony is concerned.
MORE
- 8 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, doesn't this pardon eliminate
any possibility that the former President might invoke
the Fifth Amendment to testify?
MR. BUCHEN: I think you better ask his own
lawyer that. As you know, this applies only to offenses
against the United States. It does not apply to
possible offenses against State law.
Q
But regarding offenses against the United
States, he would have no Fifth Amendment rights now that
he has been pardoned; is that correct?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know that you can separate
them when you plead.
Q
Mr. Buchen, why did the President decide
to do this now at a time before the jury has been
sequestered in the September 30th trial?
MR. BUCHEN: That will have to be information
that will have to come from his statement. I have nothing
to add.
Q
Can you tell us if the President has
assured himself that former President Nixon is not guilty
or liable to accusation of any very serious charges that
have not been made public so far, that there is no other
time bomb ticking away?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't think he said that.
Q
No, no, I am saying, has President Ford done
anything to assure himself that there is no evidence
of any more serious criminality committed by former
President Nixon than what is generally out in the House
Judiciary Committee report and this sort of thing?
MR. BUCHEN: So far as I know, he has made no
independent inquiries. If he had wanted to satisfy
himself as to the content of the evidence still in the
White House, of course, that would have been an insur-
mountable task, as you have no idea of the huge volumes.
Q
Did you assure yourself --
MR. BUCHEN: Just a minute. There are huge
volumes. However, I did personally consult with Mr.
Jaworski as to the nature of the investigation being
conducted and I was able to tell the President that so far
as I was able to learn through that inquiry, there were
no time bombs, as you call them.
MORE
- 9 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, what was the President's reaction
when Mr. Becker conveyed this message to him?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know that it was done in
person. I don't think he was necessarily in the room, so
I don't believe he can --
Q
Did you get any reaction from the President,
even if it was by mail or through counsel, did the
President say he was grateful for this?
MR. BUCHEN: The only reaction we have gotten
is the statement that came over the wire.
Q
Are you saying that Ziegler got the word
from Becker and that President Nixon was not informed
personally at any time by Ford or by any emissary?
MR. BUCHEN: I think you will have to ask Mr.
Becker that. My understanding is that initially the
talks went through Mr. Ziegler, but there were also
face-to-face meetings between Mr. Becker and the
President and what occurred by one method, and one
by the other, I don't know.
Q
There was no personal contact between
Ford and Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: None at all.
Q
You refer to Becker as an emissary and
you talk about one meeting out there Thursday to notify
him. What were the reasons for his previous trips back
and forth? What was discussed?
MR. BUCHEN: Becker only went once.
Q
Only on Thursday?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes. And not only to discuss that,
they had to work out the details of that letter agreement
because Miller and Becker were in negotiation and Miller
had to consult his client and they had to make modifications.
And they had to call back to see whether that fit in correct-
ly with what General Services Administration could feasibly
do. So, that involved a lot of the time he was out there.
Q
Mr. Buchen, did Mr. Jaworski inform you that
an indictment, or indictments, against former President
Nixon were expected?
MR. BUCHEN: No, he did not.
MORE
FORD LIBRARY
- 10 -
Q
May I follow that, then? Isn't the granting
of a pardon at this stage an admission that an indictment
was expected and that conviction was probable?
MR. BUCHEN: I think you have to recall that
word came out that the Grand Jury at one time wanted to
name the former President, or then President, as a co-
conspirator and that is one evidence that something more
would have happened.
And I think it is very likely, from all we have
read, that there would be people who would want him prose-
cuted and would intend to do so, although I don't say that
that was Mr. Jaworski's view.
Q
Was Mr. Jaworski ever consulted about this
pardon, ever asked about this?
MR. BUCHEN: No.
Q
Did Jaworski agree to what was done today?
MR. BUCHEN: He has no voice in it.
Q
Do you know what his mood or sentiment was?
MR. BUCHEN: You will have to ask him. I want
to get to Peter, here.
Q
I wanted to follow up that line. You know
we are not able to get a response from Mr. Jaworski's
office and it would really help us for you to tell us
all you can about the status of the investigation against
the President, former President Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't have that information, Peter.
That is kept in his shop.
Q
But in that regard, why was he not consulted
about what kind of action he contemplated against the
President before the pardon was issued?
MR. BUCHEN: We didn't think that was relevant.
Q
You assumed he would be prosecuted; is that
right?
MR. BUCHEN: We assumed that he may be prosecuted.
Q
When was Jaworski told?
MR. BUCHEN: About the pardon?
MORE
- 11 -
Q
About the pardon.
MR. BUCHEN: I called him about three-quarters
of an hour before I knew the President was going to announce
it so that he would know it.
Q Today?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
What was his reaction?
Q
When was that?
MR. BUCHEN: He thanked me for advising him in
advance of his hearing it over the radio or TV.
Q
And he did not object?
MR. BUCHEN: He didn't. He didn't say anything
one way or the other.
Q
As we read this statement, which does not
admit guilt whatsoever, what is to prevent the former
President from going out, say six months hence, and saying
that nothing was really ever proven against him and he
was hounded out of office?
MR. BUCHEN: I guess he has the right to say
that because, until an indictment and conviction, I think
that would be true in his case as well as anybody else's
case who is under a cloud of suspicion.
Q
But President Ford spoke of the historical
aspects of this and what is going to keep history from
getting more muddled than ever?
MR. BUCHEN: I think the historians will take
care of that.
Q
Mr. Buchen, does President Ford plan to grant
a similar pardon to the former President's subordinates who
are scheduled to go on trial later this month?
MR. BUCHEN: To my knowledge, he has not given
that matter any thought.
Q
Can you clarify, was the agreement reached
with the GSA about the disposal of the tapes and documents?
Was the pardon contingent on that?
MR. BUCHEN: Neither.
MORE
FORD
LIBRARY
- 12 -
Q
They are not together?
MR. BUCHEN: Right.
Q
Number two, why did he choose 10:30, Sunday
morning, to make the announcement?
MR. BUCHEN: I think you will have to ask him
that. He figured that this was a very solemn moment that
exemplified, I think, an act that was one of high mercy
and it seemed appropriate, I think, to him that it should
occur on a day when we do have thoughts like that, or should.
Q
Mr. Buchen, I don't understand why you
contrast the treatment of Nixon with the treatment of
Mitchell coming up. If I understand your statement right,
you said that Mitchell has not had the publicity and the
action by a hearing as Nixon had before the House Judiciary
Committee.
MR. BUCHEN: That was Mr. Jaworski's statement.
That was not mine.
Q
I don't understand this and maybe you can
explain what you think he means there. Mitchell certainly
had the hearing with conclusions and explanations of
conclusions of a hearing by the Watergate Committee.
MR. BUCHEN: There was a hearing, but I don't
know how conclusive the findings were.
Q
There was a hearing and Mitchell testified.
There was a public hearing and there were conclusions and
recommendations on that, and a press conference on that,
and great publicity.
MORE
- 13 -
MR. BUCHEN: I would judge that Mr. Jaworski
does not find those conclusions prejudicial to Mr. Mitchell's
upcoming case.
Q
Mr. Buchen, the President, in his statement
this morning, referred to this matter threatening the
former President's health. Do you have any further details
on that? Do you know anything about the former President's
health that we don't?
MR. BUCHEN: No, I didn't go out there, so I
didn't see the man.
Q
Do you know what he meant by that?
MR. BUCHEN: I think it is generally known
that this man has suffered a good deal. I think you people
who saw him more recently than I have can form your own
conclusions.
Q
Has Mr. Ford and Mr. Nixon talked this
morning?
MR. BUCHEN: No, not to my knowledge, but I do
not believe they did.
Q
Do you know, was the President in a depression
and has the President threatened to commit suicide or
anything like that?
MR. BUCHEN: I have no knowledge.
Q
You say that you looked into this matter
from a constitutional standpoint for the President, and
I am sure you looked into the history of it. Has any
President ever granted a pardon before in history to
anyone prior to that person being charged with a crime
formally?
MR. BUCHEN: Oh, yes, there are lots of
precedents for that.
Q Like what?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, one of your colleagues,
named Mr. Burdick, was pardoned before he was asked to
testify regarding some alleged criminality involving the
Customs Service during the Wilson Administration and he
was given a pardon.
Q
He was a newsman?
MR. BUCHEN: He was a newsman.
And, of course, the pardons granted by President
Lincoln, for example -- the pardons granted after the
Whiskey Rebellion and other insurrections, were applied
to people who were not indicted.
MORE
FORD LIBRARY is
- 14 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, I am a little confused at your
words, more or less dismissing the question of whether
or not the President would grant pardons to Mr. Haldeman,
Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Mitchell and the others who will
go on trial September 30th. Is it not fairly
clear to you, or at least do you not, here in the White
House, admit the possibility that their defense now, in
light of the action of President Ford today, will be
that the President has pardoned the man under whose
orders they were operating and what is your reaction to
this possible line of defense or line of appeal by the
defendants in that trial?
SureLy, this must have been given some con-
sideration and I again would ask you what you think is
going to happen, what you think the President would do
when confronted with this question?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I question your broad characteri-
zation that the acts for which they are being charged were
necessarily --
Q
I am just suggesting this may be their
defense.
MR. BUCHEN: This may be their defense. Now, that
will become Mr. Jaworski's problem and, of course,
the judge's problem. You have already seen that Mr.
Jaworski apparently assumes that the situation in their
case is far different from the situation in the former
President's case.
Q
Phil, can I ask you this: Did this process
that led up to the pardon today start a week ago when the
President came to you?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
Was there something that happened just
prior to his coming to you that got his interest working
in doing this thing just now?
MR. BUCHEN: If there was, I don't know what it
was, Ron.
Q
Have they talked on the phone at any
time this week, or immediately prior to this week?
MR. BUCHEN: They have not talked on the phone
since Jack Miller became his attorney.
MORE
- 15 -
Q
Did this process start after last Sunday's
publication of the Gallup poll that said that the majority
of the public wanted to see Mr. Nixon prosecuted?
MR. BUCHEN: Let me figure my dates. That was
Labor Day week-end, was it? I worked all Labor Day week-
end so it came before that.
Q
To what extent did the transition team look
ahead to the problem of a pardon, and have you done any work
at all --
MR. BUCHEN: They didn't consider that. They had
far too much else to consider.
Q
As a matter of equal justice under law,
we have now had the two top officials of the United States,
both allegedly involved in crimes, namely, Vice President
Agnew and Mr. Nixon, who have been freed of criminal
charges. Both of them are entitled to go around the
country and represent themselves as being innocent. What
is a citizen to make of that situation when ordinary
criminals, including the aides involved in this, have
to be tried?
MR. BUCHEN: Of course I cannot speak at all
for the treatment of former Vice President Agnew because
this Administration was not in any way involved. But I
think you have to understand -- and maybe it is a good time
on Sunday to think about it -- that there is a difference
between mercy and justice.
I don't think that you can assume that mercy is
equally dispensed or how it could be equally dispensed.
Q
Mr. Buchen, is there any pardon being
considered for the aides who performed their acts allegedly
in the name of and in behalf of Richard Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: I have already spoken to that question.
Q
I don't think you have, Mr. Buchen. I am
actually talking about those now in prison, not Mr. Nixon.
John Dean and others?
MR. BUCHEN: So far as I know, no thought has been
given to that.
Q
Mr. Buchen, is it now possible under the
agreement on the custody of Presidential tapes and
papers for any tape made during the Nixon Administration
to be subpoenaed even though it is not now the subject of
a subpoena?
MORE
FORD
- 16 -
MR. BUCHEN: It is possible. In order to get a
subpoena, or court order, of course, certain showings
would have to be made. It is also possible, of course, for
the owner of the tapes to interject objections.
Q A follow up to that. If the owner of those
tapes doesn't want to give them up -- he has now been
pardoned of everything -- what is the leverage?
MR. BUCHEN: It doesn't affect the court orders
or subpoenas, and he is subject to the consequences of
not obeying a valid court order or subpoena.
Q
In other words, that would come under the
expiration date of August 9 in the pardon; is that right?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
Q
Do you feel the agreement with Mr. Sampson
has insured that the Ford Administration cannot be impli-
cated in any Watergate cover-up? Was that one of your
considerations?
MR. BUCHEN: That was not involved because I
don't think that is a relevant issue.
Q
Is there any change in the rules of access
to documents by former White House aides?
MR. BUCHEN: The problem is that there would, of
course, be an interim before the Nixon-Sampson letter agree-
ments can be fully implemented. How we will handle the
interim arrangements, I am sure can be worked out with
Jack Miller as attorney for Mr. Nixon.
MORE
- 17 -
Q
As you recall, in the Agnew case, a paper
prepared by the Justice Department listing the law viola-
tions by the former Vice President was presented in court
on the theory that the American people were entitled
to have the full story in addition to the specific
charge to which the former Vice President pleaded?
In President Ford's preparation for today, what
thought did he give to the presentation of an analysis
by Special Prosecutor Jaworski of the full extent of
President Nixon's role in the Watergate case, and is there
any understanding at this point of eliminating Special
Prosecutor Jaworski's ability to pursue that type
of investigation?
MR. BUCHEN: There is no limitation on what
Mr. Jawerskican do except, of course, the putative
defendant has the defense now of pardon.
On the first part of your question, there is
a distinct difference between asking a man to plead
guilty to a limited offense and the treatment of Mr.
Agnew, of course, was done under very different circumstances
by the system of justice. In this case, it was reliance
entirely on the pardon powers which involve acts of
mercy.
Q
You said earlier that you had assumed that
Mr. Nixon may have been prosecuted, is that as far as
you are willing to go on that issue? Did you all think it
was likely that he would be prosecuted?
MR. BUCHEN: If you mean tried or indicted?
Q
Indicted?
MR. BUCHEN: I think it would be very likely
that he would be indicted. How and when he could be tried
was still an open question.
Q
This likelihood, is that on the strength
of your conversation with Mr. Jasorski that you think
it was very likely?
MR. BUCHEN: No, it was largely on the basis of
what the Grand Jury apparently intended to do on the basis
of less evidence than is now available.
Q
Mr. Buchen, if the ex-President retains the
sole right of access to the documents and as I understand
this GSA agreement, can even limit access by the Archivist
of the United States and his staff, why should the United
States remain as custodian of the documents at all?
