Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "7773939",
    "label": "Nixon, Richard - Pardon: House Subcommittee Hearing - Background Materials (2)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7773939"
}

{
    "id": "7773939",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7773939",
    "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": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7773939",
    "collections": [
        "John O. Marsh Files (Ford Administration)",
        "John Marsh's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Nixon, Richard M. (Richard Milhous), 1913-1994",
        "Governmental investigations"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/39/7739/7773939/content/library/document/0067/7773939.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/39/7739/7773939/content/library/document/0067/7773939.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/39/7739/7773939/content/library/document/0067/7773939.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7773939",
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/39/7739/7773939/content/library/document/0067/7773939.pdf",
    "mediaId": "55d09bb0e88eccbc",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 25, folder \"Nixon, Richard - Pardon: House\nSubcommittee Hearing - Background Materials (2)\" of the John Marsh Files at the Gerald\nR. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 25 of The John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nADDITIONAL BACKGROUND MATERIAL\nFOR USE BEFORE\nSUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE\nHOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n1.\nCORRESPONDENCE WITH SUBCOMMITTEE\n2.\nMATERIALS ALREADY FURNISHED SUBCOMMITTEE\nA. Proclamation Granting Pardon, September 8, 1974\nB. Remarks of President Granting Pardon, September 8, 1974\nC. First Press Conference, Philip Buchen, September 8, 1974\nD. Second Press Conference, Philip Buchen, September 10, 1974\nE. The President's Press Conference, No. 2, September 16, 1974\n3.\nSTATEMENT OF FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON, SEPTEMBER 8, 1974\n4.\nLETTER FROM LEON JAWORSKI (ATTACHED TO LETTER OF\nRESIGNATION), OCTOBER 12, 1974\n5.\nTIME MAGAZINE, HUGH SIDEY EDITORIAL, SEPTEMBER 30, 1974\nCONCERNING ALEXANDER HAIG\n6.\nWALL STREET JOURNAL, INTERVIEW WITH\nLEON JAWORSKI, OCTOBER 16, 1974\n7.\nCOUNSEL'S MEMORANDUM ON PARDON POWER\n8.\nTHE PRESIDENT'S PRESS CONFERENCE, NO. 1, AUGUST 28, 1974\n1\nWILLIAM L. HUNGATE\n2437 RAYMON District\n9TH DISTRICT. MISSOURI\nProvide 225-2956\nSELECT COMMITTEE ON\nSMALL DUSINESS\nCongress of the United States\nJUDICIARY COMMITTEE\nCHAIRMAN. SUBCOMMITTEE ON\nCHAIRMAN SUBCOME THEEN\nENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS\nCRIMINAL JUSTICE\nDouse of Representatives\nWashington, D.C. 20515\nOctober 7, 1974\nPresident Gerald R. Ford\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Mr. President:\nYou are aware that certain questions posed in the\nresolutions of inquiry, House Resolutions 1367 (Abzug)\nand 1370 (Conyers), now pending before the Subcommittee\non Criminal Justice provide for the production of tapes,\ntranscripts, notes, reports, statements or other\ndocumentary information. For example, in the instance\nof questions two, eight, and ten of House Resolution\n1367, specific requests are made for the production\nof certain documents and tapes, where available. To the\nextent relied on in arriving at the responses to the\nquestions propounded in these two privileged resolutions,\nthe Subcommittee requests that such documents and\ntapes, if available, .be forwarded to the Subcommittee\nfor review prior to your appearance.