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.
Source Description
This file contains mostly President Ford statements, press conference transcripts, and schedules.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
7773939
label
Nixon, Richard - Pardon: House Subcommittee Hearing - Background Materials (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
7773939
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Nixon, Richard - Pardon: House Subcommittee Hearing - Background Materials (2)
description
This file contains mostly President Ford statements, press conference transcripts, and schedules.
citationUrl
collections
John O. Marsh Files (Ford Administration)
John Marsh's General Subject Files
subjects
Nixon, Richard M. (Richard Milhous), 1913-1994
Governmental investigations
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
7773939
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1974-10-31
month
10
year
1974
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-08-01
month
8
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
55d09bb0e88eccbc
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 25, folder "Nixon, Richard - Pardon: House
Subcommittee Hearing - Background Materials (2)" of the John Marsh 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Digitized from Box 25 of The John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND MATERIAL
FOR USE BEFORE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH SUBCOMMITTEE
2.
MATERIALS ALREADY FURNISHED SUBCOMMITTEE
A. Proclamation Granting Pardon, September 8, 1974
B. Remarks of President Granting Pardon, September 8, 1974
C. First Press Conference, Philip Buchen, September 8, 1974
D. Second Press Conference, Philip Buchen, September 10, 1974
E. The President's Press Conference, No. 2, September 16, 1974
3.
STATEMENT OF FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON, SEPTEMBER 8, 1974
4.
LETTER FROM LEON JAWORSKI (ATTACHED TO LETTER OF
RESIGNATION), OCTOBER 12, 1974
5.
TIME MAGAZINE, HUGH SIDEY EDITORIAL, SEPTEMBER 30, 1974
CONCERNING ALEXANDER HAIG
6.
WALL STREET JOURNAL, INTERVIEW WITH
LEON JAWORSKI, OCTOBER 16, 1974
7.
COUNSEL'S MEMORANDUM ON PARDON POWER
8.
THE PRESIDENT'S PRESS CONFERENCE, NO. 1, AUGUST 28, 1974
1
WILLIAM L. HUNGATE
2437 RAYMON District
9TH DISTRICT. MISSOURI
Provide 225-2956
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
SMALL DUSINESS
Congress of the United States
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN. SUBCOMMITTEE ON
CHAIRMAN SUBCOME THEEN
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Douse of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
October 7, 1974
President Gerald R. Ford
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. President:
You are aware that certain questions posed in the
resolutions of inquiry, House Resolutions 1367 (Abzug)
and 1370 (Conyers), now pending before the Subcommittee
on Criminal Justice provide for the production of tapes,
transcripts, notes, reports, statements or other
documentary information. For example, in the instance
of questions two, eight, and ten of House Resolution
1367, specific requests are made for the production
of certain documents and tapes, where available. To the
extent relied on in arriving at the responses to the
questions propounded in these two privileged resolutions,
the Subcommittee requests that such documents and
tapes, if available, .be forwarded to the Subcommittee
for review prior to your appearance.
Furthermore, there may be additional documentation that,
while not specifically requested by the resolutions of
inquiry, would be helpful to the Members of the Subcommittee
in preparing for your forthcoming appearance before the
Subcommittee. For example, in the instance of question five of
House Resolution 1367, a request is made for any facts and
legal authorities provided you by Attorney General Saxbe
or Special Prosecutor Jaworski. If any of the information
was forwarded to you in written form, it would be appreciated
if you make it available to the Subcommittee prior to your
appearance.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice
WLH/bts
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 15, 1974
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The President has asked me to reply to your letter to him of
October 7, 1974.
In your letter you have requested, in advance of the President's
appearance on October 17, 1974, copies of documentation to the
extent relied on in arriving at responses to the questions in the
two proposed resolutions of inquiry, H. Res. 1367 and H. Res. 1370.
In your first paragraph you refer to questions by number which
specifically call for producing certain documentation if it exists,
namely two, eight, and ten of H. Res. 1367. However, question two
deals with matters not within President Ford's knowledge or aware-
ness and, in any event, if any discussions covered by the question
took place, they could not have been and were not a factor in his
decision to pardon the former President because he was not aware
of them. In the cases of the other mentioned questions, no
documentation is involved in the answers of the President.
In the second paragraph you refer to possible documentation not
specifically requested by the resolutions of inquiry, but, as I
understand your letter, which is directly related to such questions
as number five. In that connection, documentation was supplied to
you with the President's letter of September 20, 1974. In addition,
there are now enclosed:
-- copy of a letter from Special Prosecutor Jaworski
to me dated September 4, 1974 (a portion of this letter
was quoted by me to the press on September 8, 1974,
but the enclosure provides the full text.)
-- copy of a memorandum furnished by Special Prosecutor
Jaworski, which had been prepared for him by Deputy
Special Prosecutor Henry Ruth under date of
September 3, 1974, which was released from the
White House on September 10, 1974.
-2-
This is the only information supplied in written form to the
President which relates to questions such as five, six, or seven.
Sincerely yours,
Regw.Bucken Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable William L. Hungate
Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Enclosures
1425 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
September 4, 1974
Philip W. Buchen, Esq.
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Buchen:
You have inquired as to my opinion regard-
ing the length of delay that would follow, in the
event of an indictment of former President Richard M.
Nixon, before a trial could reasonably be had by a
fair and impartial jury as guaranteed by the Consti-
tution.
The factual situation regarding a trial of
Richard M. Nixon within constitutional bounds, is
unprecedented. 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 obstruc-
tion of justice. The massive publicity given the
hearings and the findings that ensued, the reversal
of judgment of a number of the members of the
Republican Party following release of the June 23
tape recording, and their statements carried nation-
wide, and finally, the 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 United States Courts involving
prejudicial pre-trial publicity. The Government's
decision to pursue impeachment proceedings and the
tremendous volume of television, radio and newspaper
- 2 -
coverage given thereto, are factors emphasized by
the Courts in weighing the time a trial can be had.
The complexities involved in the process of selecting
a jury and the time it will take to complete the
process, I find difficult to estimate at this time.
The situation involving Richard M. Nixon is
readily distinguishable from the facts involved in
the case of United States V. 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. It is
precisely the condemnation of Richard M. Nixon
already made in the impeachment process, that would
make it unfair to the defendants in the case of
United States V. Mitchell, et al, for Richard M. Nixon
now to be joined as a co-conspirator, should it be
concluded that an indictment of him was proper.
The United States V. Mitchell, et al, trial
will within itself generate new publicity, some
undoubtedly prejudicial to Richard M. Nixon. I bear
this in mind when I estimate the earliest time of trial
of Richard M. Nixon under his constitutional guarantees,
in the event of indictment, to be as indicated above.
If further information is desired, please
advise me.
Sincerely,
LEON JAWORSKI
Special Prosecutor
Memorandum
TO
:
Leon Jaworski
DATE: Sept. 3, 1974
ROM
:
Henry Ruth
SUBJECT: Mr. Nixon
The following matters are still under investigation
in this Office and may prove to have some direct
connection to activities in which Mr. Nixon is
personally involved:
1. Tax deductions relating to the gift
of pre-Presidential papers.
2. The Colson obstruction of justice plea
in the Ellsberg matter.
3. The transfer of the national security
wire tap records from the FBI to the White
House.
4. The initiating of wire tapping of
John Sears.
5. Misuse of IRS information.
6. Misuse of IRS through attempted initiation
of audits as to "enemies."
7. The dairy industry pledge and its
relationship to the price support change.
8. Filing of a challenge to the Washington
Post ownership of two Florida television
stations.
9. False and evasive testimony at the
Kleindienst confirmation hearings as to
White House participation in Department
of Justice decisions about ITT.
10. The handling of campaign contributions
by Mr. Rebozo for the personal benefit of
Mr. Nixon.
None of these matters at the moment rises to
the level of our ability to prove even a probable
criminal violation by Mr. Nixon, but I thought you
ought to know which of the pending investigations
were even remotely connected to Mr. Nixon. of course,
the Watergate cover-up is the subject of a separate
memorandum.
cc: Mr. Lacovara
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
PETER W. MODING, JR. (N.J.) CHAIRMAN
HAROLD D. DONOHUE, MASS.
EDWARD HUTCHINSON, MICH.
GENERAL COUNSEL:
JACK BROOKS, TEX.
ROBERT COLORY, ILL.
JEROME M. ZEIFMAN
RQ" IT W. KASTENMER, WIS.
HENRY P. SMITH III, N.Y.
DONE COWARDS, CALIF,
WILLIAM 1. HUNGATE, MO.
TOM HAILSBACK, H.L.
Congress of the United States
ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL:
CHARLES W. SANDMAN, JR., N.J.
GARNER J. CLINE
JOHN CONYERS, Jie., MICH.
CHARLES E. WIGGINS, CALIF.
COUNSEL:
Joseph KILBERG, PA.
DAVID W. DENNIS, IND.
HERBERT FUCHS
JENUME R. WALLIE, CALIF.
HAMILTON FISH, JR., N.Y.
WALTER FLOWERS, ALA,
WILEY MAYNE, TOWA
Committee on the Judiciary
WILLIAM P. SHATTUCK
14. CHRISTOPHER NOLDE
JAMES R. MANN, S.C.
LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, MD.
ALAN A. PARKER
PAUL 3. SARBANES, MD.
M. CALDWELL BUTI ER, VA.
House of Representatives
JAMES F. FALCO
JOHN F. SEIBERLING, OHIQ
WILLIAM S. COMEN, MAINE
MAURICE A. BARDOZA
GEORGE E. DANIELSON, CALIF.
TRENT LOTT, MISS.
ARTHUR P. ENDRES, JR.