MORE
FORD
LIBRARY
-- 18 -
MR. BUCHEN: There is a double-key arrangement.
In other words, access can't be obtained by either the
former President or the General Services Administration
except by their concurrent acts.
Q
But he could conceivably, to prevent himself
from embarrassment, limit access -- no one could see these
documents during the three years the United States
agrees to act as custodian.
MR. BUCHEN: Unless there is a court order or
subpoena.
Q
What about the court orders or subpoenas
that are outstanding?
MR. BUCHEN: We will have to take this agreement
to the courts involved in those proceedings and seek relief
from the present processes and subpoenas on the basis
of the current agreement.
Q
Mr. Buchen, did you and the President give
much consideration to the fact that a criminal trial
could have cleared Mr. Nixon of the charges of possible
guilt, could have cleared him, cleared his name?
MR. BUCHEN: We certainly recognized that as a
possibility. Whether it was given any consideration,
I don't know.
Q
I mean by you or the President?
Q
Well, you were there. What was your
own view?
MR. BUCHEN: My own view is that that was a
possibility. If that was what the former President wanted
to do, he certainly would have told us. He didn't have to
accept the pardon.
Q
Did you recommend the pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: I had nothing to do with recommending
it or disrecommending it.
Q
Did you ever discuss the political implications
of this pardon with the President?
MR. BUCHEN: I did not.
Q
Mr. Buchen, to follow up on some of these
other questions, it seems that President Ford has an interest
in building into the public record a record of Mr. Nixon's
alleged criminality for the same reasons that Mr. Agnew's
alleged criminality was made a part of the record, to prevent
him from saying that he was driven out by political
opponents, et cetera. Is President Ford satisfied that
former President Nixon's record of wrongdoing is sufficiently
in the public record now?
MORE
- 19 -
MR. BUCHEN: All I can tell you is that he knows
nothing that you don't know.
Q
Mr. Buchen, does the pardon in any way
affect Mr. Nixon's payment of back income taxes?
MR. BUCHEN: Not at all. This does not apply to
civil liabilities.
Q
Let's get back to this double-key
arrangement. This is just so much lawyer's language.
MR. BUCHEN: I know that is complicated.
Q
Does that double-key arrangement prevent
the President from going in there and destroying some
of those tapes if he wanted to?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, it does.
Q
So, there is adequate safeguards?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
Does it mean that if any of those tapes
are subpoenaed and he just refuses to honor those subpoenas,
then what would happen?
MR. BUCHEN: He would be subject to contempt of
the court that issued the subpoenas. It doesn't apply to
any future acts.
Q
When will the tapes be physically moved
to this repository in California or are they going
to remain here?
MR. BUCHEN: No, they will be moved to the Cali-
fornia repository as soon as we can get rid of, or
modification of the existing orders that require they be
retained here.
Q
Is that that Laguna Niguel pyramid they
will be put in?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
But nobody can get in there by themselves.
There will always be somebody to watch; is that correct?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
When you way "current", are you referring
to the two court orders that are pending?
MORE
FORD
LIBRARY
- 20 -
MR. BUCHEN: There are at least three court
orders that I know of. One is in the Wounded Knee
case in Minnesota. Another is in the nature of an order
because the court declined to issue the order on the
assurance that documents or tapes could not be moved, and
that is the case involving the networks. So, you can
get Ron to answer your questions on that.
The third one is the civil suit in North Carolina
involving a suit by people kept out of a meeting to
celebrate Billy Graham Day.
Q Mr. Buchen, Mr. Jaworski has, of course,
in his possession a considerable number of tapes which
are not the originals. They are copies. This agreement
with Mr. Sampson does not affect that, does it? They
don't have to be returned to the mass to be moved out to
Laguna?
MR. BUCHEN: The copies will be disposed of as
the court orders, I assume.
Q
But this does not require them to be re-
turned to the big group?
MR. BUCHEN: No.
Q
Can I clarify the chronology of all this?
When is the first time the President indicated to you
he might want to pardon Mr. Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: Just at the start of the Labor Day
weekend.
Q
On which day?
MR. BUCHEN: I know I started to work Friday
night, so it must have been Friday.
Q
Did you have any contact with Mr. Miller
on the issue of a pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: Not at that time. The first contact,
I think, was on Thursday of this week.
Q
And you can't suggest what precipitated
the President's interest?
MR. BUCHEN: I do not know.
Q
Can you tell us whether the President ever
tried to -- I hesitate to use "extract" -- but get
any admission of guilt from the President, or was it
strictly --
MR. BUCHEN: He did not.
MORE
- 21 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, you said that President Ford has
not talked to former President Nixon since Mr. Nixon
retained Miller. Could you tell us the last time President
Ford had contact with President Nixon, direct contact?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know. I think it may have been
the time of the Rockefeller appointment.
Q Mr. Buchen, I am not clear on one thing,
and following up Helen's question, your emissary went out
on that Thursday, Mr. Becker went out on Thursday, that
was the only time he went out. I am trying to get clear
in my mind precisely what it was he told the former
President, or told Mr. Ziegler, and both of them at different
times, that President Ford, in all probability would grant
a pardon. What did he ask either of Mr. Nixon or Mr.
Ziegler? What did he ask that Mr. Nixon do? Did he ask
that this statement we have been given today be
issued? Did he suggest wording and what it should say
or did he ask for nothing? Did he ask for more than what
we got in this statement?
You say at one point the former President could
have turned down the pardon.
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
Did he offer that option and did he say
if the pardon was to be granted, what the former President
then should do?
MR. BUCHEN: The former President was represented
by counsel, you know.
Q
Well, did he make the offer to Mr. Miller?
MR. BUCHEN: Mr. Miller is shrewd enough
attorney to know that he could have advised his client
to accept or reject the pardon.
To answer your other question, as you can
see, that letter agreement is a very complicated one
and it involved a lot of practical problems. Before
Miller and Becker went out, a rough draft of Miller's pro-
posal was in our hands. But it was obvious that we could
not work out the details of what would suit Miller's
client and what would suit GSA and what would suit what we
thought was the best interests of the Government and of the
potential other parties in interest without going out and
making the final draft out there. And that was done.
As far as the statement from the former President
is concerned, that was a matter that was left entirely
up to the discretion of his own counsel and his
own advisers.
MORE
FORD
LIBRARY
- 22 -
Q
Let me see if I can put it another
way, Mr. Buchen. Was the pardon in any of the conversa-
tions involving yourself, Mr. Becker, or anyone else, with
anyone representing the former President, was this
pardon contingent on anything?
MORE
- 2₃ -
MR. BUCHEN: I have said no and I repeat no.
Q
Are you saying if he had not given this
letter at all, if he had said, "Well, I will make no letter
agreement," are you saying categorically that a pardon
would have been issued anyway?
MR. BUCHEN: I am not sure because President
Ford could have changed his mind or not made up his mind
finally.
Q
When was the package completed that was
announced today?
MR. BUCHEN: We got the agreement back on early
Saturday morning and spent that day reviewing it with
Mr. Sampson so that was wound up.
Q
You mean yesterday morning?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, yesterday morning. The statement,
of course, we didn't see until we got it over the wires right
after the speech.
Q
Did the President know there was going to
be a statement before he finally decided on the pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
Did he have any idea what the contents would
be, what the tone would be?
MR. BUCHEN: In a general way, yes.
Q
You are saying that the pardon had nothing
to do with this letter agreement?
MR. BUCHEN: That was not a condition.
Q
This was a completely independent action?
MR. BUCHEN: Right. The negotiations for that
agreement were started independently before even considera-
tion of a pardon.
Q
The decision to pardon was not made until
after this agreement was obtained?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
Q
What you are saying, you cannot say there
would have been a pardon if the agreement had not been
made?
MORE
LIBRARI
- 24 -
MR. BUCHEN: All I can say is that the President
had the right not to grant a pardon because he had not
finally made up his mind to do SO.
Q
When did he make up his mind to do so?
MR. BUCHEN: I suppose until that pen got on paper
or until he started making the statement.
Q
He made his decision after the agreement was
made?
MR. BUCHEN: That is correct, but what went on
in his mind, I don't know.
Q
When did he write the speech?
MR. BUCHEN: Last night.
Q
In sending this word through the emissary
to Mr. Nixon that he was thinking of or expected to
pardon him but was reserving time judgment, was that in
any way intended as encouragement to Mr. Nixon to get
on with the final agreements and possibly offer the kind of
a statement that he did offer today?
MR. BUCHEN: That was not the intent. If it
created that impression, it was a wrong impression.
Q
Mr. Buchen, you just said that the President had
an indication in a general way of content of the former
President's statement. If I may ask a two-part question:
How did he obtain this indication, and did he believe, or
was he informed, that the statement would be one of contrition?
MR. BUCHEN: The report was through the mouth
of Benton Becker, and the characterization of it as an act
of contrition is mine.
Q Excuse me, then. What general feeling did the
President have that the statement would be, what indication
did he have of what the statement would be? How was it
characterized by Mr. Becker?
MR. BUCHEN: He in general told the President
what it amounts to and in particular called attention to
the fact that there would be an acknowledgement of failure
to act decisively and forthrightly on the matter of the
Watergate break-in after it became a judicial proceeding.
Q
Was that negotiated at all?
MR. BUCHEN: It was not negotiated.
MORE
- 25 -
Q
Was Mr. Becker informed of that on
Thursday at the time he went out there?
MR. BUCHEN: I think he was informed on Friday
because he got out there very late on Thursday night.
Q
Do you know if that information had any
effect on Mr. Ford's decision?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know. I am sure it pleased
him and made him feel that it was easier for him to act
as he contemplated doing.
MR.
BUCHEN:
We will take three more questions.
Q Would you please clear up some things about
this letter of agreement. I am sorry, but it will take me
some time to understand it. Let me see here if this is
what it means. Unless there is a subpoena or a court
order which Mr. Nixon would reply to, any ordinary citizen
of the United States, or any officials, outside of Sampson,
could not just go in there and look at these tapes or
listen to them, or see them at any time. They will be shut
off completely to the public?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
Q
Mr. Buchen, why is the date of July 1969
mentioned in the pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: It is January, the date of inaugura-
tion, January 20. President Ford misspoke when he used
the word "July".
Q
How complete was your explanation of the
case against the former President by Mr. Jaworski? Did
he go into what areas that he might be pursuing, what
he heard on the tapes that have not been made public?
Anything like that?
MR. BUCHEN: The question asked him what matters
could arguably involve further steps, and it read like a
list from one of your newspapers.
Q
Did Mr. Becker talk strictly with you or
did he ever speak to Mr. Ford? Did he deal strictly with
you?
MR. BUCHEN: Oh, no; he was also in the room
on occasions when I was speaking to the President.
Q
Why did he pick Becker to do this?
MORE
FORD LIBRARY
- 26 -
MR. BUCHEN: Part of the problem, as you may
know, is we have a rather understaffed legal staff here
and Mr. Becker is a man of rare talen that helped during
the confirmation hearings of the Vice President, and he is
such a good and trusted friend of both of ours that we
felt he was the one we should call on.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. BUCHEN: All I am going to say is, for the
tapes there will be two five-year windows. The first
of the five-year windows involves controlled access by
the former President for his listening to copies of tapes,
copies to be made by an operator who himself does not listen
to the originals.
Also, during the first five-year window, anyone
with a legitimate court subpoena or order that is upheld
can have access or can require the former President to
furnish the information contained on relevant portions of
the tapes.
At the end of that first five-year period, the
former President retains his window, but also can order
selective destruction of tapes. At the end of the ten-
year period, they all get destroyed, all that remain.
Q
In the second five-year window, is that just
by persons who have legitimate subpoenas and court orders
closed off?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right, because there is a
five-year statute of limitations on most, in fact on all,
Federal offenses and most civil matters, so it is assumed
the initial five-year window is long enough.
Q
What is the limit on destruction after
five years plus one day, or can he destroy them all?
MR. BUCHEN: He can.
Q He can?
MR. BUCHEN: He can order them destroyed.
Q
If they were making any copies, would the
originals then be destroyed in the second five-year window?
MR. BUCHEN: The originals will be destroyed.
The copies will be destroyed immediately after they are
used.
MORE
- 27 -
Q
And he could do it after five years and
one day for everything?
MR. BUCHEN: Right.
Q
Now can you go then from there to the
documents?
MR. BUCHEN: The documents are a different
category. There is no present gift of documents as
distinguished from the tapes. However, there is a three-
year period when there will be controlled access by the
owner of those documents requiring the double-key
arrangement with the General Services Administrator. And
the former President is under obligation to respond to
any subpoena involving documents, just as he is to those
involving tapes.
During the three-year period involving documents,
the former President will be under obligation to respond
to subpoenas involving those documents. At any time, the
former President can designate certain documents by
description to become the absolute property of the United
States.
However, after the three-year period, he may
either elect to complete his gifts or to withdraw materials
as he desires. These are documentary materials.
Q
Why the three-year limit?
MR. BUCHEN: We felt that as a practical matter
on the documentation that would be long enough. It gives
everybody a warning. Obviously if there is a subpoena
out that was obtained in the three years and the matter
of its resolution has not been concluded, the subpoena
would prevail.
Q
Can you destroy the documents after three
years?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, if he wants to withdraw them.
MORE
- 28 -
Q
By the way, Mr. Buchen, I may be wrong in what
I am about to say, but I am going to predicate a question
on it, nevertheless.
I am under the impression that the tapes, as
opposed to documents, the tapes were -- that things such
as taperecordings were not covered when Congress covered
that loophole and for that reason, the former President
could donate those tapes to the Government and claim
a tax exemption.
Your second window, the ten-year time for destruc-
tion appears to rule that out; is that right?
MR. BUCHEN: He has already given them to the U.S.
Government to be a gift effective at the end of the 5-year
period.
Q
After he destroys them all?
MR. BUCHEN: He can't destroy them during the
first five-year period.
Q
He has given them as a gift to the United
States -- we are talking about tapes now -- he has
given them as a gift to the United States for five
years; is that right?
MR. BUCHEN: No, it is the other way around.
He has retained title for five years and the gift takes
effect at the end of the fifth year.
Q
But he can destroy his gift?