\nFurthermore, there may be additional documentation that,\nwhile not specifically requested by the resolutions of\ninquiry, would be helpful to the Members of the Subcommittee\nin preparing for your forthcoming appearance before the\nSubcommittee. For example, in the instance of question five of\nHouse Resolution 1367, a request is made for any facts and\nlegal authorities provided you by Attorney General Saxbe\nor Special Prosecutor Jaworski. If any of the information\nwas forwarded to you in written form, it would be appreciated\nif you make it available to the Subcommittee prior to your\nappearance.\nChairman\nSubcommittee on Criminal Justice\nWLH/bts\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 15, 1974\nDear Mr. Chairman:\nThe President has asked me to reply to your letter to him of\nOctober 7, 1974.\nIn your letter you have requested, in advance of the President's\nappearance on October 17, 1974, copies of documentation to the\nextent relied on in arriving at responses to the questions in the\ntwo proposed resolutions of inquiry, H. Res. 1367 and H. Res. 1370.\nIn your first paragraph you refer to questions by number which\nspecifically call for producing certain documentation if it exists,\nnamely two, eight, and ten of H. Res. 1367. However, question two\ndeals with matters not within President Ford's knowledge or aware-\nness and, in any event, if any discussions covered by the question\ntook place, they could not have been and were not a factor in his\ndecision to pardon the former President because he was not aware\nof them. In the cases of the other mentioned questions, no\ndocumentation is involved in the answers of the President.\nIn the second paragraph you refer to possible documentation not\nspecifically requested by the resolutions of inquiry, but, as I\nunderstand your letter, which is directly related to such questions\nas number five. In that connection, documentation was supplied to\nyou with the President's letter of September 20, 1974. In addition,\nthere are now enclosed:\n-- copy of a letter from Special Prosecutor Jaworski\nto me dated September 4, 1974 (a portion of this letter\nwas quoted by me to the press on September 8, 1974,\nbut the enclosure provides the full text.)\n-- copy of a memorandum furnished by Special Prosecutor\nJaworski, which had been prepared for him by Deputy\nSpecial Prosecutor Henry Ruth under date of\nSeptember 3, 1974, which was released from the\nWhite House on September 10, 1974.\n-2-\nThis is the only information supplied in written form to the\nPresident which relates to questions such as five, six, or seven.\nSincerely yours,\nRegw.Bucken Philip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nThe Honorable William L. Hungate\nChairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice\nCommittee on the Judiciary\nHouse of Representatives\nWashington, D. C. 20515\nEnclosures\n1425 K Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20005\nSeptember 4, 1974\nPhilip W. Buchen, Esq.\nCounsel to the President\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Mr. Buchen:\nYou have inquired as to my opinion regard-\ning the length of delay that would follow, in the\nevent of an indictment of former President Richard M.