ROBERT F. DRINAN, MASS,
HAROLD V. FROEHLICH, WIS.
Mashington, D.C. 20515
FRANKLIN G. POLK
CHARLES B. RANGEL, N.Y.
CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, CALIF.
THOMAS E. MOONEY
BARBARA JORDAN, TEX.
JOSEPH J. MARAZITI, N.J.
MICHAEL W. BLOMMER
RAY THORNTON, ARK.
DELBERT L. LATTA, OHIO
ALEXANDER B. COOK
ELIZABETH HOLTEMAN, M.Y.
CONSTANTINE J. GEKAS
WAYNE OWENS, UTAH
ALAN F. COFFEY, JR.
EDWARD MEZVINSKY, IDWA
September 25, 1974
President Gerald R. Ford
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. President:
I am in receipt of your letters dated September 20,
1974, and September 23, 1974, responding to my letters
concerning the privileged resolutions, H.Res. 1367, and
H. Res. 1370, introduced by Representatives Abzug and
Conyers, respectively. A review has been made of the
documents accompanying your letter of September 20, 1974,
for the purpose of determining whether your and members of
your staff's prior statements concerning the pardon of
former President Nixon are responsive to the questions
posed in the privileged measures.
Due to the difficulty in determining which portions
of these statements you mean to apply to each specific
question, I respectfully request that you respond individu-
ally to each inquiry and that your responses be forwarded
to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice by the close of
business on Thursday, September 26, 1974.
In addition, I further respectfully request, after
having consulted with the bipartisan membership of the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, that Philip Buchen, Counsel
to the President, or someone with equivalent knowledge of the
circumstances surrounding the pardon of the former President,
appear and testify before the Subcommittee on Tuesday,
October 1, 1974.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice
WH/rts
September 30, 1974
N
Dear Bill:
This is to advise you that I expect to appear
personally to respond to the questions raised in
House Resolutions 1367 and 1370.
It would be my decire to arrange this hearing
before your Subcommittee at a matually con-
venient time within the next ten days.
Thank you for your help and assistance in this
matter.
Sincerely,
Congressman William Hungate
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
GRF:NM:ny
GERATO
55- This street he
NINETY-THIND CONGRESS
PETER W. RODING, IR. (H.) CHAIRMAN
logged Origuel
March
LD D. DONOHUE. MAES.
EDWARD HUTCHINSON, MICH.
OENERAL COUNSEL
BROONS. YEX.
MORENT ME CLORT. ILL
JENUME M. ZEIPMAN
Br
AT W. KASTENMEIDR, WIS.
HENDY P. SMITH 111. N.Y.
TOWARD CALIF.
CHARLES W. SANDMAN, JR, NJ.
Imgress of the United States
ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL
IAM L. MUNGAT MO.
TOM FIAILSEACH, 11.1.
GANN as CLINE
CONTERS. JR., MICH.
CHARLES C VICCINS. CALIF.
COUNICL:
JA RILMERG. PA.
DAVID W. DENNIS, IND.
MEACERT FUCHS
ME R. WALUIE, CALIF.
HAMILTON FISH :R., N.Y.
EM FLOWERS. ALA.
Committee nn 1hc Fudiciary
WILLIAM P. SHATTUCK
WILLY MAYNE, IOWA
11. CHRISTOPHER NOLDE
& a MANN. S.C.
LAWARNCE J. HOGAN, MD.
ALAN A. PARKER
S. SARDANES. MD.
M. CALDWELL BUTLER. VA.
House of Representatives
JAMES F. FALCO
F. SEHITALING. OHIO
WILLIAM B. COMEM, MAINE
MAURICE A. BARBOZA
GE E. DANIEL ON. CALIF.
THENT LOTT. MISS.
ARTHUR P. ENDRES. JR.
RT F. DRINAN, MASS.
HANDLD V. FROEMLICH, WIS.
LES #. RANGEL. N.Y.
Mashington, D.C.. 20515
FRANKLIN c. POLK
CARLOS J. MOORHEAD. CALIF.
THOMAS E. MOUNTY
ARA JOHDAN, TEX.
JOSEPH J. MANAIITI, N.J.
MICHAEL W. BLOMMER
THOMATON, ARK.
DELECT L LATTA, OHIO
ALEXANDER M. COOK
BETH MOLTZNAN, N.Y.
CONSTANTINE J. CLEAS
ID OV/ENS, UTAH
ALAN F. COFFEY. Jn.
IRD MEZVINSKY, IOWA
September 18, 1971:
President Gerald R. Ford
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
Subsequent to RV letter to you of September 17,
1974, concerning Representative Abzue's resolution of
inquiry, H.Res. 1367, Representative John Convers of
Michigan introduced a second resolution of insuiry,
H.Res. 1370, which also has been referred to the Sub-
committee on Criminal Justice of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Under the Fules of the House, the Committee on
the Judiciary is called upon to consider these resolutions
within seven legislative days of their introduction. I
am enclosing printed copies of both resolutions and
respectfully request that you provide the Subcommittee
with responses to the inquiries contained in these privi-
leged legislative measures.
Respectfully
Chairman
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice
WLH/ots
Enclosures
GERALD FORD LIBRAGE
September 23, 1974
Dear Mr. Chairman:
It has been called to my attention that a subsequent
letter of yours to me dated September 18, 1974, refers
not only to H. Res. 1367, but to an additional resolution
introduced by Representative Conyers, H. Res. 1370.
Please be advised that the response of September 20, 1974,
concerning H. Res. 1367 is also applicable to H. Res. 1370.
Sincerely,
The Honorable William L. Hungate
Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
GRF:
PWB: JM
CC: William Timmons
John Marsh
DESALO FORD LIBRAEN
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
PETER V. RODINO, JR. (N.J.) CHAIRMAN
BIARCE D.D. DONOHUE, MASS.
EDWARD HUTCHINSON, MICH.
JACK BROOKS, TLX.
GENERAL COUNSEL:
ROBERT MC CLORY, ILL.
ROBERT W. KASTE NMEIER, WIS.
JEROME M. ZEIFMAN
HENRY P. SMITH 111, N.Y.
DON EDWARDS, CALIF.
CHARL ES W. BANDMAN, JR., N.J.
WILLIAM L. HUNGATE, MO.
Congress of the United States
ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL:
TOM MAILSBACK, ILL
GARNER J. CLINE
JOHN CONYERS, JR., MICH.
CHARLES E., WIGGINS, CALIF.
COUNSEL
JOSHUA BLRG. PA.
DAVID W. DENNIS, IND.
MERBERT FUCHS
JEROME R. WALDIE, CALIF.
HAMILTON FISH, JR., N.Y.
WALTER FLOWERS, ALA.
Committee mr the Judiciary
WILLIAM P. SHATTUCK
WILLY MAYNE, IOWA
H. CHRISTOPHER NOLDE
JAMES R. MANN, S.C.
LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, MD.
ALAN A. PARKER
PAUL $. SARBANES, MD.
M. CALDWELL BUTLER, VA.
JOHN F. SEIBERLING, OHIO
WILLIAM S. COMEN, MAINE
House of Representatives
JAMES F. FALCO
MAURICE A. BARBOZA
GEORGE E. DANIELSON, CALIF.
TRENT LOTT, MISS.
ARTHUR P. ENDRES, JR.
ROBERT F. DRINAN, MASS.
HAROLD V. PROEHLICH, WIS.
CHARLES B. RANGEL, N.Y.
CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, CALIF.
Mashington, D.C. 20515
FRANKLIN G. POLK
THOMAS E. MOONEY
BARBARA JORDAN, TEX.
JOSEPH J. MARAZITI, N.J.
MICHAEL W. BLOMMER
RAY THORNTON, ARK.
DELBERT L LATTA, OHIO
ALEXANDER $5. COOK
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, N.Y.
CONSTANTINE J. GEKAS
WAYNE OWENS, UTAH
ALAN F. COFFEY, JR.
EDWARD MEZVINSKY, IOWA
September 17, 1974
S P 1 9 1974
President Gerald R. Ford
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. President:
As I mentioned in my letter of September 17, 1974, the Subcommittee
on Criminal Justice, of which I am Chairman, has pending before it
H. Res. 1367 relating to the pardon of former President Richard M.
Nixon. In addition, the Subcommittee has pending before it a variety
of proposals relating to the disposition of Capes and documents
compiled by former President Nixon and currently within the custody
of the Federal Government.
Under the circumstances, I respectfully urge that no further action
be taken affecting the disposition of such materials until Congress
has had sufficient time to thoroughly consider the issue.
Respectfully,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice
WLH:rtd
September 24, 1974
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The President has asked me to reply to your second letter
to him of September 17, 1974, which concerns the disposition
of tapes and documents compiled by former President Nixon
and currently within the custody of the Federal Government.
These materials, as you know, are the subjects of various
subpoenas and court orders and of requests for disclosure
by the Office of the Special Prosecutor. As a result, no
further action is being taken to affect the disposition of such
materials until after the issues raised by the pendency of the
subpoenas, court orders, and Special Prosecutor's requests
are resolved. The period of time involved in resolving such
issues will of itself operate to assure adherence to the request
in the second paragraph of your letter.
I shall, of course, keep you informed, if you desire, of any
later developments which could lead to a change in the present
situation.
Sincerely yours,
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable William L. Hungate
Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
cc: John Marsh
William Timmons
BESALB FORD LIBRARY
NINETY. HIRD CONGRESS
PITER Vr. ROOKING in (n.).) CHNAMAN
MAR YLO n. MASS.
EDWARD HOTE HINSON, MICH.
BENCRAL COUNSEL
JACK BROCHS. 1: x
ROCCET A'C clear. KL
JEROME M. XSIPMAN
NORCAT W, TELNSTER, was.