MR. BUCHEN: He doesn't have access to them.
Q But he can the next day. Didn't you
say five years and one day he could destroy them all?
MR. BUCHEN: He can order their destruction.
Q
What can he do with the copies? Can he
dispose of them for his own purpose?
MR. BUCHEN: No, the copies will go back into the
hands of the General Services Administrator and they
will be destroyed after he has listened to them.
Q
Mr. Buchen, after the ten-year period, is it
mandated that the tapes, all tapes and all copies be
destroyed?
MR. BUCHEN: That is a condition.
MORE
- 29 =
Q
So, his gift in the second five years is a
limited gift, in time it is a limited gift, say limited
to five years; is that right?
MR. BUCHEN: No.
Q
You say he has given them to the United
States?
MR. BUCHEN: Effective five years from now.
Q
Why are they going to be destroyed after
five years?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, maybe they never should
have been made in the first place. This was his desire
and I think 1t is consistent with the fact that these
matters do involve conversations with people who had no
realization that their voices were being recorded.
As an old spokesman for the right of privacy,
I think there is considerable merit for putting these in
a separate category from documents.
Q Mr. Buchen, was any consideration given
to the right of history?
MR. BUCHEN: I am sure the historians will pro-
test, but I' think historians cannot complain if evidence
for history is not perpetuated which shouldn't have been
created in the first place.
Q
Is there anything he can keep, or intends to
keep?
MR. BUCHEN: I am sure there are items in the
documents that he would intend to keep. Of course, it
would involve family letters, things of a highly personal
nature.
Q
Mr. Buchen, if it is Mr. Nixon's desire to
destroy the tapes after ten years, would it not be logical
to assume he will destroy them after five years?
MR. BUCHEN: That is his option, order them
destroyed.
Q
What about the gift option? The tax deduction
option?
MR. BUCHEN: I am not his tax lawyer and it seems
to me if you give a gift with instructions that the items
have to be destroyed, that the gift immediately loses its
value, so I would think it would be very questionable.
MORE
- 30 - -
Q What about the President, though? Could
he ---
MR. BUCHEN: They will not be perpetuated
beyond the limited use.
Q
Does the word "copies" include written
transcripts as well as the originals?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q As a practical matter, at the end of
five years, then all the tapes will be destroyed except
those under subpoena?
MR. BUCHEN: No, because he reserves the right
to keep the window open for himself for another five years?
Q Just the President, no public?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
Q
Is it a question they can be destroyed
in five years, but must be destroyed in ten years?
MR. BUCHEN: They can't be destroyed short of
five years.
Q
Mr. Buchen, Prosecutor Jaworski gave no
indication that he objected to the pardon. Is it your
impression that he sort of feels relieved?
MR. BUCHEN: Wouldn't you if you were in his
place?
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 1:28 P.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 8, 1974
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
PHILIP BUCHEN
COUNSELLOR TO THE PRESIDENT
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 12:12 P.M.
MR. TER HORST: Gentlemen, if you are ready for
the briefing, we have Philip Buchen, the legal counsel of
the White House to address your questions on the President's
statement and on the documents you have in your hand.
As you know, he is the President's legal adviser.
He was very much a participant in the preparation of this
proclamation and so here is Mr. Buchen to take your questions.
I think he may have an opening statement which
-he may like to read first.
MR. BUCHEN: Thank you, Jerry.
I appreciate your all being here on this
Sunday morning, or midday.
I wanted just to say a few things first, because
it may answer questions in advance, and at the conclusion
of these remarks, I will try to field the questions you
throw this way.
In addition to the major developments of this
morning when President Ford granted a pardon to former
President Nixon, I have two other legal developments to
announce which occurred prior to the issuance of the
proclamation of pardon.
The first involves the opinion of Attorney
General William B. Saxbe and President Ford dealing with
papers and other records, including tapes, retained during
the Administration of former President Nixon in the White
House offices.
In this opinion, the Attorney General concludes
that such materials are the present property of Mr, Nixon;
however, it also concluded that during the time the materials
remain in the custody of the United States, they are subject
to subpoenas and court orders directed to any official
who controls that custody. And in this conclusion, I have
concurred.
MORE
(over)
- 2 -
This opinion was sought by the President from
the Attorney General on August 22.
Q
When you say the President, you mean
President Ford?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
The reason for seeking the opinion was the conflict
created between Mr. Nixon's request on the one hand for
delivery to his control of the materials, and on the
other hand, the pending court orders and subpoenas
directed at the United States and certain of its officials.
The court orders have required that the custody
of the materials be maintained at their present locations.
And both the orders and subpoenas have called for the
identification and production of certain materials allegedly
relevant to court proceedings in which the orders and
subpoenas originated.
In addition, we were advised of interests of
other parties in having certain records disclosed to them
under warning that if they were to be removed and delivered
to the control of Mr. Nixon, court action would be taken
to prevent that move and to protect the claimed rights
to inspection or disclosure.
Therefore, it became fully apparent that unless
this conflict was resolved, the present Administration
would be enmeshed for a long time in answering the
disputed claims over who could obtain information from
the Nixon records, how requested information could, as
a practical matter, be extracted from the vast volume of
records in which it might appear, and how, and by whom
its relevancy in any particular court proceeding could
be determined, and at the same time to try satisfying
the claims of Mr. Nixon that he owned the records.
Within a week of the request by the Attorney
General for an opinion made by President Ford, I was
advised informally of what its general nature would be.
From that time on, I realized that the opinion itself
would mt provide a practical solution to the handling
and management of the papers so as to reconcile rights and
interest of private ownership with the limited but very
important rights and interest of litigants to disclosure
of selected relevant parts of the materials.
Thus I initiated conversations with the Attorney
General's Office, Special Prosecutor Jaw rski, with attorneys
for certain litigants seeking disclosure, and with Herbert
J. Miller, as soon as he became attorney for Mr. Nixon.
The purpose of these conversations was to explore
ways for reconciling these different interests in records
of the previous Administration so that this Administration
would not be caught in the middle of trying on a case-by-
case basis to resolve each dispute over the right of access
or disclosure.
MORE
- 3 -
The outcome of these conversations was the
conclusion on my part that Mr. Nixon, as the principal
party in interest, should be requested to come forth with
the proposal for dealing satisfactorily with Presidential
material of his Administration in ways that offered
reasonable protection and safeguards to each party who
has a legitimate court-supported right to production of
particular materials relevant to his case.
Mr. Nixon and his attorney then agreed to
pursue this approach and in company with White House
Counsel, they were able to accomplish the second of the
developments which I am announcing today.
And that is the letter agreement, of which you
have copies, between former President Nixon and Arthur
F. Sampson, Administrator of the General Services
Administration.
These two developments are, of course, much less
significant than the one you have learned about earlier.
President Ford has chosen to carry out a responsibility
expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution of ensuring
domestic tranquility, and has chosen to do so by exercise
of a power that he alone has under the Constitution to
grant a pardon for offenses against the United States.
About a week ago, President Ford asked me to
study traditional precedents bearing on the exercise
of his right to grant a pardon, particularly with
reference to whether or not a pardon could only follow
indictment or conviction. The answer I found, based on
considerable authority, was that a pardon could be
granted at any time and need not await an indictment or
conviction.
President Ford also asked me to investigate how
long it would be before prosecution of former President
Nixon could occur, if it were brought, and how long
it would take to bring it to a conclusion.
On this point, I consulted with Special Prosecutor
Jaworski and he advised me as follows, and has authorized
me to quote his language, and I quote:
"The factual situation regarding a trial of
Richard M. Nixon within Constitutional bounds 'is un-
precedented. It is especially unique in view of the
recent House Judiciary Committee inquiry on impeachment,
resulting in a unanimous adverse finding to Richard M.
Nixon on the article involving obstruction of justice.
"The massive publicity given the hearings and
the findings that ensued, the reversal of judgment of a
number of Members of the Republican Party following the
release of the June 23rd taperecording, and their
statements carried nationwide. And, finally, the
MORE
FORD
LIBRARY
- 4 -
resignation of Richard M. Nixon require a delay before
selection of a jury is begun of a period from nine months
to a year, and perhaps even longer.
"This judgment is predicated on a review of the
decisions of the United States courts involving prejudicial
pre-trial publicity."
Q
Is that the end of the quotes?
MR. BUCHEN: No, I am going on to indicate
something else that will be of interest to you. That is
the end of that quote.
Another quote from his communication to me is as
follows: "The situation involving Richard M. Nixon is
readily distinguishable from the facts involved in the
case of United States versus Mitchell, et al, set for
trial on September 30th.
"The defendants in the Mitchell case were
indicted by a grand jury operating in secret session.
They will be called to trial, unlike Richard M. Nixon,
if indicted, without any previous adverse finding by
an investigatory body holding public hearings on its
conclusions."
That is the end of the quotation.
Q
Would you end that last sentence again?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes. It is an important one.
"They," meaning the defendants, "will be called to
trial, unlike Richard M. Nixon, if indicted, without any
previous adverse finding by an investigatory body holding
public hearings on its conclusions."
Except for my seeking and obtaining this
advice from Mr. Jaworski, none of my discussions with
him involved any understandings or commitments regarding
his role in the possible prosecution of former President
Nixon, or in the prosecution of others.
President Ford has not talked with Mr. Jaworski,
but I did report to President Ford the opinion of the
Special Prosecutor about the delay necessary before any
possible trial of the former President could begin.
I would also like to add on another subject,
no action or statement by former President Nixon, which
has been disclosed today, however welcome and helpful, was
made a pre-condition of the pardon.
That is a negative because of the word "no"
at the beginning. I might add that whether or not it
was disclosed today, it was not a pre-condition.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
There were no secret agreements made?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
President Ford in determining to issue a pardon
acted solely according to the dictates of his own con-
science. Moreover, he did so as an act of mercy not
related in any way to obtaining concessions in return.
Q
Would you go over the last phrase?
Q
After "mercy".
MR. BUCHEN: Mercy not related in any way to
obtaining concessions in return. However, my personal
view --
Q
Is that yours or Ford's?
MR. BUCHEN: Mine. -- is that former President
Nixon's words, which I have had a chance to read, as you
have, that followed the granting of a pardon, constitute
a statement of contrition which I believe will hasten the
time when he and his family may achieve peace of mind and
spirit and will much sooner bring peace of mind and spirit
to all of our citizens.
Q
Would you review that sentence?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
However, my personal view -- these are my own
words -- is that former Presidon Nixon's words expressed
upon his learning of the pardon, constitute a statement
of contrition which I believe will hasten the time when
he and his family may achieve peace of mind and spirit
and will much sooner bring peace of mind and spirit to all
of our citizens.
Now I have only one other paragraph that I would
like to bring out in conclusion. I want to express for
the record my heartfelt personal thanks and appreciation
to a dear firend of the President's and of mine. He is
Benton Becker, a Washington attorney, who has served
voluntarily as my special and trusted consultant and
emissary in helping to bring about the events recorded
today.
Q
Emissary to Mr. Jaworski or Mr. Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: To Mr. Miller and Mr. Nixon, not
to Mr. Jaworski.
MORE
LIBRARY
-~6 - -
I also acknowledge + with deep gratitude the
services of William Casselman, II, who is the highly
valued counsel -- who was the highly valued counsel to
Vice President Ford for his whole tenure in that office,
and is now my close associate in the service of the
President of the United States.
Q
Who informed President Nixon that he was
getting a pardon, and also is President Ford basing this
pardon only on the fact that it would have taken a long
time to try the Presidency in his own conscience?
MR. BUCHEN: Let me take the first question
first.
When Mr. Becker went to San Clemente on
Thursday evening, he was authorised to advise the former
President that President Ford was intending to grant a
pardon, subject, however, to his further consideration
of the matter because he wanted to reserve the chance to
deliberate and ponder somewhat longer, but he was
authorized to say that in all probability a pardon would
be issued in the near future.
The second question?
Q
The second question is: There is no admission
of guilt here at all and despite your assumptions that it is
contrition, there is no actual admission of guilt. Do you
agree?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, my interpretation is that it
comes very close to saying that he did wrong, that he did
not act forthrightly.
Q
Mr. Buchen, what is the linkage between
the agreement between Mr. Sampson and Mr. Becker's negotia-
tions at San Clemente?
MR. BUCHEN: The initiative for getting an
agreement that would help solve our problems came from me
and I advised Mr. Miller as attorney for Mr. Nixon that
that was my desire. I so advised him before I knew anything
about a contemplated pardon.
Q Mr. Buchen --
MR. BUCHEN: May I finish, please?
However, as we purused talks on what to do with
the papers, I made it very clear to Mr. Miller that I wanted
the initiative to come from him and his client as to the
specifics of what he and his client would be willing to do
regarding the management and ultimate disposition of the
papers and tapes.
MORE
- 7 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, what will this mean as far as
former President Nixon's role as a witness in the upcoming
trials are concerned?
MR. BUCHEN: It would have no effect on that.
If the documents do get transferred in a timely fashion,
it may permit him to review the pertinent material more
adequately so far as his testimony is concerned.
MORE
ANVURIT
- 8 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, doesn't this pardon eliminate
any possibility that the former President might invoke
the Fifth Amendment to testify?
MR. BUCHEN: I think you better ask his own
lawyer that. As you know, this applies only to offenses
against the United States. It does not apply to
possible offenses against State law.
Q
But regarding offenses against the United
States, he would have no Fifth Amendment rights now that
he has been pardoned; is that correct?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know that you can separate
them when you plead.
Q
Mr. Buchen, why did the President decide
to do this now at a time before the jury has been
sequestered in the September 30th trial?
MR. BUCHEN: That will have to be information
that will have to come from his statement. I have nothing
to add.
Q
Can you tell us if the President has
assured himself that former President Nixon is not guilty
or liable to accusation of any very serious charges that
have not been made public so far, that there is no other
time bomb ticking away?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't think he said that.
Q
No, no, I am saying, has President Ford done
anything to assure himself that there is no evidence
of any more serious criminality committed by former
President Nixon than what is generally out in the House
Judiciary Committee report and this sort of thing?
MR. BUCHEN: So far as I know, he has made no
independent inquiries. If he had wanted to satisfy
himself as to the content of the evidence still in the
White House, of course, that would have been an insur-
mountable task, as you have no idea of the huge volumes.