\nNixon, before a trial could reasonably be had by a\nfair and impartial jury as guaranteed by the Consti-\ntution.\nThe factual situation regarding a trial of\nRichard M. Nixon within constitutional bounds, is\nunprecedented. It is especially unique in view of\nthe recent House Judiciary Committee inquiry on\nimpeachment, resulting in a unanimous adverse finding\nto Richard M. Nixon on the Article involving obstruc-\ntion of justice. The massive publicity given the\nhearings and the findings that ensued, the reversal\nof judgment of a number of the members of the\nRepublican Party following release of the June 23\ntape recording, and their statements carried nation-\nwide, and finally, the resignation of Richard M. Nixon,\nrequire a delay, before selection of a jury is begun,\nof a period from nine months to a year, and perhaps\neven longer. This judgment is predicated on a review\nof the decisions of United States Courts involving\nprejudicial pre-trial publicity. The Government's\ndecision to pursue impeachment proceedings and the\ntremendous volume of television, radio and newspaper\n- 2 -\ncoverage given thereto, are factors emphasized by\nthe Courts in weighing the time a trial can be had.\nThe complexities involved in the process of selecting\na jury and the time it will take to complete the\nprocess, I find difficult to estimate at this time.\nThe situation involving Richard M. Nixon is\nreadily distinguishable from the facts involved in\nthe case of United States V. Mitchell, et al, set\nfor trial on September 30th. The defendants in the\nMitchell case were indicted by a grand jury operating\nin secret session. They will be called to trial,\nunlike Richard M. Nixon, if indicted, without any\nprevious adverse finding by an investigatory body\nholding public hearings on its conclusions. It is\nprecisely the condemnation of Richard M. Nixon\nalready made in the impeachment process, that would\nmake it unfair to the defendants in the case of\nUnited States V. Mitchell, et al, for Richard M. Nixon\nnow to be joined as a co-conspirator, should it be\nconcluded that an indictment of him was proper.\nThe United States V. Mitchell, et al, trial\nwill within itself generate new publicity, some\nundoubtedly prejudicial to Richard M. Nixon. I bear\nthis in mind when I estimate the earliest time of trial\nof Richard M. Nixon under his constitutional guarantees,\nin the event of indictment, to be as indicated above.\nIf further information is desired, please\nadvise me.\nSincerely,\nLEON JAWORSKI\nSpecial Prosecutor\nMemorandum\nTO\n:\nLeon Jaworski\nDATE: Sept. 3, 1974\nROM\n:\nHenry Ruth\nSUBJECT: Mr. Nixon\nThe following matters are still under investigation\nin this Office and may prove to have some direct\nconnection to activities in which Mr. Nixon is\npersonally involved:\n1. Tax deductions relating to the gift\nof pre-Presidential papers.\n2. The Colson obstruction of justice plea\nin the Ellsberg matter.\n3. The transfer of the national security\nwire tap records from the FBI to the White\nHouse.\n4. The initiating of wire tapping of\nJohn Sears.\n5. Misuse of IRS information.\n6. Misuse of IRS through attempted initiation\nof audits as to \"enemies.\"\n7. The dairy industry pledge and its\nrelationship to the price support change.\n8. Filing of a challenge to the Washington\nPost ownership of two Florida television\nstations.\n9. False and evasive testimony at the\nKleindienst confirmation hearings as to\nWhite House participation in Department\nof Justice decisions about ITT.