HENRY r. SMITH 11. N.Y.
BON LIWARDS. CALIF.
WILLIAM L. HUMBAIL MO.
TOM SHAT a. ILL
Congress of the United States
ASSOCIATE CENERAL COUNSEL,
CHAILES W. SANDMAN, JR.. N.J.
GARNER 4. CLINE
JUN CONVERS. - MICH.
CHARLI L TRIGINS, CALIF.
COUNSEL
JOSHUA E.L.CRO. FA.
DAVID Y/, DENNIS. INJ.
HERORRT FUCKS
JAMOME N. WALDIE CALIF.
HAMEL 15M. JR., M.Y.
WILLY MATHS, IOWA
Committee nit the Indiciary
WILLIAM r. SHATTUCK
H. CHRISTOPHER HOLDE
WALTER FLOWERS. ALA.
JAMES R. MANN, S.C.
LAWGENCE a. HOGAN, MD.
ALAN A. FARKER
PAUL 5. SANDAMES. MD.
M. CALUMELL BUTLER. VA.
House of Representatives
JAMES F. FALCO
KHH F. CIGO
WILLIAM 5. COMEN, MAINE
MAURICE A. BARBOZA
GEORGE K. DANIELS CALIF.
TREYT LOTT. MISS.
ARTHUR P. ENDRES. JR.
Mashington, D.C. 20515
FRANKLIN C. FOLK
ROBERT F. DRINKS, MASS.
HANDLT V. PROCHLICH. WIS.
CHANLES D. NANCEL H.T.
CARLOS 2. MOORITAD, CALIF.
THOMAS C. MOONEY
BANSARA JORDAN, 11 1
JOSEPH J. MARAZITI, N.J.
MICHAEL n. BLOMMER
MAY THORNTON, ARX.
DELDERS L LATTA, OHIO
ALEXANDER D. COOK
SUZABITH HOLTZMAN. N.Y.
CONSTANTING J. GEKAS
WAYNE OWENS, UTAH
ALAN F. COFFEY, JR.
LOWARD IDWA
September 17, 1974
President Gerald R. Ford
The White House
Fashington, D. C.
Dear Mr. President:
On September 16, 1974, Representative Abzug of New York
introduced a resolution of inquiry, H. Res. 1367, which has
been referred to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the
Committee on the Judiciary. Under the Rules of the llouse,
the Committee on the Judiciary is called upon to consider this
resolution within seven legislative days of its introduction.
To assist us in the expeditious consideration of this
measure, I respectfully request that you provide the Subcommit-
tee with the following information as requested by this privi-
leged resolution:
1. Did you or your representatives have specific
knowledge of any formal criminal charges pending
against Richard M. Nixon prior to issuance of
the pardon? If so, what were these charges?
2. Did Alexander Haig refer to or discuss a pardon
for Richard M. Nixon with Richard M. Nixon or
representatives of Mr. Mixon at any time during
the week of August 4, 1974 or at any subsequent
time? If so, what promises were made or con-
ditions set for a pardon, if any? If so, were
tapes or transcriptions of any kind made of these
conversations or were any notes taken? If so,
please provide such tapes, transcriptions or notes.
President Cerald R. Ford
Page 2
September 17, 1974
3. When was a pardon for Richard M. Nixon first
referred to or discussed with Richard M. Nixon,
or representatives of Mr. Nixon, by you or your
representatives or aides, including the period
when you were a member of Congress or Vice
President?
4. Who participated in these and subsequent dis-
cussions or negotiations with Richard M. Nixon
or his representatives regarding a pardon, and
at what specific times and locations?
5. Did you consult with Attorney General William
Saxbe or Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski before
making the decision to pardon Richard M. Nixon
and, if so, what facts and legal authorities did
they give to you?
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice
WLH:rts
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 20, 1974
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your September seventeenth letter requesting
information to assist the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice
of the Committee on the Judiciary in its consideration of
H. Res. 1367.
The pardon power conferred upon the Executive by Article II,
Section 2, of the Constitution needs no elaboration here. Nor
do the legal decisions relating to pardons. The reasons for my
exercise of that constitutional responsibility have already been
explained. The controlling considerations which led to my
decision were the subjects of the pardon proclamation and my
televised message to the American people on September 8 and
were the main subjects of my September 16 news conference;
additional background information was provided at White House
briefings on September 8 and 10. Copies of these materials are
enclosed.
Regardless of any background information or advice I may have
received, I ain responsible for the pardon decision. I am
satisfied that it was the right course to follow in accord with my
own conscience and conviction. I hope the Subcommittee will
agree that we should now all try, without undue recrimination
about the past, to heal the wounds that divide Americans. We
have much to get done for the country's goals, and I know we
can do it together.
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Ford
The Honorable William L. Hungate
Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
2
A
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 8, 1974
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
GRANTING PARDON TO RICHARD NIXON
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Richard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United States on
January 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second term by the electors
of forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in office continued until his
resi gnation on August 9, 1974.
Pursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its Committee on
the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment
of the President extending over more than eight months. The hearings of
the Committee and its deliberations, which received wide national publicity
over television, radio, and in printed media, resulted in votes adverse to
Richard Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment.
As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation
from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible
indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not
he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury
and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment
ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial
jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.
It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could
not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the
tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent
weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a
former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will
cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to
further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the un-
prececented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office in the United
States.
NOW, THEREFORE, I Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States,
pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2,
of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full,
free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the
United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed
or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,
1974.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 8th day of September
in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred seventy-four, and of the Independence
of the United States of America the one hundred ninety-ninth.
GERALD R. FORD
#
#
#
B
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 8, 1974
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
ANNOUNCING THE GRANTING OF A PARDON
TO FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON
THE OVAL OFFICE
11:05 A. M. PDT
Ladies and gentlemen, I have come to a decision
which I felt I should tell you and all of my fellow
American citizens, as soon as I was certain in my own
mind and in my own conscience. that it is the right
thing to do.
I have learned already in this office that the
difficult decisions always come to this desk. I must
admit that many of them do not look at all the same as
the hypothetical questions that I have answered freely
and perhaps too fast on previous occasions.
My customary policy is to try and get all the
facts and to consider the opinions of my countrymen and
to take counsel with my most valued friends. But these
seldom agree, and in the end, the decision is mine. To
procrastinate, to agonize and to wait for a more
favorable turn of events that may never come, or more
compelling external pressures that may as well be
wrong as right, is itself a decision of sorts, and
a weak and potentially dangerous course for a President
to follow.
I have promised to uphold the Constitution,
to do what is right as God gives me to see the right,
and to do the very best that I can for America.
I have asked your help and your prayers, not
only when I became President, but many times since. The
Constitution is the supreme law of our land and it governs
our actions as citizens. Only the laws of God, which
govern our consciences, are superior to it.
MORE
(OVER)
Page 2
As we are a nation under God, so I am sworn to
uphold our laws with the help of God. And I have sought
such guidance and searched my own conscience with special
diligence to determine the right thing for me to do with
respect to my predecessor in this place, Richard Nixon,
and his loyal wife and family.
Theirs is an American tragedy in which we all
have played a part. It could go on and on and on, or
someone must write the end to it. I have concluded that
only I can do that, and if I can, I must.
There are no historic or legal precedents to which
I can turn in this matter, none that precisely fit the
circumstances of a private citizen who has resigned the
Presidency of the United States. But it is common
knowledge that serious allegations and accusations
hang like a sword over our former President's head,
threatening his health as he tries to reshape his life,
a great part of which was spent in the service of this
country and by the mandate of its people.
After years of bitter controversy and divisive
national debate, I have been advised, and I am compelled
to conclude that many months and perhaps more years will
have to pass before Richard Nixon could obtain a fair
trial by jury in any jurisdiction of the United States
under governing decisions of the Supreme Court.
I deeply believe in equal justice for all
Americans, whatever their station or former station.
The law, whether human or devine, is no respecter
of persons, but the law is a respecter of reality.
The facts, as I see them, are that a former
President of the United States, instead of enjoying
equal treatment with any other citizen accused of
violating the law, would be cruelly and excessively
penalized either in preserving the presumption of his
innocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of his
guilt in order to repay a legal debt to society.
more
Page 3
During this long period of delay and potential
litigation, ugly passions would again be aroused. And our
people would again be polarized in their opinions. And
the credibility of our free institutions of Government
would again be challenged at home and abroad.
In the end, the courts might well hold that Richard
Nixon had been denied due process and the verdict of history
would even more beinconclusive with respect to those charges
arising out of the period of his Presidency, of which I am
presently aware.
But it is not the ultimate fate of Richard Nixon
that most concerns me, though surely it deeply troubles
every decent and every compassionate person. My concern
is the immediate future of this great country.
In this, I dare not depend upon my personal
sympathy as a long-time friend of the former President,
nor my professional judgment as a lawyer, and I do
not.
As President, my primary concern must always
be the greatest good of all the people of the United
States whose servant I am. As a man, my first considera-
tion is to be true to my own convictions and my own conscience.
My conscience tells me clearly and certainly
that I cannot prokong the bad dreams that continue
to reopen a chapter that is closed. My conscience tells
me that only I, as President, have the constitutional
power to firmly shut and seal this book. My conscience
tells me it is my duty, not merely to proclaim domestic
tranquility, but to use every means that I have to insure it.
I do believe that the buck stops here, that I
cannot rely upon public opinion polls to tell me what
is right.
I do believe that right makes might, and that
if I am wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would
make no difference.
I do believe, with all my heart and mind and
spirit, that I, not as President, but as a humble servant
of God, will receive justice without mercy if I fail
to show mercy.