Q Did you assure yourself --
MR. BUCHEN: Just a minute. There are huge
volumes. However, I did personally consult with Mr.
Jaworski as to the nature of the investigation being
conducted and I was able to tell the President that so far
as I was able to learn through that inquiry, there were
no time bombs, as you call them.
MORE
- 9 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, what was the President's reaction
when Mr. Becker conveyed this message to him?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know that it was done in
person. I don't think he was necessarily in the room, so
I don't believe he can --
Q
Did you get any reaction from the President,
even if it was by mail or through counsel, did the
President say he was grateful for this?
MR. BUCHEN: The only reaction we have gotten
is the statement that came over the wire.
Q Are you saying that Ziegler got the word
from Becker and that President Nixon was not informed
personally at any time by Ford or by any emissary?
MR. BUCHEN: I think you will have to ask Mr.
Becker that. My understanding is that initially the
talks went through Mr. Ziegler, but there were also
face-to-face meetings between Mr. Becker and the
President and what occurred by one method, and one
by the other, I don't know.
Q
There was no personal contact between
Ford and Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: None at all.
Q You refer to Becker as an emissary and
you talk about one meeting out there Thursday to notify
him. What were the reasons for his previous trips back
and forth? What was discussed?
MR. BUCHEN: Becker only went once.
Q Only on Thursday?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes. And not only to discuss that,
they had to work out the details of that letter agreement
because Miller and Becker were in negotiation and Miller
had to consult his client and they had to make modifications.
And they had to call back to see whether that fit in correct-
ly with what General Services Administration could feasibly
do. So, that involved a lot of the time he was out there.
Q Mr. Buchen; did Mr. Jaworski inform you that
an indictment, or indictments, against former President
Nixon were expected?
MR. BUCHEN: No, he did not.
MORE
- 10 -
Q
May I follow that, then? Isn't the granting
of a pardon at this stage an admission that an indictment
was expected and that conviction was probable?
MR. BUCHEN: I think you have to recall that
word came out that the Grand Jury at one time wanted to
name the former President, or then President, as a co-
conspirator and that is one evidence that something more
would have happened.
And I think it is very likely, from all we have
read, that there would be people who would want him prose-
cuted and would intend to do so, although I don't say that
that was Mr. Jaworski's view.
Q
Was Mr. Jaworski ever consulted about this
pardon, ever asked about this?
MR. BUCHEN: No.
Q
Did Jaworski agree to what was done today?
MR. BUCHEN: He has no voice in it.
Q
Do you know what his mood or sentiment was?
MR. BUCHEN: You will have to ask him. I want
to get to Peter, here.
Q
I wanted to follow up that line. You know
we are not able to get a response from Mr. Jaworski's
office and it would really help us for you to tell us
all you can about the status of the investigation against
the President, former President Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't have that information, Peter.
That is kept in his shop.
Q
But in that regard, why was he not consulted
about what kind of action he contemplated against the
President before the pardon was issued?
MR. BUCHEN: We didn't think that was relevant.
Q
You assumed he would be prosecuted; is that
right?
MR. BUCHEN: We assumed that he may be prosecuted.
Q
When was Jaworski told?
MR. BUCHEN: About the pardon?
MORE
- 11 -
Q
About the pardon.
MR. BUCHEN: I called him about three-quarters
of an hour before I knew the President was going to announce
it so that he would know it.
Q
Today?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
What was his reaction?
Q When was that?
MR. BUCHEN: He thanked me for advising him in
advance of his hearing it over the radio or TV.
Q
And he did not object?
MR. BUCHEN: He didn't. He didn't say anything
one way or the other.
Q
As we read this statement, which does not
admit guilt whatsoever, what is to prevent the former
President from going out, say six months hence, and saying
that nothing was really ever proven against him and he
was hounded out of office?
MR. BUCHEN: I guess he has the right to say
that because, until an indictment and conviction, I think
that would be true in his case as well as anybody else's
case who is under a cloud of suspicion.
Q
But President Ford spoke of the historical
aspects of this and what is going to keep history from
getting more muddled than ever?
MR. BUCHEN: I think the historians will take
care of that.
Q
Mr. Buchen, does President Ford plan to grant
a similar pardon to the former President's subordinates who
are scheduled to go on trial later this month?
MR. BUCHEN: To my knowledge, he has not given
that matter any thought.
Q
Can you clarify, was the agreement reached
with the GSA about the disposal of the tapes and documents?
Was the pardon contingent on that?
MR. BUCHEN: Neither.
MORE
- 12 -
Q
They are not together?
MR. BUCHEN: Right.
Q
Number two, why did he choose 10:30, Sunday
morning, to make the announcement?
MR. BUCHEN: I think you will have to ask him
that. He figured that this was a very solemn moment that
exemplified, I think, an act that was one of high mercy
and it seemed appropriate, I think, to him that it should
occur on a day when we do have thoughts like that, or should.
Q
Mr. Buchen, I don't understand why you
contrast the treatment of Nixon with the treatment of
Mitchell coming up. If I understand your statement right,
you said that Mitchell has not had the publicity and the
action by a hearing as Nixon had before the House Judiciary
Committee.
MR. BUCHEN: That was Mr. Jaworski's statement.
That was not mine.
Q
I don't understand this and maybe you can
explain what you think he means there. Mitchell certainly
had the hearing with conclusions and explanations of
conclusions of a hearing by the Watergate Committee.
MR. BUCHEN: There was a hearing, but I don't
know how conclusive the findings were.
Q
There was a hearing and Mitchell testified.
There was a public hearing and there were conclusions and
recommendations on that, and a press conference on that,
and great publicity.
MORE
- 13 -
MR. BUCHEN: I would judge that Mr. Jaworski
does not find those conclusions prejudicial to Mr. Mitchell's
upcoming case.
Q
Mr. Buchen, the President, in his statement
this morning, referred to this matter threatening the
former President's health. Do you have any further details
on that? Do you know anything about the former President's
health that we don't?
MR. BUCHEN: No, I didn't go out there, so I
didn't see the man.
Q Do you know what he meant by that?
MR. BUCHEN: I think it is generally known
that this man has suffered a good deal. I think you people
who saw him more recently than I have can form your own
conclusions.
Q
Has Mr. Ford and Mr. Nixon talked this
morning?
MR. BUCHEN: No, not to my knowledge, but I do
not believe they did.
Q
Do you know, was the President in a depression
and has the President threatened to commit suicide or
anything like that?
MR. BUCHEN: I have no knowledge.
Q
You say that you looked into this matter
from a constitutional standpoint for the President, and
I am sure you looked into the history of it. Has any
President ever granted a pardon before in history to
anyone prior to that person being charged with a crime
formally?
MR. BUCHEN: Oh, yes, there are lots of
precedents for that.
Q Like what?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, one of your colleagues,
named Mr. Burdick, was pardoned before he was asked to
testify regarding some alleged criminality involving the
Customs Service during the Wilson Administration and he
was given a pardon.
Q He was a newsman?
MR. BUCHEN: He was a newsman.
And, of course, the pardons granted by President
Lincoln, for example the pardons granted after the
Whiskey Rebellion and other insurrections, were applied
to people who were not indicted.
MORE
GENALD
LIBRARY
- 14 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, I am a little confused at your
words, more or less dismissing the question of whether
or not the President would grant pardons to Mr. Haldeman,
Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Mitchell and the others who will
go on trial September 30th. Is it not fairly
clear to you, or at least do you not, here in the White
House, admit the possibility that their defense now, in
light of the action of President Ford today, will be
that the President has pardoned the man under whose
orders they were operating and what is your reaction to
this possible line of defense or line of appeal by the
defendants in that trial?
SureLy, this must have been given some con-
sideration and I again would ask you what you think is
going to happen, what you think the President would do
when confronted with this question?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I question your broad characteri-
zation that the acts for which they are being charged were
necessarily --
Q
I am just suggesting this may be their
defense.
MR. BUCHEN: This may be their defense. Now, that
will become Mr. Jaworski's problem and, of course,
the judge's problem. You have already seen that Mr.
Jaworski apparently assumes that the situation in their
case is far different from the situation in the former
President's case.
Q
Phil, can I ask you this: Did this process
that led up to the pardon today start a week ago when the
President came to you?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
Was there something that happened just
prior to his coming to you that got his interest working
in doing this thing just now?
MR. BUCHEN: If there was, I don't know what it
was, Ron.
Q
Have they talked on the phone at any
time this week, or immediately prior to this week?
MR. BUCHEN: They have not talked on the phone
since Jack Miller became his attorney.
MORE
- 15 -
Q
Did this process start after last Sunday's
publication of the Gallup poll that said that the majority
of the public wanted to see Mr. Nixon prosecuted?
MR. BUCHEN: Let me figure my dates. That was
Labor Day week-end, was it? I worked all Labor Day week-
end so it came before that.
Q
To what extent did the transition team look
ahead to the problem of a pardon, and have you done any work
at all --
MR. BUCHEN: They didn't consider that. They had
far too much else to consider.
Q
As a matter of equal justice under law,
we have now had the two top officials of the United States,
both allegedly involved in crimes, namely, Vice President
Agnew and Mr. Nixon, who have been freed of criminal
charges. Both of them are entitled to go around the
country and represent themselves as being innocent. What
is a citizen to make of that situation when ordinary
criminals, including the aides involved in this, have
to be tried?
MR. BUCHEN: Of course I cannot speak at all
for the treatment of former Vice President Agnew because
this Administration was not in any way. involved. But I
think you have to understand -- and maybe it is a good time
on Sunday to think about it -- that there is a difference
between mercy and justice.
I don't think that you can assume that mercy is
equally dispensed or how it could be equally dispensed.
Q Mr. Buchen, is there any pardon being
considered for the aides who performed their acts allegedly
in the name of and in behalf of Richard Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: I have already spoken to that question.
Q
I don't think you have, Mr. Buchen. I am
actually talking about those now in prison, not Mr. Nixon.
John Dean and others?
MR. BUCHEN: So far as I know, no thought has been
given to that.
Q
Mr. Buchen, is it now possible under the
agreement on the custody of Presidential tapes and
papers for any tape made during the Nixon Administration
to be subpoenaed even though it is not now the subject of
a subpoena?
MORE
- 16 -
MR. BUCHEN: It is possible. In order to get a
subpoena, or court order, of course, certain showings
would have to be made. It is also possible, of course, for
the owner of the tapes to interject objections.
Q
A follow up to that. If the owner of those
tapes doesn't want to give them up -- he has now been
pardoned of everything -- what is the leverage?
MR. BUCHEN: It doesn't affect the court orders
or subpoenas, and he is subject to the consequences of
not obeying a valid court order or subpoena.
Q
In other words, that would come under the
expiration date of August 9 in the pardon; is that right?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
Q
Do you feel the agreement with Mr. Sampson
has insured that the Ford Administration cannot be impli-
cated in any Watergate cover-up? Was that one of your
considerations?
MR. BUCHEN: That was not involved because I
don't think that is a relevant issue.
Q
Is there any change in the rules of access
to documents by former White House aides?
MR. BUCHEN: The problem is that there would, of
course, be an interim before the Nixon-Sampson letter agree-
ments can be fully implemented. How we will handle the
interim arrangements, I am sure can be worked out with
Jack Miller as attorney for Mr. Nixon.
MORE
- 17 -
Q
As you recall, in the Agnew case, a paper
prepared by the Justice Department listing the law viola-
tions by the former Vice President was presented in court
on the theory that the American people were entitled
to have the full story in addition to the specific
charge to which the former Vice President pleaded?
In President Ford's preparation for today, what
thought did he give to the presentation of an analysis
by Special Prosecutor Jaworski of the full extent of
President Nixon's role in the Watergate case, and is there
any understanding at this point of eliminating Special
Prosecutor Jaworski's ability to pursue that type
of investigation?
MR. BUCHEN: There is no limitation on what
Mr. Jawarskican do except, of course, the putative
defendant has the defense now of pardon.
On the first part of your question, there is
a distinct difference between asking a man to plead
guilty to a limited offense and the treatment of Mr.
Agnew, of course, was done under very different circumstances
by the system of justice. In this case, it was reliance
entirely on the pardon powers which involve acts of
mercy.
Q
You said earlier that you had assumed that
Mr. Nixon may have been prosecuted, is that as far as
you are willing to go on that issue? Did you all think it
was likely that he would be prosecuted?
MR. BUCHEN: If you mean tried or indicted?
Q Indicted?
MR. BUCHEN: I think it would be very likely
that he would be indicted. How and when he could be tried
was still an open question.
Q
This likelihood, is that on the strength
of your conversation with Mr. Jasorski that you think
it was very likely?
MR. BUCHEN: No, it was largely on the basis of
what the Grand Jury apparently intended to do on the basis
of less evidence than is now available.
Q
Mr. Buchen, if the ex-President retains the
sole right of access to the documents and as I understand
this GSA agreement, can even limit access by the Archivist
of the United States and his staff, why should the United
States remain as custodian of the documents at all?
MORE
- 18 -
MR. BUCHEN: There is a double-key arrangement.
In, other words, access can't be obtained by either the
former President or the General Services Administration
except by their concurrent acts.
Q
But he could conceivably, to prevent himself
from embarrassment, limit access -- no one could see these
documents during the three years the United States
agrees to act as custodian.
MR. BUCHEN: Unless there is a court order or
subpoena.
Q
What about the court orders or subpoenas
that are outstanding?
MR. BUCHEN: We will have to take this agreement
to the courts involved in those proceedings and seek relief
from the present processes and subpoenas on the basis
of the current agreement.
Q
Mr. Buchen, did you and the President give
much consideration to the fact that a criminal trial
could have cleared Mr. Nixon of the charges of possible
guilt, could have cleared him, cleared his name?
MR. BUCHEN: We certainly recognized that as a
possibility. Whether it was given any consideration,
I don't know.
Q
I mean by you or the President?
Q
Well, you were there. What was your
own view?
MR. BUCHEN: My own view is that that was a
possibility. If that was what the former President wanted
to do, he certainly would have told us. He didn't have to
accept the pardon.
Q
Did you recommend the pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: I had nothing to do with recommending
it or disrecommending it.
Q
Did you ever discuss the political implications
of this pardon with the President?