\n10. The handling of campaign contributions\nby Mr. Rebozo for the personal benefit of\nMr. Nixon.\nNone of these matters at the moment rises to\nthe level of our ability to prove even a probable\ncriminal violation by Mr. Nixon, but I thought you\nought to know which of the pending investigations\nwere even remotely connected to Mr. Nixon. of course,\nthe Watergate cover-up is the subject of a separate\nmemorandum.\ncc: Mr. Lacovara\nNINETY-THIRD CONGRESS\nPETER W. MODING, JR. (N.J.) CHAIRMAN\nHAROLD D. DONOHUE, MASS.\nEDWARD HUTCHINSON, MICH.\nGENERAL COUNSEL:\nJACK BROOKS, TEX.\nROBERT COLORY, ILL.\nJEROME M. ZEIFMAN\nRQ\" IT W. KASTENMER, WIS.\nHENRY P. SMITH III, N.Y.\nDONE COWARDS, CALIF,\nWILLIAM 1. HUNGATE, MO.\nTOM HAILSBACK, H.L.\nCongress of the United States\nASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL:\nCHARLES W. SANDMAN, JR., N.J.\nGARNER J. CLINE\nJOHN CONYERS, Jie., MICH.\nCHARLES E. WIGGINS, CALIF.\nCOUNSEL:\nJoseph KILBERG, PA.\nDAVID W. DENNIS, IND.\nHERBERT FUCHS\nJENUME R. WALLIE, CALIF.\nHAMILTON FISH, JR., N.Y.\nWALTER FLOWERS, ALA,\nWILEY MAYNE, TOWA\nCommittee on the Judiciary\nWILLIAM P. SHATTUCK\n14. CHRISTOPHER NOLDE\nJAMES R. MANN, S.C.\nLAWRENCE J. HOGAN, MD.\nALAN A. PARKER\nPAUL 3. SARBANES, MD.\nM. CALDWELL BUTI ER, VA.\nHouse of Representatives\nJAMES F. FALCO\nJOHN F. SEIBERLING, OHIQ\nWILLIAM S. COMEN, MAINE\nMAURICE A. BARDOZA\nGEORGE E. DANIELSON, CALIF.\nTRENT LOTT, MISS.\nARTHUR P. ENDRES, JR.\nROBERT F. DRINAN, MASS,\nHAROLD V. FROEHLICH, WIS.\nMashington, D.C. 20515\nFRANKLIN G. POLK\nCHARLES B. RANGEL, N.Y.\nCARLOS J. MOORHEAD, CALIF.\nTHOMAS E. MOONEY\nBARBARA JORDAN, TEX.\nJOSEPH J. MARAZITI, N.J.\nMICHAEL W. BLOMMER\nRAY THORNTON, ARK.\nDELBERT L. LATTA, OHIO\nALEXANDER B. COOK\nELIZABETH HOLTEMAN, M.Y.\nCONSTANTINE J. GEKAS\nWAYNE OWENS, UTAH\nALAN F. COFFEY, JR.\nEDWARD MEZVINSKY, IDWA\nSeptember 25, 1974\nPresident Gerald R. Ford\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Mr. President:\nI am in receipt of your letters dated September 20,\n1974, and September 23, 1974, responding to my letters\nconcerning the privileged resolutions, H.Res. 1367, and\nH. Res. 1370, introduced by Representatives Abzug and\nConyers, respectively. A review has been made of the\ndocuments accompanying your letter of September 20, 1974,\nfor the purpose of determining whether your and members of\nyour staff's prior statements concerning the pardon of\nformer President Nixon are responsive to the questions\nposed in the privileged measures.\nDue to the difficulty in determining which portions\nof these statements you mean to apply to each specific\nquestion, I respectfully request that you respond individu-\nally to each inquiry and that your responses be forwarded\nto the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice by the close of\nbusiness on Thursday, September 26, 1974.\nIn addition, I further respectfully request, after\nhaving consulted with the bipartisan membership of the\nSubcommittee on Criminal Justice, that Philip Buchen, Counsel\nto the President, or someone with equivalent knowledge of the\ncircumstances surrounding the pardon of the former President,\nappear and testify before the Subcommittee on Tuesday,\nOctober 1, 1974.\nChairman\nSubcommittee on Criminal Justice\nWH/rts\nSeptember 30, 1974\nN\nDear Bill:\nThis is to advise you that I expect to appear\npersonally to respond to the questions raised in\nHouse Resolutions 1367 and 1370.