Finally, I feel that Richard Nixon and his
loved ones have suffered enough and will continue to
suffer, no matter what I do, no matter what we, as a
great and good Nation, can do together to make his
goal of peace come true.
MORE
Page 4
Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President
of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power
conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2 of the
Constitution, have granted and by these presents do
grant a full, free and absolute pardon unto Richard
Nixon for all offenses against the United States which
he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed
or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20,
1969 through August 9, 1974.
(The President signed the Proclamation)
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my
hand this 8th day of September in the year of our Lord
1974, and of the independence of the United States of
America, the 199th.
END
(AT 11:16 A.M. EDT)
C
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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)
D
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 10, 1974
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
PHILIP BUCHEN
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 12:49 P.M.
MR. HUSHEN: As I announced earlier, Mr. Philip
Buchen, the Counsel to the President has agreed to come
back out here today to answer some of the questions
you have.
Let me say we are going to give them 60 seconds
to get some photographs and then they will go away.
(Laughter)
Let me say at the outset that the document
that is about to be handed out is embargoed until the
completion of the briefing.
MR. BUCHEN: This is a follow-up, of course,
of the meeting we had on Sunday. And at that time someone
asked the question about the disclosures made to me
by Special Prosecutor Jaworski to the areas of investigation
in which his special force was engaged.
And my answer was that the question asked him
was: "What matters could arguably involve further steps?"
And I reported that it read like a list from
one of your newspapers.
You have now before you the document that was
furnished to me and, although the copy of the Special
Prosecutor's memorandum from Henry Ruth to
the Special Prosecutor dated September 3, 1974, on the
subject of Mr. Nixon was sent to me in confidence, Mr.
Jaworski has since advised me that, if I were willing
to assume the responsibility for its release, he would
raise no objection to my doing SO.
However, he cautioned that in the event of
its release, he would expect that it bemade available in
its entirety, including the first and last paragraphs
of the memorandum, and I quote that the first paragraph
reads:
The following matters are still under investi-
gation in this Office and may prove to have some direct
connection to activities in which Mr. Nixon is personally
involved:"
MORE
(over)
- 2 -
At the conclusion of the memorandum Mr. Ruth,
in reporting to Mr. Jaworski, wrote:
"None of these matters at the moment rises to
the level of our ability to prove even a probable
criminal violation by Mr. Nixon, but I thought you
ought to know which of the pending investigations
were even remotely connected to Mr. Nixon. Of course,
the Watergate cover-up is the subject of a separate
memorandum."
Now I will try to field any questions.
Q
Tell us about considering pardons
for everybody involved in Watergate?
MR. BUCHEN: I am not involved in that matter.
Q Well, who is?
MR. BUCHEN: I said at the time of the last
press conference to my knowledge no thought was being given
to that and I have not been called in to do any part
of the study so far. I assume I will be.
Q Who is at this Point?
Q Who is considering this, the President?
MR. BUCHEN: The President made the statement.
Q Mr. Buchen, can you tell us if anyone tried
to persuade Mr. Nixon to confess guilt prior to the granting
of the pardon by President Ford?
MR. BUCHEN: No. Mr. Miller, at the time that I
informed him that the President was considering a possible
pardon for Mr. Nixon, was told by me that I thought it would
be very beneficial in the interests of the country, in the
interests of the present Administration and in the interest
of the former President, that as full a statement as possible
should be issued by Mr. Nixon but that I had been told
that that was not a condition to the consideration of the
pardon.
Mr. Miller at that time assured me that he agreed
with me that such a statement should be forthcoming
from his client.
Q
Mr. Bucken, I was wondering, if, as the
President's legal counsel, , would you advise that the
President in this study about the possibility of giving
amnesty to all the Watergate people, that excluded
from the people doing the study should be all Nixon hold-
overs? Would you advise, or do you think it is reasonable
for Nixon holdovers to participate in a study of possible
amnesty to all Nixon defendants?
MORE
- 3 -
MR. BUCHEN: I think that is a decision the
President will have to instruct me on.
Q
How would you advise him?
Q
Did you finish you answer to the earlier
question?
MR. BUCHEN: I was finished.
Q
Could I follow-up then, sir? Did the former
President balk at this, was there negotiation on what
finally came out in his statement afterwards?
Did you see that statement, sir, or did anyone
else in the White House see it prior to its issuance?
MR. BUCHEN: When Mr. Becker came back from
San Clemente, he was able to report the substance of
the statement that he thought would be forthcoming after
the announcement was made.
But we did not have the statement in the form
in which it was ultimately delivered.
Q
Are you satisfied that this was as fulla
statement as possible coming from the former President?
MR. BUCHEN: That is something that I think would
require going into the former President's mind. Obviously,
if you do not condition an act of mercy on the recipient
of the mercy doing anything, you are not in a position
to do much bargaining.
Q
Mr. Buchen, did Mr. Becker go to San Clemente
with a much stronger statement, or a statement --
MR. BUCHEN: He had no statement in hand.
Q
You say he came back with a statement --
he reported the substance of the statement he thought
would be forthcoming. Was that substance substantially
different from the statement that was then issued?
MR. BUCHEN: No, the essential feature was the
statement that the President believed he had not acted
decisively and forthrightly in respect to the Watergate
once it became a judicial proceeding and the regret for
having done wrong was in the report that Becker gave us.
Q
Was it your hope or intention early in those
negotiations to get Mr. Nixon to agree to a statement in
which he admitted his own personal wrong-doing and
involvement in the Watergate cover-up?
MORE
- 4 -
MR. BUCHEN: Again I had to rely on what
Mr. Miller believed would be in the best interests of
his client and the country, because I had no authority
to extract a statement of my own making.
Q Not what was in the former President's
mind, but what was in your mind? Do you think that the
final statement met the standards that you and Mr.
Miller discussed at the meeting?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I think they did, because,
as some of your papers have already suggested, the very
fact that a man accepts a pardon does imply that he
believes it is necessary for him to have that pardon, or
that it is useful for him to have that pardon.
And there aren't many instances in which it is
useful to have a pardon unless there is a strong probability
of guilt.
Q
Mr. Buchen, do you think that you and President
Ford misread the public's acceptance of the terms of this
pardon and the acceptance in Congress?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I was not doing much reading
on the outside as to what might happen. That was really
outside my bailiwick, so I cannot tell you.
Q
Mr. Buchen, do you and the President hope
that the former President will at some time, perhaps
in the near future, release some kind of formal statement
detailing further his connection with Watergate?
MR. BUCHEN: I have not given that any thought
and I assume that would be entirely up to the former
President.
Q
Mr. Buchen, you were involved in the pre-
accession negotiations and pre-transition operations of
the Ford Administration. Was there at any time any dis-
cussion between any high-ranking member of the Ford group and
any member of the Nixon group as to the possibility of a
pardon for Nixon in advance of his leaving office?
MR. BUCHEN: I answered that question Sunday and,
to my knowledge, there was absolutely none and it never
came up as a matter to be discussed by the transition team.
And I think I participated in virtually all meetings of
the transition team.
Q
How about between Ford and Nixon alone?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't believe so.
Q
Can you find out definitely whether there
was no deal before Nixon left office?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I know the man in the
President's office quite well and I can assure you he
did not make a deal. I know him that well.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, he assured us in a press
conference it would be untimely to do such a thing, and
he assured us when he was nominated for Vice-President
that the American people would not stand for it. Can
you give us an explanation of this?
MR. BUCHEN: Let's take the first; the matter of
untimeliness seems to me to involve a debate that really
makes little sense, because a man who had to consider
whether or not to grant a pardon, it seems to me, has to
consider the fact that if a pardon is desirable, the
earlier it comes, the better.
It is like making a man walk a plank. You wait
until he takes the first step. You wait until he gets to
the middle of the plank. You wait until he jumps off the
end, and then dive in to rescue him. I think it represents --
let me put it this way. I don't think an act of mercy can
ever be untimely, and it certainly becomes less merciful
if you postpone the agony.
Q Mr. Buchen, in that statement, you are
suggesting that the former President was going to go
off the end of the plank?
MR. BUCHEN: I think there was a strong
possibility.
Q
When Mr. Becker was out at San Clemente,
did he discuss in the President's presence what the
President might say in a statement, and did the President
get angry at the suggestions that he admit guilt?
MR. BUCHEN: I think those negotiations were
entirely with Mr. Ziegler, SO I don't think we have any
knowledge of what the President --
Q
The New York Times states this morning
as I quoted it.
Q
You better clear up what you mean by
"walking the plank;" do you mean suicide or going to jail?
MR. BUCHEN: No, as I understand "walking the
plank," it is because the man has been convicted of some
crime that offended the master of the ship, or not
convicted, say indicted.
Q
What about the question of health; Mr.
Buchen, how did that figure into this decision?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know because I wasn't
party to any of the investigations or discussions, if
there were any, about the former President's health.
MORE
- 6 -
Q Did you say Mr. Becker at no time spoke
to Mr. Nixon in San Clemente?
MR. BUCHEN: I didn't say that.
Q
I thought you said the negotiations were
entirely with Mr. Ziegler?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know whether there were
negotiations, but the matter of the content of the
President's statement, which he contemplated giving
when the pardon was issued, was dealt with entirely
through Ron Ziegler. The only face-to-face matters
taken up with the former President dealt with the manner
of managing and disposing of his papers and tapes.
Q
Mr. Buchen, did Mr. terHorst ask you on
Friday whether Mr. Becker was involved in discussing
a pardon with the former President during his trip to
California, and if he did, what did you tell him?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, we better clear that one
up.