MR. BUCHEN: I did not.
Q
Mr. Buchen, to follow up on some of these
other questions, it seems that President Ford has an interest
in building into the public record a record of Mr. Nixon's
alleged criminality for the same reasons that Mr. Agnew's
alleged criminality was made a part of the record, to prevent
him from saying that he was driven out by political
opponents, et cetera. Is President Ford satisfied that
former President Nixon's record of wrongdoing is sufficiently
in the public record now?
MORE
- 19 -
MR. BUCHEN: All I can tell you is that he knows
nothing that you don't know.
Q
Mr. Buchen, does the pardon in any way
affect Mr. Nixon's payment of back income taxes?
MR. BUCHEN: Not at all. This does not apply to
civil liabilities.
Q
Let's get back to this double-key
arrangement. This is just so much lawyer's language.
MR. BUCHEN: I know that is complicated.
Q
Does that double-key arrangement prevent
the President from going in there and destroying some
of those tapes if he wanted to?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, it does.
Q
So, there is adequate safeguards?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
Does it mean that if any of those tapes
are subpoenaed and he just refuses to honor those subpoenas,
then what would happen?
MR. BUCHEN: He would be subject to contempt of
the court that issued the subpoenas. It doesn't apply to
any future acts.
Q
When will the tapes be physically moved
to this repository in California or are they going
to remain here?
MR. BUCHEN: No, they will be moved to the Cali-
fornia repository as soon as we can get rid of, or
modification of the existing orders that require they be
retained here.
Q
Is that that Laguna Niguel pyramid they
will be put in?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
But nobody can get in there by themselves.
There will always be somebody to watch; is that correct?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
When you way "current", are you referring
to the two court orders that are pending?
MORE
- 20 -
MR. BUCHEN: There are at least three court
orders that I know of. One is in the Wounded Knee
case in Minnesota. Another is in the nature of an order
because the court declined to issue the order on the
assurance that documents or tapes could not be moved, and
that is the case involving the networks. So, you can
get Ron to answer your questions on that.
The third one is the civil suit in North Carolina
involving a suit by people kept out of a meeting to
celebrate Billy Graham Day.
Q Mr. Buchen, Mr. Jaworski has, of course,
in his possession a considerable number of tapes which
are not the originals. They are copies. This agreement
with Mr. Sampson does not affect that, does it? They
don't have to be returned to the mass to be moved out to
Laguna?
MR. BUCHEN: The copies will be disposed of as
the court orders, I assume.
Q
But this does not require them to be re-
turned to the big group?
MR. BUCHEN: No.
Q
Can I clarify the chronology of all this?
When is the first time the President indicated to you
he might want to pardon Mr. Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: Just at the start of the Labor Day
weekend.
Q
On which day?
MR. BUCHEN: I know I started to work Friday
night, so it must have been Friday.
Q
Did you have any contact with Mr. Miller
on the issue of a pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: Not at that time. The first contact,
I think, was on Thursday of this week.
Q
And you can't suggest what precipitated
the President's interest?
MR. BUCHEN: I do not know.
Q
Can you tell us whether the President ever
tried to -- I hesitate to use "extract" -- but get
any admission of guilt from the President, or was it
strictly --
MR. BUCHEN: He did not.
MORE
- 21 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, you said that President Ford has
not talked to former President Nixon since Mr. Nixon
retained Miller. Could you tell us the last time President
Ford had contact with President Nixon, direct contact?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know. I think it may have been
the time of the Rockefeller appointment.
Q Mr. Buchen, I am not clear on one thing,
and following up Helen's question, your emissary went out
on that Thursday, Mr. Becker went out on Thursday, that
was the only time he went out. I am trying to get clear
in my mind precisely what it was he told the former
President, or told Mr. Ziegler, and both of them at different
times, that President Ford, in all probability would grant
a pardon. What did he ask either of Mr. Nixon or Mr.
Ziegler? What did he ask that Mr. Nixon do? Did he ask
that this statement we have been given today be
issued? Did he suggest wording and what it should say
or did he ask for nothing? Did he ask for more than what
we got in this statement?
You say at one point the former President could
have turned down the pardon.
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
Did he offer that option and did he say
if the pardon was to be granted, what the former President
then should do?
MR. BUCHEN: The former President was represented
by counsel, you know.
Q
Well, did he make the offer to Mr. Miller?
MR. BUCHEN: Mr. Miller is shrewd enough
attorney to know that he could have advised his client
to accept or reject the pardon.
To answer your other question, as you can
see, that letter agreement is a very complicated one
and it involved a lot of practical problems. Before
Miller and Becker went out, a rough draft of Miller's pro-
posal was in our hands. But it was obvious that we could
not work out the details of what would suit Miller's
client and what would suit GSA and what would suit what we
thought was the best interests of the Government and of the
potential other parties in interest without going out and
making the final draft out there. And that was done.
As far as the statement from the former President
is concerned, that was a matter that was left entirely
up to the discretion of his own counsel and his
own advisers.
MORE
- 22 -
Q
Let me see if I can put it another
way, Mr. Buchen. Was the pardon in any of the conversa-
tions involving yourself, Mr. Becker, or anyone else, with
anyone representing the former President, was this
pardon contingent on anything?
MORE
- 23 -
MR. BUCHEN: I have said no and I repeat no.
Q
Are you saying if he had not given this
letter at all, if he had said, "Well, I will make no letter
agreement," are you saying categorically that a pardon
would have been issued anyway?
MR. BUCHEN: I am not sure because President
Ford could have changed his mind or not made up his mind
finally.
Q
When was the package completed that was
announced today?
MR. BUCHEN: We got the agreement back on early
Saturday morning and spent that day reviewing it with
Mr. Sampson so that was wound up.
Q
You mean yesterday morning?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, yesterday morning. The statement,
of course, we didn't see until we got it over the wires right
after the speech.
Q
Did the President know there was going to
be a statement before he finally decided on the pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
Did he have any idea what the contents would
be, what the tone would be?
MR. BUCHEN: In a general way, yes.
Q
You are saying that the pardon had nothing
to do with this letter agreement?
MR. BUCHEN: That was not a condition.
Q
This was a completely independent action?
MR. BUCHEN: Right. The negotiations for that
agreement were started independently before even considera-
tion of a pardon.
Q
The decision to pardon was not made until
after this agreement was obtained?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
Q
What you are saying, you cannot say there
would have been a pardon if the agreement had not been
made?
MORE
- 24 -
MR. BUCHEN: All I can say is that the President
had the right not to grant a pardon because he had not
finally made up his mind to do so.
Q
When did he make up his mind to do so?
MR. BUCHEN: I suppose until that pen got on paper
or until he started making the statement.
Q
He made his decision after the agreement was
made?
MR. BUCHEN: That is correct, but what went on
in his mind, I don't know.
Q
When did he write the speech?
MR. BUCHEN: Last night.
Q
In sending this word through the emissary
to Mr. Nixon that he was thinking of or expected to
pardon him but was reserving time judgment, was that in
any way intended as encouragement to Mr. Nixon to get
on with the final agreements and possibly offer the kind of
a statement that he did offer today?
MR. BUCHEN: That was not the intent. If it
created that impression, it was a wrong impression.
Q
Mr. Buchen, you just said that the President had
an indication in a general way of content of the former
President's statement. If I may ask a two-part question:
How did he obtain this indication, and did he believe, or
was he informed, that the statement would be one of contrition?
MR. BUCHEN: The report was through the mouth
of Benton Becker, and the characterization of it as an act
of contrition is mine.
Q
Excuse me, then. What general feeling did the
President have that the statement would be, what indication
did he have of what the statement would be? How was it
characterized by Mr. Becker?
MR. BUCHEN: He in general told the President
what it amounts to and in particular called attention to
the fact that there would be an acknowledgement of failure
to act decisively and forthrightly on the matter of the
Watergate break-in after it became a judicial proceeding.
Q
Was that negotiated at all?
MR. BUCHEN: It was not negotiated.
MORE
- 25 -
Q
Was Mr. Becker informed of that on
Thursday at the time he went out there?
MR. BUCHEN: I think he was informed on Friday
because he got out there very late on Thursday night.
Q
Do you know if that information had any
effect on Mr. Ford's decision?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know. I am sure it pleased
him and made him feel that it was easier for him to act
as he contemplated doing.
MR. BUCHEN: We will take three more questions.
Q Would you please clear up some things about
this letter of agreement. I am sorry, but it will take me
some time to understand it. Let me see here if this is
what it means. Unless there is a subpoena or a court
order which Mr. Nixon would reply to, any ordinary citizen
of the United States, or any officials, outside of Sampson,
could not just go in there and look at these tapes or
listen to them, or see them at any time. They will be shut
off completely to the public?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
Q
Mr. Buchen, why is the date of July 1969
mentioned in the pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: It is January, the date of inaugura-
tion, January 20. President Ford misspoke when he used
the word "July".
Q
How complete was your explanation of the
case against the former President by Mr. Jaworski? Did
he go into what areas that he might be pursuing, what
he heard on the tapes that have not been made public?
Anything like that?
MR. BUCHEN: The question asked him what matters
could arguably involve further steps, and it read like a
list from one of your newspapers.
Q Did Mr. Becker talk strictly with you or
did he ever speak to Mr. Ford? Did he deal strictly with
you?
MR. BUCHEN: Oh, no; he was also in the room
on occasions when I was speaking to the President.
Q
Why did he pick Becker to do this?
MORE
- 26 -
MR. BUCHEN: Part of the problem, as you may
know, is we have a rather understaffed legal staff here
and Mr. Becker is a man of rare talen that helped during
the confirmation hearings of the Vice President, and he is
such a good and trusted friend of both of ours that we
felt he was the one we should call on.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. BUCHEN: All I am going to say is, for the
tapes there will be two five-year windows. The first
of the five-year windows involves controlled access by
the former President for his listening to copies of tapes,
copies to be made by an operator who himself does not listen
to the originals.
Also, during the first five-year window, anyone
with a legitimate court subpoena or order that is upheld
can have access or can require the former President to
furnish the information contained on relevant portions of
the tapes.
At the end of that first five-year period, the
former President retains his window, but also can order
selective destruction of tapes. At the end of the ten-
year period, they all get destroyed, all that remain.
Q
In the second five-year window, is that just
by persons who have legitimate subpoenas and court orders
closed off?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right, because there is a
five-year statute of limitations on most, in fact on all,
Federal offenses and most civil matters, so it is assumed
the initial five-year window is long enough.
Q
What is the limit on destruction after
five years plus one day, or can he destroy them all?
MR. BUCHEN: He can.
Q He can?
MR. BUCHEN: He can order them destroyed.
Q
If they were making any copies, would the
originals then be destroyed in the second five-year window?
MR. BUCHEN: The originals will be destroyed.
The copies will be destroyed immediately after they are
used.
MORE
- 27 -
Q
And he could do it after five years and
one day for everything?
MR. BUCHEN: Right.
Q
Now can you go then from there to the
documents?
MR. BUCHEN: The documents are a different
category. There is no present gift of documents as
distinguished from the tapes. However, there is a three-
year period when there will be controlled access by the
owner of those documents requiring the double-key
arrangement with the General Services Administrator. And
the former President is under obligation to respond to
any subpoena involving documents, just as he is to those
involving tapes.
During the three-year period involving documents,
the former President will be under obligation to respond
to subpoenas involving those documents. At any time, the
former President can designate certain documents by
description to become the absolute property of the United
States.
However, after the three-year period, he may
either elect to complete his gifts or to withdraw materials
as he desires. These are documentary materials.
Q
Why the three-year limit?
MR. BUCHEN: We felt that as a practical matter
on the documentation that would be long enough. It gives
everybody a warning. Obviously if there is a subpoena
out that was obtained in the three years and the matter
of its resolution has not been concluded, the subpoena
would prevail.
Q
Can you destroy the documents after three
years?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, if he wants to withdraw them.
MORE
- 28 -
Q
By the way, Mr. Buchen, I may be wrong in what
I am about to say, but I am going to predicate a question
on it, nevertheless.
I am under the impression that the tapes, as
opposed to documents, the tapes were that things such
as taperecordings were not covered when Congress covered
that loophole and for that reason, the former President
could donate those tapes to the Government and claim
a tax exemption.
Your second window, the ten-year time for destruc-
tion appears to rule that out; is that right?
MR. BUCHEN: He has already given them to the U.S.
Government to be a gift effective at the end of the 5-year
period.
Q After he destroys them all?
MR. BUCHEN: He can't destroy them during the
first five-year period.
Q
He has given them as a gift to the United
States -- we are talking about tapes now -- he has
given them as a gift to the United States for five
years; is that right?
MR. BUCHEN: No, it is the other way around.
He has retained title for five years and the gift takes
effect at the end of the fifth year.
Q But he can destroy his gift?
MR. BUCHEN: He doesn't have access to them.
Q But he can the next day. Didn't you
say five years and one day he could destroy them all?
MR. BUCHEN: He can order their destruction.
Q What can he do with the copies? Can he
dispose of them for his own purpose?
MR. BUCHEN: No, the copies will go back into the
hands of the General Services Administrator and they
will be destroyed after he has listened to them.
Q
Mr. Buchen, after the ten-year period, is it
mandated that the tapes, all tapes and all copies be
destroyed?
MR. BUCHEN: That is a condition.
MORE
- 29 -
Q
So, his gift in the second five years is a
limited gift, in time it is a limited gift, say limited
to five years; is that right?
MR. BUCHEN: No.
Q
You say he has given them to the United
States?
MR. BUCHEN: Effective five years from now.
Q
Why are they going to be destroyed after
five years?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, maybe they never should
have been made in the first place. This was his desire
and I think 1t is consistent with the fact that these
matters do involve conversations with people who had no
realization that their voices were being recorded.
As an old spokesman for the right of privacy,
I think there is considerable merit for putting these in
a separate category from documents.
Q
Mr. Buchen, was any consideration given
to the right of history?
MR. BUCHEN: I am sure the historians will pro-
test, but I think historians cannot complain if evidence
for history is not perpetuated which shouldn't have been
created in the first place.
Q
Is there anything he can keep, or intends to
keep?
MR. BUCHEN: I am sure there are items in the
documents that he would intend to keep. Of course, it
would involve family letters, things of a highly personal
nature.