\nIt would be my decire to arrange this hearing\nbefore your Subcommittee at a matually con-\nvenient time within the next ten days.\nThank you for your help and assistance in this\nmatter.\nSincerely,\nCongressman William Hungate\nU.S. House of Representatives\nWashington, D.C.\nGRF:NM:ny\nGERATO\n55- This street he\nNINETY-THIND CONGRESS\nPETER W. RODING, IR. (H.) CHAIRMAN\nlogged Origuel\nMarch\nLD D. DONOHUE. MAES.\nEDWARD HUTCHINSON, MICH.\nOENERAL COUNSEL\nBROONS. YEX.\nMORENT ME CLORT. ILL\nJENUME M. ZEIPMAN\nBr\nAT W. KASTENMEIDR, WIS.\nHENDY P. SMITH 111. N.Y.\nTOWARD CALIF.\nCHARLES W. SANDMAN, JR, NJ.\nImgress of the United States\nASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL\nIAM L. MUNGAT MO.\nTOM FIAILSEACH, 11.1.\nGANN as CLINE\nCONTERS. JR., MICH.\nCHARLES C VICCINS. CALIF.\nCOUNICL:\nJA RILMERG. PA.\nDAVID W. DENNIS, IND.\nMEACERT FUCHS\nME R. WALUIE, CALIF.\nHAMILTON FISH :R., N.Y.\nEM FLOWERS. ALA.\nCommittee nn 1hc Fudiciary\nWILLIAM P. SHATTUCK\nWILLY MAYNE, IOWA\n11. CHRISTOPHER NOLDE\n& a MANN. S.C.\nLAWARNCE J. HOGAN, MD.\nALAN A. PARKER\nS. SARDANES. MD.\nM. CALDWELL BUTLER. VA.\nHouse of Representatives\nJAMES F. FALCO\nF. SEHITALING. OHIO\nWILLIAM B. COMEM, MAINE\nMAURICE A. BARBOZA\nGE E. DANIEL ON. CALIF.\nTHENT LOTT. MISS.\nARTHUR P. ENDRES. JR.\nRT F. DRINAN, MASS.\nHANDLD V. FROEMLICH, WIS.\nLES #. RANGEL. N.Y.\nMashington, D.C.. 20515\nFRANKLIN c. POLK\nCARLOS J. MOORHEAD. CALIF.\nTHOMAS E. MOUNTY\nARA JOHDAN, TEX.\nJOSEPH J. MANAIITI, N.J.\nMICHAEL W. BLOMMER\nTHOMATON, ARK.\nDELECT L LATTA, OHIO\nALEXANDER M. COOK\nBETH MOLTZNAN, N.Y.\nCONSTANTINE J. CLEAS\nID OV/ENS, UTAH\nALAN F. COFFEY. Jn.\nIRD MEZVINSKY, IOWA\nSeptember 18, 1971:\nPresident Gerald R. Ford\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C.\nDear Mr. President:\nSubsequent to RV letter to you of September 17,\n1974, concerning Representative Abzue's resolution of\ninquiry, H.Res. 1367, Representative John Convers of\nMichigan introduced a second resolution of insuiry,\nH.Res. 1370, which also has been referred to the Sub-\ncommittee on Criminal Justice of the Committee on the\nJudiciary.\nUnder the Fules of the House, the Committee on\nthe Judiciary is called upon to consider these resolutions\nwithin seven legislative days of their introduction. I\nam enclosing printed copies of both resolutions and\nrespectfully request that you provide the Subcommittee\nwith responses to the inquiries contained in these privi-\nleged legislative measures.\nRespectfully\nChairman\nSubcommittee on Criminal Justice\nWLH/ots\nEnclosures\nGERALD FORD LIBRAGE\nSeptember 23, 1974\nDear Mr. Chairman:\nIt has been called to my attention that a subsequent\nletter of yours to me dated September 18, 1974, refers\nnot only to H. Res. 1367, but to an additional resolution\nintroduced by Representative Conyers, H. Res. 1370.\nPlease be advised that the response of September 20, 1974,\nconcerning H. Res. 1367 is also applicable to H. Res. 1370.\nSincerely,\nThe Honorable William L. Hungate\nChairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice\nCommittee on the Judiciary\nHouse of Representatives\nWashington, D. C. 20515\nGRF:\nPWB: JM\nCC: William Timmons\nJohn Marsh\nDESALO FORD LIBRAEN\nNINETY-THIRD CONGRESS\nPETER V. RODINO, JR. (N.J.) CHAIRMAN\nBIARCE D.D. DONOHUE, MASS.\nEDWARD HUTCHINSON, MICH.\nJACK BROOKS, TLX.\nGENERAL COUNSEL:\nROBERT MC CLORY, ILL.