Jerry terHorst reported to me that someone
had observed Benton Becker and Jack Miller in the area
of San Clemente. Jerry terHorst asked me what the
purpose of my having sent Benton Becker out to San Clemente
was, and I said that the purpose was to take a document
that had been prepared in rough draft before he left
Washington, had been prepared by Mr. Miller, which related
to the management and disposing of the tapes and records.
However, we objected and wanted changes in those
documents, partly because we were concerned as to the
practicality of some of the proposals made insofar as they
involve the Administrator of the General Services
Administration.
The matter is very complex, as you see, so I
suggested, when Mr. Miller said he would have to go and
discuss the terms of that document with his client, that
Mr. Becker go along, so that there would be a way that
Mr. Becker could be on hand as changes, additions or
whatnot were proposed and so that he would available to
report back to me on the progress of the negotiations.
That was the purpose of the assignment.
Q
We specifically asked you if Mr. Becker
was out there engaging in pardon negotiations?
MR. BUCHEN: There were no pardon negotiations,
that is the point.
MORE
- 7 -
Q
Anything at all?
Q
You sent him out with instructions to say
that the President had this under consideration?
Q
Would you answer my question, please?
MR. BUCHEN: Mr. Miller knew that the pardon
was under consideration, and he could report to his client.
It was not necessary for Mr. Becker to do anything in
connection with the pardon.
Q
Didn't Mr. Becker take out a copy of the
proposed pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, he did. It was a draft that
he and I had worked on very hurriedly Thursday afternoon
before he had to leave on the plane. I said, "Benton,
you are going to be five hours on that plane, take a copy
along, keep working on it, I don't think it is in the
form we want to submit to the President for his con-
sideration. Take it along and work on it."
Q
You didn't tell Mr. terHorst that?
MR. BUCHEN: No, I will explain; as you may
appreciate, being counsel to anyone, or lawyer to anyone,
imposes certain restrictions, and I believe, on this
matter, I was under complete restriction as a lawyer
to the President not to disclose what I was doing for
the President on a matter that he regarded as highly
confidential.
Q
Did the subject of pardon ever --
Q
Would you say that you misled Mr. terHorst
on Friday?
MR. BUCHEN: Let me put it this way; I can see
how he could have been misled.
Q
Can you see how he could not have been
misled?
MR. BUCHEN: No, I can see how he could have been
misled. I don't say he could not have been. After all, if
you get a question, why is a man whom you' have sent to
San Clemente there, and I give him an answer, I can see
when he in turn had to respond to the man, or the reporter
making the inquiries, that he would inject a negative,
was he there dóing anything else. And I assume that
Jerry said, "Well, as far as I know he wasn't," because
I had not told him he was doing anything else.
MORE
- 8 -
Q
Did you tell him he wasn't out there
discussing the pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: Oh, no.
Q
Why was it something you couldn't talk
about?
MR. BUCHEN: I could talk about the negotiations
on the tapes.
Q
When he asked you about the pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: He didn't ask me about the pardon.
Q
What was the precision of language used in
President Nixon's statement?
MR. BUCHEN: Let me get the question.
Q
What was the need for the secrecy in the
negotiations, whatever they were?
MR. BUCHEN: In the course of any client and
attorney relationship, usually until something happens, you
are under obligation not to disclose the conversations.
Q
I mean, what was the need for secrecy about
the fact that a pardon was being considered, generally,
not just your conversations with the President?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, generally, that was the
President's decision and not mine. I was just bound by
my client-attorney relationship.
Q
Mr. Buchen, if Mr. Becker knew all about the
pardon, the President seemed to trust him with that
information, yet he didn't trust Mr. terHorst with that
information?
Q
Or you didn't trust Mr. terHorst with it?
MR. BUCHEN: I had no power to subdelegate in
passing information. The first question is why didn't
the President trust Mr. terHorst to have the information
at the same time I got it?
Q
No, I mean Mr. Becker. You are talking about
the attorney-client relationship, which involves you
and the President; Mr. Becker is someone outside that
relationship, yet he knew about the pardon because he
was working on the pardon agreements.
MR. BUCHEN: No, he had the same relationship
that I had in terms of his being a lawyer and working
MORE
- 9 -
under my supervision as a lawyer for a client. As in a law
office, if a client comes into an office and the lawyer
assigns a law partner to work on it, the obligation extends
to the other lawyer as well as the original one.
Q
Can you be forthright with us on what is
your advice to the President on pardoning other individuals
associated with the --
MR. BUCHEN: I have not given him any advice.
Q
What would be your advice; how do you see
the issue?
MR. BUCHEN: I haven't even had time to study it.
Q
When did the President's other advisers find
out that the pardon was under consideration or was to
be granted, and did they agree with it when they found
out about it?
Q
And did you?
MR. BUCHEN: I was in the room at the time
when certain advisers were told about it on Friday
before Labor Day, but I don't feel free to report their
reactions.
MORE
- 10 -
Q
Can you tell us what role General Haig
played in this granting of the pardon? He was in on
all of this all the time, wasn't he? Was he recommending
a pardon during this period?
Q
What was the question?
MR. BUCHEN: I was asked that question last
night and I can tell you that every occasion when I
was present when the subject was raised and General Haig
was there, he took an absolutely neutral stand.
Q
Did you say you are not part of the study
for the other Watergate defendents? Can you tell me when
you became aware that that study was in the works?
MR. BUCHEN: I learned from Mr. Hartmann and
Mr. Hushen that this matter was brought up at the early
morning conference.
Q
Who brought it up?
Q
Today for the first time?
Q
Did you say there was a connection between
the pardon for the others and the reaction against the
pardon for Nixon? And secondly, if you are the President's
lawyer and you are not working on it, who is?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I don't know, Ron. I really
don't.
Q
What about the first part of that question;
is he trying to dampen down the reaction by giving out
pardons to the others?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I don't interpret studying
a pardon as predicting what the results would be.
Q
Mr. Buchen, as a lawyer, can you see a
distinction between a President granting a pardon to a
former President and granting pardons or not granting
pardons to former subordinates for involvement in the
same illegal acts?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, there certainly is a
distinction. I will later have available for distribution --
because I don't think there will be many questions on it --
a memorandum, a copy of a memorandum that Mr. Jack Miller
prepared for the Special Prosecutor in which he rather
carefully documents the reason why the situation of his
client is distinguishable from the situation of anybody
else's remotely involved in the acts, or Watergate-related
events.
MORE
- 11 -
You will remember I quoted a letter from Mr.
Jaworski who did say he thought there was a distinction.
Q
Phil, could I ask you this question: Does
not the mere fact that the White House has made a statement
saying that pardons for all Watergate defendants are under
study, does that not intrude upon the judicial process
to the point that the trial for the Watergate defendants,
the trial for September 30, is somehow intruded upon
and interfered with by this statement?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I don't think SO. You see,
after all, the fact that there can be a pardon hangs
over the trial of anybody. That is not a unique situation.
The power to pardon exists in the Federal Constitution
and I believe in every State Constitution.
Q
This is a matter of great and intense
national interest. It is not like the case of any
defendants. This is a case of specific defendants that
have been involved in a great national drama or what
have you, so it is a different case, is it not?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, but the Presidential pardon
power, as well as that of a Governor of a State, hangs
over the judicial process all the time.
Q
What purpose was served by announcing
this morning, or authorizing Jack Hushen to announce it
this morning?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I was not party to that
determination so I can't tell you.
Q
What purpose was served by announcing the
Jaworski letter on the ten points?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, as I indicated, it was
given to me on a confidential basis. The comments that
have been made around town is that there was not a
consideration given of what was, what someone else
called "are there any possible time bombs", and we felt
that it would be in the interest -- provided Mr. Jaworski
consented -- that we do provide you with the information
on which the President in part acted before he decided
to grant the pardon.
Q
In this study that is being undertaken,
sir, what is your understanding of the philosophy behind it
-- that families of all Watergate defendants have suffered
enough, or what other considerations?
MORE
- 12 -
MR. BUCHEN: I can't go beyond the statements
Jack gave you. That is all I know.
Q
Where did it first come up?
Q
Where did this subject of possible clemency
for all other Watergate defendants first come up? You
didn't make that clear. You said "an early morning
conference".
Q
What morning?
MR. BUCHEN: This morning.
Q
What were the circumstances?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know except it was reported
to me by Mr. Hartmann and Mr. Hushen that it was raised
this morning.
Q
Where?
MR. BUCHEN: I assume with the President. I
don't know the circumstances.
Q
Is this a reaction, Mr. Buchen? Is this
consideration of the study, consideration of pardons,
and the announcement of this study, is this a reaction
to the popular outcry against the pardon of the former
President?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't think so because the fact
that two people are brought into his confidence this
morning and that confidence has been shared with you
today, doesn't mean that that is when the thought came.
I explained on Sunday when the question was
asked me as to whether any thought was given to the way
in which the pardon power might be exercised, if at all,
respecting other people involved, I said that to my
knowledge -- meaning that as far as I knew -- no thought
had been given. But that didn't mean that the thought
processes weren't going on unbeknownst to me or unbeknownst
to the people who got the reports this morning.
Q Mr. Buchen, in going back to my other
question, you said mercy is never untimely. Was the
President not merciful ten days ago when he said it
would be untimely, and was the President lacking in mercy
when he told the committee that the American people
wouldn't stand for it?
What caused him to be suddenly merciful? Could
you tell us what happened?
MORE
- 13 -
MR. BUCHEN: I wish you would come up here
and explain the theory of mercy. You can probably do
a much better job than I can.
But let me tell you, it is not whether to be
merciful, but how he could be merciful, and I do not
think he was aware that he could act before there was
any formal indictment when he made his statement before
the press.