Q
Mr. Buchen, if it is Mr. Nixon's desire to
destroy the tapes after ten years, would it not be logical
to assume he will destroy them after five years?
MR. BUCHEN: That is his option, order them
destroyed.
Q
What about the gift option? The tax deduction
option?
MR. BUCHEN: I am not his tax lawyer and it seems
to me if you give a gift with instructions that the items
have to be destroyed, that the gift immediately loses its
value, so I would think it would be very questionable.
MORE
- 30 -
Q
What about the President, though? Could
he --
MR. BUCHEN: They will not be perpetuated
beyond the limited use.
Q
Does the word "copies" include written
transcripts as well as the originals?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
As a practical matter, at the end of
five years, then all the tapes will be destroyed except
those under subpoena?
MR. BUCHEN: No, because he reserves the right
to keep the window open for himself for another five years?
Q
Just the President, no public?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
Q
Is it a question they can be destroyed
in five years, but must be destroyed in ten years?
MR. BUCHEN: They can't be destroyed short of
five years.
Q
Mr. Buchen, Prosecutor Jaworski gave no
indication that he objected to the pardon. Is it your
impression that he sort of feels relieved?
MR. BUCHEN: Wouldn't you if you were in his
place?
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 1:28 P.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 8, 1974
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
PHILIP BUCHEN
COUNSELLOR TO THE PRESIDENT
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 12:12 P.M.
MR. TER HORST: Gentlemen, if you are ready for
the briefing, we have Philip Buchen, the legal counsel of
the White House to address your questions on the President's
statement and on the documents you have in your hand.
As you know, he is the President's legal adviser.
He was very much a participant in the preparation of this
proclamation and so here is Mr. Buchen to take your questions.
I think he may have an opening statement which
he may like to read first.
MR. BUCHEN: Thank you, Jerry.
I appreciate your all being here on this
Sunday morning, or midday.
I wanted just to say a few things first, because
it may answer questions in advance, and at the conclusion
of these remarks, I will try to field the questions you
throw this way.
In addition to the major developments of this
morning when President Ford granted a pardon to former
President Nixon, I have two other legal developments to
announce which occurred prior to the issuance of the
proclamation of pardon.
The first involves the opinion of Attorney
General William B. Saxbe President Ford dealing with
papers and other records, including tapes, retained during
the Administration of former President Nixon in the White
House offices.
In this opinion, the Attorney General concludes
that such materials are the present property of Mr, Nixon;
however, it also concluded that during the time the materials
remain in the custody of the United States, they are subject
to subpoenas and court orders directed to any official
who controls that custody. And in this conclusion, I have
concurred.
MORE
- 2 -
This opinion was sought by the President from
the Attorney General on August 22.
Q
When you say the President, you mean
President Ford?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
The reason for seeking the opinion was the conflict
created between Mr. Nixon's request on the one hand for
delivery to his control of the materials, and on the
other hand, the pending court orders and subpoenas
directed at the United States and certain of its officials.
The court orders have required that the custody
of the materials be maintained at their present locations.
And both the orders and subpoenas have called for the
identification and production of certain materials allegedly
relevant to court proceedings in which the orders and
subpoenas originated.
In addition, we were advised of interests of
other parties in having certain records disclosed to them
under warning that if they were to be removed and delivered
to the control of Mr. Nixon, court action would be taken
to prevent that move and to protect the claimed rights
to inspection or disclosure.
Therefore, it became fully apparent that unless
this conflict was resolved, the present Administration
would be enmeshed for a long time in answering the
disputed claims over who could obtain information from
the Nixon records, how requested information could, as
a practical matter, be extracted from the vast volume of
records in which it might appear, and how, and by whom
its relevancy in any particular court proceeding could
be determined, and at the same time to try satisfying
the claims of Mr. Nixon that he owned the records.
Within a week of the request by the Attorney
General for an opinion made by President Ford, I was
advised informally of what its general nature would be.
From that time on, I realized that the opinion itself
would mt provide a practical solution to the handling
and management of the papers so as to reconcile rights and
interest of private ownership with the limited but very
important rights and interest of litigants to disclosure
of selected relevant parts of the materials.
Thus I initiated conversations with the Attorney
General's Office, Special Prosecutor Jaworski, with attorneys
for certain litigants seeking disclosure, and with Herbert
J. Miller, as soon as he became attorney for Mr. Nixon.
The purpose of these conversations was to explore
ways for reconciling these different interests in records
of the previous Administration so that this Administration
would not be caught in the middle of trying on a case-by-
case basis to resolve each dispute over the right of access
or disclosure.
MORE
- 3 -
The outcome of these conversations was the
conclusion on my part that Mr. Nixon, as the principal
party in interest, should be requested to come forth with
the proposal for dealing satisfactorily with Presidential
material of his Administration in ways that offered
reasonable protection and safeguards to each party who
has a legitimate court-supported right to production of
particular materials relevant to his case.
Mr. Nixon and his attorney then agreed to
pursue this approach and in company with White House
Counsel, they were able to accomplish the second of the
developments which I am announcing today.
And that is the letter agreement, of which you
have copies, between former President Nixon and Arthur
F. Sampson, Administrator of the General Services
Administration.
These two developments are, of course, much less
significant than the one you have learned about earlier.
President Ford has chosen to carry out a responsibility
expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution of ensuring
domestic tranquility, and has chosen to do so by exercise
of a power that he alone has under the Constitution to
grant a pardon for offenses against the United States.
About a week ago, President Ford asked me to
study traditional precedents bearing on the exercise
of his right to grant a pardon, particularly with
reference to whether or not a pardon could only follow
indictment or conviction. The answer I found, based on
considerable authority, was that a pardon could be
granted at any time and need not await an indictment or
conviction.
President Ford also asked me to investigate how
long it would be before prosecution of former President
Nixon could occur, if it were brought, and how long
it would take to bring it to a conclusion.
On this point, I consulted with Special Prosecutor
Jaworski and he advised me as follows, and has authorized
me to quote his language, and I quote:
"The factual situation regarding a trial of
Richard M. Nixon within Constitutional bounds is un-
precedented. It is especially unique in view of the
recent House Judiciary Committee inquiry on impeachment,
resulting in a unanimous adverse finding to Richard M.
Nixon on the article involving obstruction of justice.
"The massive publicity given the hearings and
the findings that ensued, the reversal of judgment of a
number of Members of the Republican Party following the
release of the June 23rd taperecording, and their
statements carried nationwide. And, finally, the
MORE
FORD LIBRARY
- 4 -
resignation of Richard M. Nixon require a delay before
selection of a jury is begun of a period from nine months
to a year, and perhaps even longer.
"This judgment is predicated on a review of the
decisions of the United States courts involving prejudicial
pre-trial publicity."
Q Is that the end of the quotes?
MR. BUCHEN: No, I am going on to indicate
something else that will be of interest to you. That is
the end of that quote.
Another quote from his communication to me is as
follows: "The situation involving Richard M. Nixon is
readily distinguishable from the facts involved in the
case of United States versus Mitchell, et al, set for
trial on September 30th.
"The defendants in the Mitchell case were
indicted by a grand jury operating in secret session.
They will be called to trial, unlike Richard M. Nixon,
if indicted, without any previous adverse finding by
an investigatory body holding public hearings on its
conclusions."
That is the end of the quotation.
Q
Would you end that last sentence again?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes. It is an important one.
"They," meaning the defendants, "will be called to
trial, unlike Richard M. Nixon, if indicted, without any
previous adverse finding by an investigatory body holding
public hearings on its conclusions."
Except for my seeking and obtaining this
advice from Mr. Jaworski, none of my discussions with
him involved any understandings or commitments regarding
his role in the possible prosecution of former President
Nixon, or in the prosecution of others.
President Ford has not talked with Mr. Jaworski,
but I did report to President Ford the opinion of the
Special Prosecutor about the delay necessary before any
possible trial of the former President could begin.
I would also like to add on another subject,
no action or statement by former President Nixon, which
has been disclosed today, however welcome and helpful, was
made a pre-condition of the pardon.
That is a negative because of the word "no"
at the beginning. I might add that whether or not it
was disclosed today, it was not a pre-condition.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
There were no secret agreements made?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
President Ford in determining to issue a pardon
acted solely according to the dictates of his own con-
science. Moreover, he did so as an act of mercy not
related in any way to obtaining concessions in return.
Q
Would you go over the last phrase?
Q After "mercy".
MR. BUCHEN: Mercy not related in any way to
obtaining concessions in return. However, my personal
view --
Q
Is that yours or Ford's?
MR. BUCHEN: Mine. -- is that former President
Nixon's words, which I have had a chance to read, as you
have, that followed the granting of a pardon, constitute
a statement of contrition which I believe will hasten the
time when he and his family may achieve peace of mind and
spirit and will much sooner bring peace of mind and spirit
to all of our citizens.
Q
Would you review that sentence?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
However, my personal view -- these are my own
words -- is that former Presidon Nixon's words expressed
upon his learning of the pardon, constitute a statement
of contrition which I believe will hasten the time when
he and his family may achieve peace of mind and spirit
and will much sooner bring peace of mind and spirit to all
of our citizens.
Now I have only one other paragraph that I would
like to bring out in conclusion. I want to express for
the record my heartfelt personal thanks and appreciation
to a dear firend of the President's and of mine. He is
Benton Becker, a Washington attorney, who has served
voluntarily as my special and trusted consultant and
emissary in helping to bring about the events recorded
today.
Q
Emissary to Mr. Jaworski or Mr. Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: To Mr. Miller and Mr. Nixon, not
to Mr. Jaworski.
MORE
LIBRARY
- 6 -
I also acknowledge with deep gratitude the
services of William Casselman, II, who is the highly
valued counsel -- who was the highly valued counsel to
Vice President Ford for his whole tenure in that office,
and is now my close associate in the service of the
President of the United States.
Q
Who informed President Nixon that he was
getting a pardon, and also is President Ford basing this
pardon only on the fact that it would have taken a long
time to try the Presidency in his own conscience?
MR. BUCHEN: Let me take the first question
first.
When Mr. Becker went to San Clemente on
Thursday evening, he was authorised to advise the former
President that President Ford was intending to grant a
pardon, subject, however, to his further consideration
of the matter because he wanted to reserve the chance to
deliberate and ponder somewhat longer, but he was
authorized to say that in all probability a pardon would
be issued in the near future.
The second question?
Q
The second question is: There is no admission
of guilt here at all and despite your assumptions that it is
contrition, there is no actual admission of guilt. Do you
agree?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, my interpretation is that it
comes very close to saying that he did wrong, that he did
not act forthrightly.
Q Mr. Buchen, what is the linkage between
the agreement between Mr. Sampson and Mr. Becker's negotia-
tions at San Clemente?
MR. BUCHEN: The initiative for getting an
agreement that would help solve our problems came from me
and I advised Mr. Miller as attorney for Mr. Nixon that
that was my desire. I so advised him before I knew anything
about a contemplated pardon.
Q Mr. Buchen --
MR. BUCHEN: May I finish, please?
However, as we purused talks on what to do with
the papers, I made it very clear to Mr. Miller that I wanted
the initiative to come from him and his client as to the
specifics of what he and his client would be willing to do
regarding the management and ultimate disposition of the
papers and tapes.
MORE
- 7 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, what will this mean as far as
former President Nixon's role as a witness in the upcoming
trials are concerned?
MR. BUCHEN: It would have no effect on that.
If the documents do get transferred in a timely fashion,
it may permit him to review the pertinent material more
adequately so far as his testimony is concerned.
MORE
- 8 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, doesn't this pardon eliminate
any possibility that the former President might invoke
the Fifth Amendment to testify?
MR. BUCHEN: I think you better ask his own
lawyer that. As you know, this applies only to offenses
against the United States. It does not apply to
possible offenses against State law.
Q
But regarding offenses against the United
States, he would have no Fifth Amendment rights now that
he has been pardoned; is that correct?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know that you can separate
them when you plead.
Q
Mr. Buchen, why did the President decide
to do this now at a time before the jury has been
sequestered in the September 30th trial?
MR. BUCHEN: That will have to be information
that will have to come from his statement. I have nothing
to add.
Q
Can you tell us if the President has
assured himself that former President Nixon is not guilty
or liable to accusation of any very serious charges that
have not been made public so far, that there is no other
time bomb ticking away?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't think he said that.
Q
No, no, I am saying, has President Ford done
anything to assure himself that there is no evidence
of any more serious criminality committed by former
President Nixon than what is generally out in the House
Judiciary Committee report and this sort of thing?
MR. BUCHEN: So far as I know, he has made no
independent inquiries. If he had wanted to satisfy
himself as to the content of the evidence still in the
White House, of course, that would have been an insur-
mountable task, as you have no idea of the huge volumes.
Q Did you assure yourself --
MR. BUCHEN: Just a minute. There are huge
volumes. However, I did personally consult with Mr.
Jaworski as to the nature of the investigation being
conducted and I was able to tell the President that so far
as I was able to learn through that inquiry, there were
no time bombs, as you call them.
MORE
- 9 -
Q Mr. Buchen, what was the President's reaction
when Mr. Becker conveyed this message to him?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know that it was done in
person. I don't think he was necessarily in the room, so
I don't believe he can --
Q Did you get any reaction from the President,
even if it was by mail or through counsel, did the
President say he was grateful for this?
MR. BUCHEN: The only reaction we have gotten
is the statement that came over the wire.
Q Are you saying that Ziegler got the word
from Becker and that President Nixon was not informed
personally at any time by Ford or by any emissary?
MR. BUCHEN: I think you will have to ask Mr.
Becker that. My understanding is that initially the
talks went through Mr. Ziegler, but there were also
face-to-face meetings between Mr. Becker and the
President and what occurred by one method, and one
by the other, I don't know.
Q There was no personal contact between
Ford and Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: None at all.
Q You refer to Becker as an emissary and
you talk about one meeting out there Thursday to notify
him. What were the reasons for his previous trips back
and forth? What was discussed?
MR. BUCHEN: Becker only went once.
Q Only on Thursday?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes. And not only to discuss that,
they had to work out the details of that letter agreement
because Miller and Becker were in negotiation and Miller
had to consult his client and they had to make modifications.