\nROBERT W. KASTE NMEIER, WIS.\nJEROME M. ZEIFMAN\nHENRY P. SMITH 111, N.Y.\nDON EDWARDS, CALIF.\nCHARL ES W. BANDMAN, JR., N.J.\nWILLIAM L. HUNGATE, MO.\nCongress of the United States\nASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL:\nTOM MAILSBACK, ILL\nGARNER J. CLINE\nJOHN CONYERS, JR., MICH.\nCHARLES E., WIGGINS, CALIF.\nCOUNSEL\nJOSHUA BLRG. PA.\nDAVID W. DENNIS, IND.\nMERBERT FUCHS\nJEROME R. WALDIE, CALIF.\nHAMILTON FISH, JR., N.Y.\nWALTER FLOWERS, ALA.\nCommittee mr the Judiciary\nWILLIAM P. SHATTUCK\nWILLY MAYNE, IOWA\nH. CHRISTOPHER NOLDE\nJAMES R. MANN, S.C.\nLAWRENCE J. HOGAN, MD.\nALAN A. PARKER\nPAUL $. SARBANES, MD.\nM. CALDWELL BUTLER, VA.\nJOHN F. SEIBERLING, OHIO\nWILLIAM S. COMEN, MAINE\nHouse of Representatives\nJAMES F. FALCO\nMAURICE A. BARBOZA\nGEORGE E. DANIELSON, CALIF.\nTRENT LOTT, MISS.\nARTHUR P. ENDRES, JR.\nROBERT F. DRINAN, MASS.\nHAROLD V. PROEHLICH, WIS.\nCHARLES B. RANGEL, N.Y.\nCARLOS J. MOORHEAD, CALIF.\nMashington, D.C. 20515\nFRANKLIN G. POLK\nTHOMAS E. MOONEY\nBARBARA JORDAN, TEX.\nJOSEPH J. MARAZITI, N.J.\nMICHAEL W. BLOMMER\nRAY THORNTON, ARK.\nDELBERT L LATTA, OHIO\nALEXANDER $5. COOK\nELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, N.Y.\nCONSTANTINE J. GEKAS\nWAYNE OWENS, UTAH\nALAN F. COFFEY, JR.\nEDWARD MEZVINSKY, IOWA\nSeptember 17, 1974\nS P 1 9 1974\nPresident Gerald R. Ford\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Mr. President:\nAs I mentioned in my letter of September 17, 1974, the Subcommittee\non Criminal Justice, of which I am Chairman, has pending before it\nH. Res. 1367 relating to the pardon of former President Richard M.\nNixon. In addition, the Subcommittee has pending before it a variety\nof proposals relating to the disposition of Capes and documents\ncompiled by former President Nixon and currently within the custody\nof the Federal Government.\nUnder the circumstances, I respectfully urge that no further action\nbe taken affecting the disposition of such materials until Congress\nhas had sufficient time to thoroughly consider the issue.\nRespectfully,\nSubcommittee on Criminal Justice\nWLH:rtd\nSeptember 24, 1974\nDear Mr. Chairman:\nThe President has asked me to reply to your second letter\nto him of September 17, 1974, which concerns the disposition\nof tapes and documents compiled by former President Nixon\nand currently within the custody of the Federal Government.\nThese materials, as you know, are the subjects of various\nsubpoenas and court orders and of requests for disclosure\nby the Office of the Special Prosecutor. As a result, no\nfurther action is being taken to affect the disposition of such\nmaterials until after the issues raised by the pendency of the\nsubpoenas, court orders, and Special Prosecutor's requests\nare resolved. The period of time involved in resolving such\nissues will of itself operate to assure adherence to the request\nin the second paragraph of your letter.\nI shall, of course, keep you informed, if you desire, of any\nlater developments which could lead to a change in the present\nsituation.\nSincerely yours,\nPhilip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nThe Honorable William L. Hungate\nChairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice\nCommittee on the Judiciary\nHouse of Representatives\nWashington, D. C. 20515\ncc: John Marsh\nWilliam Timmons\nBESALB FORD LIBRARY\nNINETY. HIRD CONGRESS\nPITER Vr. ROOKING in (n.).) CHNAMAN\nMAR YLO n. MASS.