Q
Wasn't the President briefed on that
very point before the news conference? Wasn't he
briefed that there would be a question on pardon and
this was a policy adopted?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
Q
Why was that policy changed, that there
would be no pardon until there was due process?
MR. BUCHEN: You have lost me, I am sorry.
Q
He announced a policy at that news
conference and you say he was briefed on that policy.
MR. BUCHEN: He said that he would make no
commitments. His intention then was to make no commitments
on the pardon until something had been brought to him.
Q
Why was that changed?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, because after the conference,
I assume he reflected on the matter, and then asked me to
find out whether or not he could move quicker than he
had indicated at the press conference.
Q
Did you brief him prior to the news
conference that the best policy was for him to wait
until there was some --
MR. BUCHEN: No, I did not.
Q
With whom was he in touch with at that
point? Can you tell us who he consulted between Wednesday
and Friday when he asked you to begin your research into
precedents?
MR. BUCHEN: I have no notion; I really don't, Pete.
MORE
- 14 -
Q
What is your understanding of the
investigation status referred to in the memo? Is
Jaworski going on in his investigation of these
points? Is he going to furnish material to the public?
MR. BUCHEN: I know nothing more than what is in
the memorandum.
Q
The Watergate cover-up, it says, is the
subject of a separate memorandum. Has that memorandum
reached you?
MR. BUCHEN: It has not.
Q Do you know what it concerns?
MR. BUCHEN: I can imagine what it concerns.
Q Does it indicate to you, as a lawyer reading
this, that that number one is ongoing and unlike this
listing of ten points which according to the memo may
prove to have some connection, but then says there is
no point we can prove regarding Mr. Nixon -- does that
indicate to you that is a different story entirely
when it comes to the cover-up?
MR. BUCHEN: As you know, this memorandum was
issued before the pardon, so I don't know what the effect
of the pardon has on the investigation referred to in
the last paragraph.
Q
You must have had some indication from
the Special Prosecutor where he stands with regard to
the cover-up investigation.
MR. BUCHEN: I do not.
Q
In preparing your advice for the President,
did you address at all the time element of granting this
pardon, with specific reference to the possibility that
the Watergate cover-up trial might be affected since the
jury had not been sequestered?
MR. BUCHEN: I did not discuss that with the
President, but I understand, of course, that, one, it
is not certain the jury would be sequestered. I assume
it is available to the attorneys for the defendant to
waive any such request; and, second, I am not sure that
a story like this could possibly have been kept from the
jury however tightly sequestered.
MORE
- 15 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, did you get from Mr. Ziegler
or from Mr. Nixon, either after Mr. Becker returned here
or while he was there, some sort of commitment that the
President would not in the future make statements
protesting his innocence?
MR. BUCHEN: We did not.
Q
Mr. Buchen, are you saying that the Presi-
dent did not know or understand at the time of the
August 28 press conference that the pardoning power
could be exercised before indictment or conviction?
MR. BUCHEN: I certainly had not so advised him,
and he had not asked my advice,
Q
You didn't say that? Do you have reason
to believe that, that he didn't believe he could move
before the indictment was voted?
MR. BUCHEN: That I don't know. I didn't ask
him.
Q
You so far have not given us any explana-
tion for why Mr. Ford changed his mind after that press
conference with the possible exception of his receiving
this documentation of the investigation.
Does that mean that the investigation turned
out to be so serious that he thought the former President
wouldn't withstand it?
MR. BUCHEN: No; I think more significant than
that was the advice that I reported Sunday, namely, that
before there could be a trial, there would have to be a
delay of a year or more, and I think that was the matter
that concerned him most.
Q
Don't many trials take a year or more to
come to the court or to settle? And why is Mr. Nixon to
be treated any differently in this respect than anyone else?
MR. BUCHEN: Every defendant under the law is
entitled to a prompt trial provided he can have a fair
trial by an impartial jury.
Q
When did you advise the President of the
long delay of nine months or a year? Was that after
the press conference?
MORE
- 16 -
MR. BUCHEN: He asked me after the press
conference, or that Friday, to find the answer. So
apparently someone had told him that that probably would
be the case.
But he wanted his own lawyer to ask the Special
Prosecutor who would be the best judge, of how long it
might take, and that is the reason I went to Mr. Jaworski,
so we would have an expert opinion.
I don't claim to be an expert. On the other
hand, I have read the cases that are cited by Mr. Nixon's
own attorney who makes the same arguments very effectively
in a memorandum that you can all take back to your legal
counsels, because I don't think you want to read it all.
Q
However you did know that indictments could
be very quick, the question of laying out the charges on
the public record would not have taken very long -- maybe
a month; is that correct?
MR. BUCHEN: As you know, the word came out
that the former President -- then the President -- was
about to be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, so the
indictment involves -- that involves the defendants, involves
probably everything that involves Mr. Nixon alone.
Q
But it is not the same, really.
MR. BUCHEN: I think it is pretty good evidence
of what that jury intended to do and would have done if
there had not been a pardon.
Q
Was consideration given to the timing of
when this jury would have done this, vis-a-vis the November
elections?
MR. BUCHEN: It had nothing to do with the
elections However, it was evident it was the President's
decision to grant a pardon before the indictment. He
would have to act fairly soon because it was not
possible, of course, to grade the Grand Jury in the time
it would act.
Q
May I clear up a question here?
MR. BUCHEN: Let me get Phil first.
Q
In view of the last sentence in this memo-
randum, didn't you have any qualms about whether you could
give the President full legal advice on what he could do?
When it says here there are other matters and other
memoranda which you have not seen, how could you give
the President full advice on what he could do on the
pardon in view of that?
MORE
- 17 -
MR. BUCHEN: Well, we believed, of course, that
the evidence before the House Judiciary Committee on
this very point that resulted in the article that brought
a unanimous vote ultimately, and based on particularly
the June 23 tapes, gave every indication of what was
involved in the alleged Watergate cover-up and we
didn't think we needed to know any more than that.
Q
I think my notes are correct, that is, you
told us earlier, "I do not think (the President) was
aware that he could grant a pardon before the indictment
when he made his press conference statement." Is that
right?
MR. BUCHEN: As far as I know. I don't believe
that he was or that he understood what, if any, problems --
I am talking legal problems, now -- would arise if he
acted before indictment.
Q
The President seemed to say in his news
conference that he wouldn't act on the pardon until
after an indictment and your explanation, that there
would be nine months or a year, perhaps longer, before
a trial, doesn't really go to the question of why he
changed his mind about waiting until after an indictment
to act on a pardon.
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I guess all I can go back
to is my own analogy. If you are going to -- if you do
come to the conclusion you ought to consider mercy, it
doesn't seem to be very relevant to consider what other
steps you ought to require the man to whom you are granting
mercy must take.
Q
And at the news conference he had not made
up his mind yet?
MR. BUCHEN: He had not made up his mind.
Q
You are saying the main reason he changed
his mind was because somebody told him there would be
this long delay and he asked you to check it out and
you did. And then he decided to grant the pardon? Did
someone decide that the long delay would wreck Mr. Nixon's
health?
MR. BUCHEN: Not that I know of.
Q
Has there been any discussion about the
former President not wishing to testify or be a witness?
MORE
- 18 -
MR. BUCHEN: Well, he is under subpoena so
he has no choice.
Q
I know, but if you are considering pardons,
if there is consideration for others, that would spare
the former President from testifying, is that part of
this study?
MR. BUCHEN: I have not seen the study, so I
don't know.
Q
In your discussion of the cover-up
memorandum a moment ago, you said the June 23 tape
told you everything you needed to know about that.
MR. BUCHEN: I didn't say everything. I
also said the findings of the House Judiciary Committee.
Q
Right, and earlier he spoke of the
necessity, the acceptance of the pardon, the necessity
for the pardon. Did this mean that you and the President
in offering this pardon to the President, would make
a presumption of guilt?
MR. BUCHEN: First, take the "you" pronoun
out of that and perhaps I can answer it. I did advise
the President that a pardon could be characterized as
implying guilt on the part of the person who was pardoned
because there is no other reason for granting a pardon.
But that did not deter or affect his determination to act
when he finally made up his mind to do SO.
Q
From the perspective of the person who
accepts the pardon, does the acceptance of the pardon
amount to a tacit admission of guilt?
MR. BUCHEN: You can so accept it. The question
never came up. I couldn't find in any cases where that
question was litigated, so I can't give you any authority.
But it just takes common sense and logic to reach that
conclusion.
Let's have one of the women.
MORE
- 19 -
Q
Thank you.
Throughout this, we have heard solely about the
consideration of an indictment and the lengthy period of time
between indictment and trial. Did you try to determine
from Mr. Jaworski the possibility of a plea from the former
President? Now faced with the prospect of a multicount
indictment, as he was and as I am sure Mr. Miller advised
him, it seems extremely likely there might have been a plea
far sooner than there would ever have been an indictment
and trial. Did you ask for any timing on this, and if not,
why not?
MR. BUCHEN: I did consult, of course, with
Mr. Nixon's Attorney, and I was pretty sure from what
he told me that in his mind there would never be a plea.
Q
There would have been a trial then; you are
saying he would have gone the whole route had he not been
pardoned?
MR. BUCHEN: I believe SO.
MR. HUSHEN: Let take two more questions. We
been out here for forty-five minutes. Two more questions.
Q
Maybe you have answered this; why did
President Ford want mercy for Richard Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: Because I think he truly believed
it would be in the best interests of the country.
Q
Mr. Buchen, if you are done with that answer,
I would like to ask you, as a lawyer, do you think it not
fair and proper that, if the President considers amnesty
or granting a pardon for persons convicted for or indictments
for burglary, perjury, conspiracy in Watergate related
crimes, that he should give equal consideration to pardoning
other persons indicted or convicted of burglary, perjury or
conspiracy in non-Watergate related crimes?