And they had to call back to see whether that fit in correct-
ly with what General Services Administration could feasibly
do. So, that involved a lot of the time he was out there.
Q Mr. Buchen, did Mr. Jaworski inform you that
an indictment, or indictments, against former President
Nixon were expected?
MR. BUCHEN: No, he did not.
MORE
ADVORT
- 10 -
Q
May I follow that, then? Isn't the granting
of a pardon at this stage an admission that an indictment
was expected and that conviction was probable?
MR. BUCHEN: I think you have to recall that
word came out that the Grand Jury at one time wanted to
name the former President, or then President, as a co-
conspirator and that is one evidence that something more
would have happened.
And I think it is very likely, from all we have
read, that there would be people who would want him prose-
cuted and would intend to do so, although I don't say that
that was Mr. Jaworski's view.
Q
Was Mr. Jaworski ever consulted about this
pardon, ever asked about this?
MR. BUCHEN: No.
Q
Did Jaworski agree to what was done today?
MR. BUCHEN: He has no voice in it.
Q
Do you know what his mood or sentiment was?
MR. BUCHEN: You will have to ask him. I want
to get to Peter, here.
Q
I wanted to follow up that line. You know
we are not able to get a response from Mr. Jaworski's
office and it would really help us for you to tell us
all you can about the status of the investigation against
the President, former President Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't have that information, Peter.
That is kept in his shop.
Q
But in that regard, why was he not consulted
about what kind of action he contemplated against the
President before the pardon was issued?
MR. BUCHEN: We didn't think that was relevant.
Q
You assumed he would be prosecuted; is that
right?
MR. BUCHEN: We assumed that he may be prosecuted.
Q
When was Jaworski told?
MR. BUCHEN: About the pardon?
MORE
FORD
- 11 -
Q
About the pardon.
MR. BUCHEN: I called him about three-quarters
of an hour before I knew the President was going to announce
it so that he would know it.
Q
Today?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
What was his reaction?
Q
When was that?
MR. BUCHEN: He thanked me for advising him in
advance of his hearing it over the radio or TV.
Q
And he did not object?
MR. BUCHEN: He didn't. He didn't say anything
one way or the other.
Q
As we read this statement, which does not
admit guilt whatsoever, what is to prevent the former
President from going out, say six months hence, and saying
that nothing was really ever proven against him and he
was hounded out of office?
MR. BUCHEN: I guess he has the right to say
that because, until an indictment and conviction, I think
that would be true in his case as well as anybody else's
case who is under a cloud of suspicion.
Q
But President Ford spoke of the historical
aspects of this and what is going to keep history from
getting more muddled than ever?
MR. BUCHEN: I think the historians will take
care of that.
Q
Mr. Buchen, does President Ford plan to grant
a similar pardon to the former President's subordinates who
are scheduled to go on trial later this month?
MR. BUCHEN: To my knowledge, he has not given
that matter any thought.
Q
Can you clarify, was the agreement reached
with the GSA about the disposal of the tapes and documents?
Was the pardon contingent on that?
MR. BUCHEN: Neither.
MORE
- 12 -
Q
They are not together?
MR. BUCHEN: Right.
Q
Number two, why did he choose 10:30, Sunday
morning, to make the announcement?
MR. BUCHEN: I think you will have to ask him
that. He figured that this was a very solemn moment that
exemplified, I think, an act that was one of high mercy
and it seemed appropriate, I think, to him that it should
occur on a day when we do have thoughts like that, or should.
Q
Mr. Buchen, I don't understand why you
contrast the treatment of Nixon with the treatment of
Mitchell coming up. If I understand your statement right,
you said that Mitchell has not had the publicity and the
action by a hearing as Nixon had before the House Judiciary
Committee.
MR. BUCHEN: That was Mr. Jaworski's statement.
That was not mine.
Q
I don't understand this and maybe you can
explain what you think he means there. Mitchell certainly
had the hearing with conclusions and explanations of
conclusions of a hearing by the Watergate Committee.
MR. BUCHEN: There was a hearing, but I don't
know how conclusive the findings were.
Q There was a hearing and Mitchell testified.
There was a public hearing and there were conclusions and
recommendations on that, and a press conference on that,
and great publicity.
MORE
FORD
- 13 -
MR. BUCHEN: I would judge that Mr. Jaworski
does not find those conclusions prejudicial to Mr. Mitchell's
upcoming case.
Q Mr. Buchen, the President, in his statement
this morning, referred to this matter threatening the
former President's health. Do you have any further details
on that? Do you know anything about the former President's
health that we don't?
MR. BUCHEN: No, I didn't go out there, so I
didn't see the man.
Q Do you know what he meant by that?
MR. BUCHEN: I think it is generally known
that this man has suffered a good deal. I think you people
who saw him more recently than I have can form your own
conclusions.
Q
Has Mr. Ford and Mr. Nixon talked this
morning?
MR. BUCHEN: No, not to my knowledge, but I do
not believe they did.
Q
Do you know, was the President in a depression
and has the President threatened to commit suicide or
anything like that?
MR. BUCHEN: I have no knowledge.
Q
You say that you looked into this matter
from a constitutional standpoint for the President, and
I am sure you looked into the history of it. Has any
President ever granted a pardon before in history to
anyone prior to that person being charged with a crime
formally?
MR. BUCHEN: Oh, yes, there are lots of
precedents for that.
Q Like what?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, one of your colleagues,
named Mr. Burdick, was pardoned before he was asked to
testify regarding some alleged criminality involving the
Customs Service during the Wilson Administration and he
was given a pardon.
Q He was a newsman?
MR. BUCHEN: He was a newsman.
And, of course, the pardons granted by President
Lincoln, for example -- the pardons granted after the
Whiskey Rebellion and other insurrections, were applied
to people who were not indicted.
MORE
- 14 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, I am a little confused at your
words, more or less dismissing the question of whether
or not the President would grant pardons to Mr. Haldeman,
Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Mitchell and the others who will
go on trial September 30th. Is it not fairly
clear to you, or at least do you not, here in the White
House, admit the possibility that their defense now, in
light of the action of President Ford today, will be
that the President has pardoned the man under whose
orders they were operating and what is your reaction to
this possible line of defense or line of appeal by the
defendants in that trial?
SureLy, this must have been given some con-
sideration and I again would ask you what you think is
going to happen, what you think the President would do
when confronted with this question?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I question your broad characteri-
zation that the acts for which they are being charged were
necessarily --
Q
I am just suggesting this may be their
defense.
MR. BUCHEN: This may be their defense. Now, that
will become Mr. Jaworski's problem and, of course,
the judge's problem. You have already seen that Mr.
Jaworski apparently assumes that the situation in their
case is far different from the situation in the former
President's case.
Q
Phil, can I ask you this: Did this process
that led up to the pardon today start a week ago when the
President came to you?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
Was there something that happened just
prior to his coming to you that got his interest working
in doing this thing just now?
MR. BUCHEN: If there was, I don't know what it
was, Ron.
Q
Have they talked on the phone at any
time this week, or immediately prior to this week?
MR. BUCHEN: They have not talked on the phone
since Jack Miller became his attorney.
MORE
FORD
- 15 -
Q Did this process start after last Sunday's
publication of the Gallup poll that said that the majority
of the public wanted to see Mr. Nixon prosecuted?
MR. BUCHEN: Let me figure my dates. That was
Labor Day week-end, was it? I worked all Labor Day week-
end so it came before that.
Q
To what extent did the transition team look
ahead to the problem of a pardon, and have you done any work
at all --
MR. BUCHEN: They didn't consider that. They had
far too much else to consider.
Q
As a matter of equal justice under law,
we have now had the two top officials of the United States,
both allegedly involved in crimes, namely, Vice President
Agnew and Mr. Nixon, who have been freed of criminal
charges. Both of them are entitled to go around the
country and represent themselves as being innocent. What
is a citizen to make of that situation when ordinary
criminals, including the aides involved in this, have
to be tried?
MR. BUCHEN: Of course I cannot speak at all
for the treatment of former Vice President Agnew because
this Administration was not in any way involved. But I
think you have to understand -- and maybe it is a good time
on Sunday to think about it -- that there is a difference
between mercy and justice.
I don't think that you can assume that mercy is
equally dispensed or how it could be equally dispensed.
Q
Mr. Buchen, is there any pardon being
considered for the aides who performed their acts allegedly
in the name of and in behalf of Richard Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: I have already spoken to that question.
Q
I don't think you have, Mr. Buchen. I am
actually talking about those now in prison, not Mr. Nixon.
John Dean and others?
MR. BUCHEN: So far as I know, no thought has been
given to that.
Q
Mr. Buchen, is it now possible under the
agreement on the custody of Presidential tapes and
papers for any tape made during the Nixon Administration
to be subpoenaed even though it is not now the subject of
a subpoena?
MORE
- 16 -
MR. BUCHEN: It is possible. In order to get a
subpoena, or court order, of course, certain showings
would have to be made. It is also possible, of course, for
the owner of the tapes to interject objections.
Q
A follow up to that. If the owner of those
tapes doesn't want to give them up -- he has now been
pardoned of everything -- what is the leverage?
MR. BUCHEN: It doesn't affect the court orders
or subpoenas, and he is subject to the consequences of
not obeying a valid court order or subpoena.
Q
In other words, that would come under the
expiration date of August 9 in the pardon; is that right?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
Q
Do you feel the agreement with Mr. Sampson
has insured that the Ford Administration cannot be impli-
cated in any Watergate cover-up? Was that one of your
considerations?
MR, BUCHEN: That was not involved because I
don't think that is a relevant issue.
Q
Is there any change in the rules of access
to documents by former White House aides?
MR. BUCHEN: The problem is that there would, of
course, be an interim before the Nixon-Sampson letter agree-
ments can be fully implemented. How we will handle the
interim arrangements, I am sure can be worked out with
Jack Miller as attorney for Mr. Nixon.
MORE
FORD
- 17 -
Q
As you recall, in the Agnew case, a paper
prepared by the Justice Department listing the law viola-
tions by the former Vice President was presented in court
on the theory that the American people were entitled
to have the full story in addition to the specific
charge to which the former Vice President pleaded?
In President Ford's preparation for today, what
thought did he give to the presentation of an analysis
by Special Prosecutor Jaworski of the full extent of
President Nixon's role in the Watergate case, and is there
any understanding at this point of eliminating Special
Prosecutor Jaworski's ability to pursue that type
of investigation?
MR. BUCHEN: There is no limitation on what
Mr. Jawarskican do except, of course, the putative
defendant has the defense now of pardon.
On the first part of your question, there is
a distinct difference between asking a man to plead
guilty to a limited offense and the treatment of Mr.
Agnew, of course, was done under very different circumstances
by the system of justice. In this case, it was reliance
entirely on the pardon powers which involve acts of
mercy.
Q
You said earlier that you had assumed that
Mr. Nixon may have been prosecuted, is that as far as
you are willing to go on that issue? Did you all think it
was likely that he would be prosecuted?
MR. BUCHEN: If you mean tried or indicted?
Q Indicted?
MR. BUCHEN: I think it would be very likely
that he would be indicted. How and when he could be tried
was still an open question.
Q This likelihood, is that on the strength
of your conversation with Mr. Jasorski that you think
it was very likely?
MR. BUCHEN: No, it was largely on the basis of
what the Grand Jury apparently intended to do on the basis
of less evidence than is now available.
Q
Mr. Buchen, if the ex-President retains the
sole right of access to the documents and as I understand
this GSA agreement, can even limit access by the Archivist
of the United States and his staff, why should the United
States remain as custodian of the documents at all?
MORE
FORD
LIBRARY
- 18 -
MR. BUCHEN: There is a double-key arrangement.
In other words, access can't be obtained by either the
former President or the General Services Administration
except by their concurrent acts.
Q But he could conceivably, to prevent himself
from embarrassment, limit access -- no one could see these
documents during the three years the United States
agrees to act as custodian.
MR. BUCHEN: Unless there is a court order or
subpoena.
Q
What about the court orders or subpoenas
that are outstanding?
MR. BUCHEN: We will have to take this agreement
to the courts involved in those proceedings and seek relief
from the present processes and subpoenas on the basis
of the current agreement.
Q
Mr. Buchen, did you and the President give
much consideration to the fact that a criminal trial
could have cleared Mr. Nixon of the charges of possible
guilt, could have cleared him, cleared his name?
MR. BUCHEN: We certainly recognized that as a
possibility. Whether it was given any consideration,
I don't know.
Q
I mean by you or the President?
Q
Well, you were there. What was your
own view?
MR. BUCHEN: My own view is that that was a
possibility. If that was what the former President wanted
to do, he certainly would have told us. He didn't have to
accept the pardon.
Q
Did you recommend the pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: I had nothing to do with recommending
it or disrecommending it.
Q
Did you ever discuss the political implications
of this pardon with the President?
MR. BUCHEN: I did not.
Q
Mr. Buchen, to follow up on some of these
other questions, it seems that President Ford has an interest
in building into the public record a record of Mr. Nixon's
alleged criminality for the same reasons that Mr. Agnew's
alleged criminality was made a part of the record, to prevent
him from saying that he was driven out by political
opponents, et cetera. Is President Ford satisfied that
former President Nixon's record of wrongdoing is sufficiently
in the public record now?
MORE
- 19 -
MR. BUCHEN: All I can tell you is that he knows
nothing that you don't know.
Q
Mr. Buchen, does the pardon in any way
affect Mr. Nixon's payment of back income taxes?
MR. BUCHEN: Not at all. This does not apply to
civil liabilities.
Q
Let's get back to this double-key
arrangement. This is just so much lawyer's language.
MR. BUCHEN: I know that is complicated.
Q
Does that double-key arrangement prevent
the President from going in there and destroying some
of those tapes if he wanted to?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, it does.
Q
So, there is adequate safeguards?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
Does it mean that if any of those tapes
are subpoenaed and he just refuses to honor those subpoenas,
then what would happen?
MR. BUCHEN: He would be subject to contempt of
the court that issued the subpoenas. It doesn't apply to
any future acts.
Q
When will the tapes be physically moved
to this repository in California or are they going
to remain here?
MR. BUCHEN: No, they will be moved to the Cali-
fornia repository as soon as we can get rid of, or
modification of the existing orders that require they be
retained here.