MR. BUCHEN: I wish I were a better student of
the ethics or morality of mercy, but I believe a
representative of the clergy would substantiate my
remarks that, throughout our religious history --- and I
don't mean just the Christian Religion -- there has always
been a separate category of mercy that we know has never
been equally dispensed and we know that it is an act of
grace that is many times inexplicable.
I am sure all of us in the room have sought
mercy on matters that we wanted to blame ourselves for,
or some adverse consequences, and we didn't always get mercy.
MORE
- 20 -
Mercy seems to work in very unequal fashion.
That is a point on which Jerry terHorst and I have
disagreed. He has a notion, as he said, that mercy
should be dispensed with in the same even-handed fashion
as we would like to see justice dispensed.
But, I believe history tells us mercy doesn't
work the same way.
Q
Mr. Buchen --
MR. HUSHEN: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Q
Mr. Buchen, is there any limitation on
the power of pardons?
MR. BUCHEN: I refer you to --
Q
Is there any limitation on this at all?
MR. BUCHEN: I refer you to the Constitution.
Q
Is there anything he could do that was more
than this?
MR. BUCHEN: No, not that I could find in the
Constitution; no.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(1:37 P.M. EDT)
E
PRESS CONFERENCE NO. 2
of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
8:00 P.M. EDT
September 16, 1974
Monday
In the East Room
At the White House
Washington, D.C.
THE PRESIDENT: Please sit down.
Ladies and gentlemen, this press conference is
being held at a time when many Americans are observing the
Jewish religious new year. It begins a period of self-
examination and reconciliation. In opening this press
conference, I am mindful that the spirit of this holy day
has a meaning for all Americans.
In examining one's deeds of the last year and
in assuming responsibility for past actions and personal
decisions, one can reach a point of growth and change. The
purpose of looking back is to go forward with a new and
enlightened dedication to our highest values.
The record of the past year does not have to
be endlessly relived, but can be transformed by commitment
to new insights and new actions in the year to come.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am ready for your
questions.
Mr. Cormier.
QUESTION: Mr. President, some Congressional
Republicans who have talked to you have hinted that you
may have had a secret reason for granting President Nixon
a pardon sooner than you indicated you would at the last
news conference, and I wonder if you could tell us what
that reason was.
THE PRESIDENT: At the outset, let me say I
had no secret reason, and I don't recall telling any
Republican that I had such a reason. Let me review quickly,
if I might, the things that transpired following the last
news conference.
MORE
Page 2
As many of you know, I answered two, maybe
three questions concerning a pardon at that time. On
return to the office, I felt that I had to have my counsel
undertake a thorough examination as to what my right of
pardon was under the Constitution. I also felt that
it was very important that I find out what legal actions,
if any, were contemplated by the Special Prosecutor.
That information was found out, and it was
indicated to me that the possibility exists, the very
real possibility that the President would be charged with
obstructing justice and ten other possible criminal
actions.
In addition, I asked my general counsel to
find out, if he could, how long such criminal proceedings
would take, from the indictment, the carrying on of the
trial, et cetera, and I was informed that this would
take a year, maybe somewhat longer, for the whole process
to go through.
I also asked my counsel to find out whether
or not under decisions of the judicial system a fair
trial would be given to the former President.
After I got that information, which took two
or three days, I then began to evaluate, in my own mind,
whether or not I should take the action, which I
subsequently did.
Miss Thomas.
MORE
Page 3
QUESTION: Throughout your Vice Presidency,
you said that you didn't believe that former President
Nixon had ever committed an impeachable offense. Is
that still your belief or do you believe that his
acceptance of a pardon implies his guilt, or is an
admission of guilt?
THE PRESIDENT: The fact that 38 members of
the House Committee on the Judiciary, Democrat and
Republican, have unanimously agreed in the report that
was filed that the former President was guilty of an
impeachable offense, I think is very persuasive
evidence.
And the second question, I don't recall --
QUESTION: An admission of guilt?
THE PRESIDENT: Was the acceptance of the
pardon by the President an admission of guilt? The
acceptance of a pardon, I think, can be construed by
many, if not all, as an admission of guilt.
Yes, Mr. Nessen.
QUESTION: What reports have you received on
Mr. Nixon's health, and what effect, if any, did this
have on your decision to pardon him now?
THE PRESIDENT: I have asked Dr. Lukash, who
is the head physician in the White House, to keep me
posted in proper channels as to the former President's
health. I have been informed on a routine day-to-day
basis, but I don't think I am at liberty to give any
information as to those reports that I have received.
You also asked what impact did the President's
health have on my decision. I think it is well known
that just before I gave my statement at the time that
I gave the pardon I personally wrote in a phrase "the
threat to the President's health,
The main concern that I had at the time I made
the decision was to heal the wounds throughout the
United States. For a period of 18 months or longer, we
had had turmoil and divisiveness in the American society.
At the same time, the United States had major problems
both at home and abroad that needed the maximum personal
attention of the President and many others in the Govern-
ment.
It seemed to me that as long as this divisiveness
continued, this turmoil existed, caused by the charges
and counter charges, the responsible people in the
Government could not give their total attention to the
problems that we had to solve at home and abroad.
MORE
Page 4
And the net result was that I was more
anxious to heal the Nation. That was the top priority.
I felt then, and I feel now, that the action I took
will do that. I couldn't be oblivious, however, to
news accounts that I had concerning the President's health,
but the major reason for the action. took related to the
effort to reconcile divisions in cur country and to
heal the wounds that had festered far too long.
QUESTION: Mr. President, after you had told us
that you were going to allow the legal process to go on
before you decided whether to pardon him, why did
you decide on Sunday morning, abruptly, to pardon Presi-
dent Nixon?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't decide abruptly. I
explained a moment ago the process that I went through
subsequent to the last press conference. When I had
assembled all of that information that came to me
through my counsel, I then most carefully analyzed the
situation in the country and I decided that we could not
afford in America an extended period of continued turmoil
and the fact that the trial, and all of the parts thereof,
would have lasted a year -- perhaps more -- with the
continuation of the divisions in America. I felt that
I should take the action that I did, promptly and
effectively.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I would like to ask you
a question about the decision relating to custody of the
Nixon tapes and documents. Considering the enormous
interest that the Special Prosecutor's office had in
those documents for .further investigation, I am wondering
why the negotiations with Mr. Nixon's representatives were
conducted strictly between the counsel in your office
without bringing in discussions with either Mr. Jaworski's
representatives or those from the Justice Department.
THE PRESIDENT: In the first place, I did receive
a memorandum, or legal opinion, from the Department of
Justice which indicated that in the opinion of the
Department of Justice, the documents, tapes, the
ownership of them were in the hands of the former
President. Historically, that has been the case for all
Presidents.
Now, the negotiations for the handling of the
tapes and documents were undertaken and consummated by my
staff and the staff of the former President. I believe
that they have been properly preserved and they will be
available under subpoena for any criminal proceeding.
Now, the Special Prosecutor's staff has indicated some
concern. I am saying tonight that my staff is working with
the Special Prosecutor's staff to try and alleviate
any concerns that they have. I hope a satisfactory
arrangement can be worked out.
MORE
Page 5
QUESTION: Mr. President, during your
confirmation hearings as Vice President, you said that
you did not think that the country would stand for a
President to pardon his predecessor. Has your mind been
changed about such public opinion?
THE PRESIDENT: In those hearings before
the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, I
was asked a hypothetical question, and in answer to
that hypothetical question I responded by saying that
I did not think the American people would stand for such
an action.
Now that I am in the White House and don't
have to answer hypothetical questions but have to
deal with reality, it was my judgment, after analyzing
all of the facts, that it was in the best interest of
the United States for me to take the action that I did.
I think if you will reread what I said in
answer to that hypothetical question, I did not say I
wouldn't. I simply said that under the way the question
was phrased, the American people would object.
But I am absolutely convinced when dealing with
reality in this very, very difficult situation, that
I made the right decision in an effort, an honest,
conscientious effort, to end the divisions and the
turmoil in the United States.
Mr. Lisagor.
QUESTION: Mr. President, is there any safe-
guard in the tapes agreement that was made with Mr. Nixon,
first, with their destruction in the event anything
happens to him, because under the agreement they will
be destroyed, and secondly, should not the tapes be
kept in the White House until the Special Prosecutor has
finished dealing with them?
THE PRESIDENT: The tapes and the documents
are still in our possession and we are, as I said a
moment ago, working with the Special Prosecutor's office,
to alleviate any concerns they have as to their disposition
and their availability.
The agreement as to destruction is quite clear-
cut. As long as Mr. Nixon is alive and during the
period of time that is set forth, they are available for
subpoena by a court involving any criminal proceedings.
I think this is a necessary requirement for the protection
of evidence for any such action.
MORE
Page 6
QUESTION: Mr. President, recent Congress-
ional testimony has indicated that the CIA, under the
direction of a committee headed by Dr. Kissinger,
attempted to destablize the Government of Chile under
former President Allende.
Is it the policy of your Administration to
attempt to destabilize the governments of other
democracies?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me answer in general. I
think this is a very important question.
Our Government, like other governments, does
take certain actions in the intelligence field to help
implement foreign policy and protect national security. I
am informed reliably that Communist nations spend vastly
more money than we do for the same kind of purposes.
Now, in this particular case, as 'I understand
it, and there is no doubt in my mind, our Government had no
involvement whatsoever in the Allende coup. To my
knowledge, nobody has charged that. The facts are we had
no involvement in any way whatsoever in the coup itself.
In a period of time, three or four years ago,
there was an effort being made by the Allende government
to destroy opposition news media, both the writing press
as well as the electronic press, and to destroy opposition
political parties.