Q
Is that that Laguna Niguel pyramid they
will be put in?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
But nobody can get in there by themselves.
There will always be somebody to watch; is that correct?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
When you way "current", are you referring
to the two court orders that are pending?
MORE
- 20 -
MR. BUCHEN: There are at least three court
orders that I know of. One is in the Wounded Knee
case in Minnesota. Another is in the nature of an order
because the court declined to issue the order on the
assurance that documents or tapes could not be moved, and
that is the case involving the networks. So, you can
get Ron to answer your questions on that.
The third one is the civil suit in North Carolina
involving a suit by people kept out of a meeting to
celebrate Billy Graham Day.
Q Mr. Buchen, Mr. Jaworski has, of course,
in his possession a considerable number of tapes which
are not the originals. They are copies. This agreement
with Mr. Sampson does not affect that, does it? They
don't have to be returned to the mass to be moved out to
Laguna?
MR. BUCHEN: The copies will be disposed of as
the court orders, I assume.
Q But this does not require them to be re-
turned to the big group?
MR. BUCHEN: No.
Q Can I clarify the chronology of all this?
When is the first time the President indicated to you
he might want to pardon Mr. Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: Just at the start of the Labor Day
weekend.
Q On which day?
MR. BUCHEN: I know I started to work Friday
night, so it must have been Friday.
Q Did you have any contact with Mr. Miller
on the issue of a pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: Not at that time. The first contact,
I think, was on Thursday of this week.
Q
And you can't suggest what precipitated
the President's interest?
MR. BUCHEN: I do not know.
Q
Can you tell us whether the President ever
tried to -- I hesitate to use "extract" -- but get
any admission of guilt from the President, or was it
strictly --
MR. BUCHEN: He did not.
MORE
- 21 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, you said that President Ford has
not talked to former President Nixon since Mr. Nixon
retained Miller. Could you tell us the last time President
Ford had contact with President Nixon, direct contact?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know. I think it may have been
the time of the Rockefeller appointment.
Q
Mr. Buchen, I am not clear on one thing,
and following up Helen's question, your emissary went out
on that Thursday, Mr. Becker went out on Thursday, that
was the only time he went out. I am trying to get clear
in my mind precisely what it was he told the former
President, or told Mr. Ziegler, and both of them at different
times, that President Ford, in all probability would grant
a pardon. What did he ask either of Mr. Nixon or Mr.
Ziegler? What did he ask that Mr. Nixon do? Did he ask
that this statement we have been given today be
issued? Did he suggest wording and what it should say
or did he ask for nothing? Did he ask for more than what
we got in this statement?
You say at one point the former President could
have turned down the pardon.
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
Did he offer that option and did he say
if the pardon was to be granted, what the former President
then should do?
MR. BUCHEN: The former President was represented
by counsel, you know.
Q
Well, did he make the offer to Mr. Miller?
MR. BUCHEN: Mr. Miller is shrewd enough
attorney to know that he could have advised his client
to accept or reject the pardon.
To answer your other question, as you can
see, that letter agreement is a very complicated one
and it involved a lot of practical problems. Before
Miller and Becker went out, a rough draft of Miller's pro-
posal was in our hands. But it was obvious that we could
not work out the details of what would suit Miller's
client and what would suit GSA and what would suit what we
thought was the best interests of the Government and of the
potential other parties in interest without going out and
making the final draft out there. And that was done.
As far as the statement from the former President
is concerned, that was a matter that was left entirely
up to the discretion of his own counsel and his
own advisers.
MORE
- 22 -
Q
Let me see if I can put it another
way, Mr. Buchen. Was the pardon in any of the conversa-
tions involving yourself, Mr. Becker, or anyone else, with
anyone representing the former President, was this
pardon contingent on anything?
MORE
SORD
LIBRARY
- 23 -
MR. BUCHEN: I have said no and I repeat no.
Q Are you saying if he had not given this
letter at all, if he had said, "Well, I will make no letter
agreement," are you saying categorically that a pardon
would have been issued anyway?
MR. BUCHEN: I am not sure because President
Ford could have changed his mind or not made up his mind
finally.
Q When was the package completed that was
announced today?
MR. BUCHEN: We got the agreement back on early
Saturday morning and spent that day reviewing it with
Mr. Sampson so that was wound up.
Q You mean yesterday morning?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, yesterday morning. The statement,
of course, we didn't see until we got it over the wires right
after the speech.
Q Did the President know there was going to
be a statement before he finally decided on the pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q Did he have any idea what the contents would
be, what the tone would be?
MR. BUCHEN: In a general way, yes.
Q You are saying that the pardon had nothing
to do with this letter agreement?
MR. BUCHEN: That was not a condition.
Q This was a completely independent action?
MR. BUCHEN: Right. The negotiations for that
agreement were started independently before even considera-
tion of a pardon.
Q The decision to pardon was not made until
after this agreement was obtained?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
Q What you are saying, you cannot say there
would have been a pardon if the agreement had not been
made?
MORE
- 24 -
MR. BUCHEN: All I can say is that the President
had the right not to grant a pardon because he had not
finally made up his mind to do SO.
Q
When did he make up his mind to do so?
MR. BUCHEN: I suppose until that pen got on paper
or until he started making the statement.
Q
He made his decision after the agreement was
made?
MR. BUCHEN: That is correct, but what went on
in his mind, I don't know.
Q
When did he write the speech?
MR. BUCHEN: Last night.
Q
In sending this word through the emissary
to Mr. Nixon that he was thinking of or expected to
pardon him but was reserving time judgment, was that in
any way intended as encouragement to Mr. Nixon to get
on with the final agreements and possibly offer the kind of
a statement that he did offer today?
MR. BUCHEN: That was not the intent. If it
created that impression, it was a wrong impression.
Q
Mr. Buchen, you just said that the President had
an indication in a general way of content of the former
President's statement. If I may ask a two-part question:
How did he obtain this indication, and did he believe, or
was he informed, that the statement would be one of contrition?
MR. BUCHEN: The report was through the mouth
of Benton Becker, and the characterization of it as an act
of contrition is mine.
Q Excuse me, then. What general feeling did the
President have that the statement would be, what indication
did he have of what the statement would be? How was it
characterized by Mr. Becker?
MR. BUCHEN: He in general told the President
what it amounts to and in particular called attention to
the fact that there would be an acknowledgement of failure
to act decisively and forthrightly on the matter of the
Watergate break-in after it became a judicial proceeding.
Q
Was that negotiated at all?
MR. BUCHEN: It was not negotiated.
MORE
LIBRARY GENALD FORD
- 25 -
Q
Was Mr. Becker informed of that on
Thursday at the time he went out there?
MR. BUCHEN: I think he was informed on Friday
because he got out there very late on Thursday night.
Q
Do you know if that information had any
effect on Mr. Ford's decision?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know. I am sure it pleased
him and made him feel that it was easier for him to act
as he contemplated doing.
MR. BUCHEN:
We will take three more questions.
Q
Would you please clear up some things about
this letter of agreement. I am sorry, but it will take me
some time to understand it. Let me see here if this is
what it means. Unless there is a subpoena or a court
order which Mr. Nixon would reply to, any ordinary citizen
of the United States, or any officials, outside of Sampson,
could not just go in there and look at these tapes or
listen to them, or see them at any time. They will be shut
off completely to the public?
MR.
BUCHEN:
That is right.
Q
Mr. Buchen, why is the date of July 1969
mentioned in the pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: It is January, the date of inaugura-
tion, January 20. President Ford misspoke when he used
the word "July".
Q
How complete was your explanation of the
case against the former President by Mr. Jaworski? Did
he go into what areas that he might be pursuing, what
he heard on the tapes that have not been made public?
Anything like that?
MR. BUCHEN: The question asked him what matters
could arguably involve further steps, and it read like a
list from one of your newspapers.
Q
Did Mr. Becker talk strictly with you or
did he ever speak to Mr. Ford? Did he deal strictly with
you?
MR. BUCHEN: Oh, no; he was also in the room
on occasions when I was speaking to the President.
Q
Why did he pick Becker to do this?
MORE
- 26 -
MR. BUCHEN: Part of the problem, as you may
know, is we have a rather understaffed legal staff here
and Mr. Becker is a man of rare talen that helped during
the confirmation hearings of the Vice President, and he is
such a good and trusted friend of both of ours that we
felt he was the one we should call on.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. BUCHEN: All I am going to say is, for the
tapes there will be two five-year windows. The first
of the five-year windows involves controlled access by
the former President for his listening to copies of tapes,
copies to be made by an operator who himself does not listen
to the originals.
Also, during the first five-year window, anyone
with a legitimate court subpoena or order that is upheld
can have access or can require the former President to
furnish the information contained on relevant portions of
the tapes.
At the end of that first five-year period, the
former President retains his window, but also can order
selective destruction of tapes. At the end of the ten-
year period, they all get destroyed, all that remain.
Q
In the second five-year window, is that just
by persons who have legitimate subpoenas and court orders
closed off?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right, because there is a
five-year statute of limitations on most, in fact on all,
Federal offenses and most civil matters, so it is assumed
the initial five-year window is long enough.
Q
What is the limit on destruction after
five years plus one day, or can he destroy them all?
MR. BUCHEN: He can.
Q He can?
MR. BUCHEN: He can order them destroyed.
Q
If they were making any copies, would the
originals then be destroyed in the second five-year window?
MR. BUCHEN: The originals will be destroyed.
The copies will be destroyed immediately after they are
used.
MORE
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 27 -
Q
And he could do it after five years and
one day for everything?
MR. BUCHEN: Right.
Q
Now can you go then from there to the
documents?
MR. BUCHEN: The documents are a different
category. There is no present gift of documents as
distinguished from the tapes. However, there is a three-
year period when there will be controlled access by the
owner of those documents requiring the double-key
arrangement with the General Services Administrator. And
the former President is under obligation to respond to
any subpoena involving documents, just as he is to those
involving tapes.
During the three-year period involving documents,
the former President will be under obligation to respond
to subpoenas involving those documents. At any time, the
former President can designate certain documents by
description to become the absolute property of the United
States.
However, after the three-year period, he may
either elect to complete his gifts or to withdraw materials
as he desires. These are documentary materials.
Q
Why the three-year limit?
MR. BUCHEN: We felt that as a practical matter
on the documentation that would be long enough. It gives
everybody a warning. Obviously if there is a subpoena
out that was obtained in the three years and the matter
of its resolution has not been concluded, the subpoena
would prevail.
Q
Can you destroy the documents after three
years?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, if he wants to withdraw them.
MORE
- 28 -
Q
By the way, Mr. Buchen, I may be wrong in what
I am about to say, but I am going to predicate a question
on it, nevertheless.
I am under the impression that the tapes, as
opposed to documents, the tapes were -- that things such
as taperecordings were not covered when Congress covered
that loophole and for that reason, the former President
could donate those tapes to the Government and claim
a tax exemption.
Your second window, the ten-year time for destruc-
tion appears to rule that out; is that right?
MR. BUCHEN: He has already given them to the U.S.
Government to be a gift effective at the end of the 5-year
period.
Q After he destroys them all?
MR. BUCHEN: He can't destroy them during the
first five-year period.
Q
He has given them as a gift to the United
States -- we are talking about tapes now -- he has
given them as a gift to the United States for five
years; is that right?
MR. BUCHEN: No, it is the other way around.
He has retained title for five years and the gift takes
effect at the end of the fifth year.
Q But he can destroy his gift?
MR. BUCHEN: He doesn't have access to them.
Q But he can the next day. Didn't you
say five years and one day he could destroy them all?
MR. BUCHEN: He can order their destruction.
Q What can he do with the copies? Can he
dispose of them for his own purpose?
MR. BUCHEN: No, the copies will go back into the
hands of the General Services Administrator and they
will be destroyed after he has listened to them.
Q
Mr. Buchen, after the ten-year period, is it
mandated that the tapes, all tapes and all copies be
destroyed?
MR. BUCHEN: That is a condition.
MORE
FORD
- 29 -
Q
So, his gift in the second five years is a
limited gift, in time it is a limited gift, say limited
to five years; is that right?
MR. BUCHEN: No.
Q
You say he has given them to the United
States?
MR. BUCHEN: Effective five years from now.
Q
Why are they going to be destroyed after
five years?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, maybe they never should
have been made in the first place. This was his desire
and I think it is consistent with the fact that these
matters do involve conversations with people who had no
realization that their voices were being recorded.
As an old spokesman for the right of privacy,
I think there is considerable merit for putting these in
a separate category from documents.
Q Mr. Buchen, was any consideration given
to the right of history?
MR. BUCHEN: I am sure the historians will pro-
test, but I think historians cannot complain if evidence
for history is not perpetuated which shouldn't have been
created in the first place.
Q
Is there anything he can keep, or intends to
keep?
MR. BUCHEN: I am sure there are items in the
documents that he would intend to keep. Of course, it
would nature. involve family letters, things of a highly personal
Q Mr. Buchen, if it is Mr. Nixon's desire to
destroy the tapes after ten years, would it not be logical
to assume he will destroy them after five years?
MR. BUCHEN: That is his option, order them
destroyed.
Q
What about the gift option? The tax deduction
option?
MR. BUCHEN: I am not his tax lawyer and it seems
to me if you give a gift with instructions that the items
have to be destroyed, that the gift immediately loses its
value, so I would think it would be very questionable.
MORE
- 30 -
Q
What about the President, though? Could
he --
MR. BUCHEN: They will not be perpetuated
beyond the limited use.
Q
Does the word "copies" include written
transcripts as well as the originals?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes.
Q
As a practical matter, at the end of
five years, then all the tapes will be destroyed except
those under subpoena?
MR. BUCHEN: No, because he reserves the right
to keep the window open for himself for another five years?
Q
Just the President, no public?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
Q Is it a question they can be destroyed
in five years, but must be destroyed in ten years?
MR. BUCHEN: They can't be destroyed short of
five years.
Q
Mr. Buchen, Prosecutor Jaworski gave no
indication that he objected to the pardon. Is it your
impression that he sort of feels relieved?
MR. BUCHEN: Wouldn't you if you were in his
place?
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 1:28 P.M. EDT)
FORD
LIBRARY