The effort that was made in this case was
to help and assist the preservation of opposition news-
papers and electronic media and to preserve opposition
political parties.
I think this is in the best interest of the
people in Chile, and certainly in our best interest.
Now, may I add one further comment.
The 40 committee was established in 1948. It
has been in existence under Presidents since that time.
That committee reviews every covert operation undertaken
by our Government, and that information is relayed to the
responsible Congressional committees where it is reviewed
by House and Senate committees.
It seems to me that the 40 committee should
continue in existence, and I am going to meet with the
responsible Congressional committees to see whether or
not they want any changes in the review process so that
the Congress, as well as the President, are fully informed
and are fully included in the operations for any such
action.
MORE
Page 7
QUESTION: In view of public reaction, do
you think the Nixon pardon really served to bind up the
Nation's wounds? I wonder if you would assess public
reaction to that move.
THE PRESIDENT: I must say that the decision
has created more antagonism than I anticipated. But as
I look over the long haul with a trial or several trials
of a former President, criminal trials, the
possibility of a former President being in the dock so
to speak, and the divisions that would have existed not
just for a limited period of time, but for a long
period of time, it seems to me that when I had the
choice between that possibility and the possibility of
taking direct action hoping to conclude it, I am
still convinced, despite the public reaction so far, that
the decision I made was the right one.
QUESTION: Mr. President, in regard to the
pardon, you talk about the realities of the situation.
Now those realities rightly or wrongly included a good
many people who speculate abcut whether or not there is
some sort of arrangement -- even some of them call a deal --
between you and the former President or between your staff
and his staff, resignation in exchange for a full pardon.
The question is: Is there or was there, to
your knowledge, any kind of understanding about this?
THE PRESIDENT: There was no understanding, no
deal between me and the former President, nor between my
staff and the staff of the former President, none
whatsoever.
QUESTION: Mr. President, there is a bill that
the Treasury Department has put forward, I think it is
about 38 pages. Under this bill, which deals with getting
hold of the returns, Internal Revenue returns of the
citizens of the country, you could take action to get those
returns whenever you wanted to.
I wonder if you are aware of this, and if you
feel that you need to get those returns of citizens.
MORE
Page 8
THE PRESIDENT: It is my understanding that a
President has, by tradition and practice, and by law,
the right to have access to income tax returns. I
personally think that is something that should be kept
very closely held. A person's income tax return is
a very precious thing to that individual and, therefore,
I am about to issue an Executive Order that makes it even
more restrictive as to how those returns can be handled
and I do think that a proposed piece of legislation that is
coming to me and subsequently will be submitted, as I
recollect, to the Congress would also greatly tighten up
the availability or accessibility of income tax returns.
I think they should be closely held and I can assure
you that they will be most judiciously handled as far as I
am concerned.
Yes.
QUESTION: Mr. President, looking beyond the Nixon
papers and in view of some criticism in Congress, do you believe
we may have now reached the point where Presidential
White House papers should remain in the Government's
hands as the property of the Government?
THE PRESIDENT: As far as I am personally
concerned, I can see a legitimate reason for Presidential
papers remaining the property of the Government. In my
own case, I made a decision some years ago to turn over
all of my Congressional papers, all of my Vice Presidential
papers to the University of Michigan archives.
As far as I am concerned, whether they go to the
archives for use or whether they stay the possession of the
Government, I don't think it makes too much difference.
I have no desire, personally, to retain whatever
papers come out of my Administration.
Mr. Mollenhoff.
QUESTION: Mr. President, at the last press
conference you said, "The code of ethics that will be
followed will be the example that I set." Do you find
any conflicts of interest in the decision to grant a
sweeping pardon to your life-long friend and your
financial benefactor with no consultation for advice
and judgment for the legal fallout?
THE PRESIDENT: The decision to grant a pardon
to Mr. Nixon was made primarily, as I have expressed, for
the purpose of trying to heal the wounds throughout the
country between Americans on one side of the issue or the
other. Mr. Nixon nominated me for the office of Vice
President. I was confirmed overwhelmingly in the House
as well as in the Senate. Every action I have taken,
Mr. Mollenhoff, is predicated on my conscience without
any concern or consideration as to favor as far as I am
concerned.
MORE
Page 9
Yes.
QUESTION: If your intention was to heal the
wounds of the Nation, sir, why did you grant only a
conditional amnesty to the Vietnam war veterans while
granting a full pardon to President Nixon?
THE PRESIDENT: The only connection between those
two cases is the effort that I made in the one to heal
the wounds involving the charges against Mr. Nixon and my
honest and conscientious effort to heal the wounds
for those who had deserted military service or dodged the
draft. That is the only connection between the two.
In one case, you have a President who was forced
to resign because of circumstances involving his Administra-
tion and he has been shamed and disgraced by that resigna-
tion. In the case of the draftdodgers and Army and
military deserters, we are trying to heal the wounds by
the action that I took with the signing of the proclama-
tion this morning.
QUESTION: Mr. President, another concern that has
been voiced around the country since the pardon is that
the judicial process as it finally unwinds may not write
the definitive chapter on Watergate and perhaps with par-
ticular regard to Mr. Nixon's particular involvement,
however total, however it may have been in truth, My
question is, would you consider appointing a special
commission with extraordinary powers to look into all of the
evidentiary material and to write that chapter and not
leave it to later history?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it seems to me as I look
at what has been done, I think you find a mass of evidence
that has been accummulated. In the first instance. you
have the very intensive investigation conducted by the
House Committee on the Judiciary. It was a very well-
conducted investigation. It came up with volumes of
information.
In addition, the Special Prosecutor's office
under Mr. Jaworski has conducted an intensive investigation
and the Special Prosecutor's office will issue a report at
the conclusion of their responsibilities that I think will
probably make additional information available to the
American people.
And thirdly, as the various criminal trials proceed
in the months ahead, there obviously will be additional
information made available to the American people. So,
when you see what has been done and what undoubtedly
will be done, I think the full story will be made available
to the American people.
MORE
Page 10
QUESTION: Mr. President, could you give us an
idea who would succeed General Haig, and how are you
coming on your search for a Press Secretary?
THE PRESIDENT: Do I have a lot of candidates
here? (Laughter) No shows. (Laughter)
I have several people in mind to replace
General Haig, but I have made no decision on that. It
was just announced today that the NATO countries have
accepted him as the officer handling those responsibilities.
I think he is to take office succeeding General
Goodpaster on December 15. He assumes his responsi-
bilities as the head of U.S. military forces November 1.
In the next few days undoubtedly I will make the decision
as to the individual to succeed him.
So far as the Press Secretary is concerned,
we are actively working on that and we hope to have an
announcement in a relatively short period of time.
QUESTION: Mr. President, prior to your deciding
to pardon Mr. Nixon, did you have, apart from those
reports, any information either from associations of the
President or from his family or from any other source
about his health, about his medical condition?
THE PRESIDENT: Prior to the decision that I
made granting a pardon to Mr. Nixon, I had no other
specific information concerning his health other than
what I had read in the news media or heard in the news
media. I had not gotten any information from any of the
Nixon family. The sole source was what I had read in
the news media plus one other fact.
On Saturday before the Sunday a member of my
staff was working with me on the several decisions I
had to make. He was, from my staff, the one who had
been in negotiations on Friday with the President and
his staff.
At the conclusion of decisions that were made,
I asked him, how did the President look, and he reported
to me his observations.
But other than what I had read or heard and
this particular incident, I had no precise information
concerning the President's health.
MORE
Page 11
QUESTION: Mr. President, your own economic
advisers are suggesting that to save the economy which
is very bad and very pessimistic, we are hearing the
word "depression" used now. I wonder how you feel about
whether we are heading for a depression?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me say very strongly that
the United States is not going to have a depression. The
overall economy of the United States is strong. Employment
is still high. We do have the problem of inflation. We
do have related problems, and we aregoing to come up with
some answers that I hope will solve those problems.
We are not going to have a depression. We are
going to work to make sure that our economy improves in the
months ahead.
QUESTION: Mr. President, in the face of massive
food shortages and the prospects of significant starvation,
will the United States be able to significantly increase its
food aid to foreign countries, and what is our position
going to be at the Rome conference on participation in
the world grain reserves?
THE PRESIDENT: Within the next few days a
very major decision in this area will be made. I am not
at liberty to tell you what the answer will be because
it has not been decided.
But it is my hope that the United States for
humanitarian purposes will be able to increase its
contribution to those nations that have suffered because
of drought or any of the other problems related to human
needs.
MORE
Page 12
QUESTION: Back to the CIA, under what inter-
national law do we have a right to attempt to destablize the
constitutionally-elected government of another country,
and does the Soviet Union have a similar right to try
to destabilize the Government of Canada, for example, or
the United States?
THE PRESIDENT: I am not going to pass judgment
on whether it is permitted or authorized under
international law. It is a recognized fact that historically,
as well as presently, such actions are taken in the best
interest of the countries involved.
QUESTION: Mr. President, last month when you
assumed the Presidency, you pledged openness and candor.
Last week you decided on the ex-President's pardon in
virtually total secrecy. Despite all you have said tonight,
there would still seem to be some confusion, some
contradiction.
My question is this: Are the watchwords if
your Administration still openness and candor?
THE PRESIDENT: Without any question, without
any reservation. And I think in the one instance that
you cite, it was a sole decision, and believe me, it
wasn't easy, and since I was the only one who could make
that decision, I thought I had to search my own soul
after consulting with a limited number of people, and I
did it, and I think in the longrun it was the right
decision.
THE PRESS: Thank you, Mr. President.
END
(AT 8:30 P.M. EDT)