\nEDWARD HOTE HINSON, MICH.\nBENCRAL COUNSEL\nJACK BROCHS. 1: x\nROCCET A'C clear. KL\nJEROME M. XSIPMAN\nNORCAT W, TELNSTER, was.\nHENRY r. SMITH 11. N.Y.\nBON LIWARDS. CALIF.\nWILLIAM L. HUMBAIL MO.\nTOM SHAT a. ILL\nCongress of the United States\nASSOCIATE CENERAL COUNSEL,\nCHAILES W. SANDMAN, JR.. N.J.\nGARNER 4. CLINE\nJUN CONVERS. - MICH.\nCHARLI L TRIGINS, CALIF.\nCOUNSEL\nJOSHUA E.L.CRO. FA.\nDAVID Y/, DENNIS. INJ.\nHERORRT FUCKS\nJAMOME N. WALDIE CALIF.\nHAMEL 15M. JR., M.Y.\nWILLY MATHS, IOWA\nCommittee nit the Indiciary\nWILLIAM r. SHATTUCK\nH. CHRISTOPHER HOLDE\nWALTER FLOWERS. ALA.\nJAMES R. MANN, S.C.\nLAWGENCE a. HOGAN, MD.\nALAN A. FARKER\nPAUL 5. SANDAMES. MD.\nM. CALUMELL BUTLER. VA.\nHouse of Representatives\nJAMES F. FALCO\nKHH F. CIGO\nWILLIAM 5. COMEN, MAINE\nMAURICE A. BARBOZA\nGEORGE K. DANIELS CALIF.\nTREYT LOTT. MISS.\nARTHUR P. ENDRES. JR.\nMashington, D.C. 20515\nFRANKLIN C. FOLK\nROBERT F. DRINKS, MASS.\nHANDLT V. PROCHLICH. WIS.\nCHANLES D. NANCEL H.T.\nCARLOS 2. MOORITAD, CALIF.\nTHOMAS C. MOONEY\nBANSARA JORDAN, 11 1\nJOSEPH J. MARAZITI, N.J.\nMICHAEL n. BLOMMER\nMAY THORNTON, ARX.\nDELDERS L LATTA, OHIO\nALEXANDER D. COOK\nSUZABITH HOLTZMAN. N.Y.\nCONSTANTING J. GEKAS\nWAYNE OWENS, UTAH\nALAN F. COFFEY, JR.\nLOWARD IDWA\nSeptember 17, 1974\nPresident Gerald R. Ford\nThe White House\nFashington, D. C.\nDear Mr. President:\nOn September 16, 1974, Representative Abzug of New York\nintroduced a resolution of inquiry, H. Res. 1367, which has\nbeen referred to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the\nCommittee on the Judiciary. Under the Rules of the llouse,\nthe Committee on the Judiciary is called upon to consider this\nresolution within seven legislative days of its introduction.\nTo assist us in the expeditious consideration of this\nmeasure, I respectfully request that you provide the Subcommit-\ntee with the following information as requested by this privi-\nleged resolution:\n1. Did you or your representatives have specific\nknowledge of any formal criminal charges pending\nagainst Richard M. Nixon prior to issuance of\nthe pardon? If so, what were these charges?\n2. Did Alexander Haig refer to or discuss a pardon\nfor Richard M. Nixon with Richard M. Nixon or\nrepresentatives of Mr. Mixon at any time during\nthe week of August 4, 1974 or at any subsequent\ntime? If so, what promises were made or con-\nditions set for a pardon, if any? If so, were\ntapes or transcriptions of any kind made of these\nconversations or were any notes taken? If so,\nplease provide such tapes, transcriptions or notes.\nPresident Cerald R. Ford\nPage 2\nSeptember 17, 1974\n3. When was a pardon for Richard M. Nixon first\nreferred to or discussed with Richard M. Nixon,\nor representatives of Mr. Nixon, by you or your\nrepresentatives or aides, including the period\nwhen you were a member of Congress or Vice\nPresident?\n4. Who participated in these and subsequent dis-\ncussions or negotiations with Richard M. Nixon\nor his representatives regarding a pardon, and\nat what specific times and locations?\n5. Did you consult with Attorney General William\nSaxbe or Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski before\nmaking the decision to pardon Richard M. Nixon\nand, if so, what facts and legal authorities did\nthey give to you?\nSubcommittee on Criminal Justice\nWLH:rts\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 20, 1974\nDear Mr. Chairman:\nThank you for your September seventeenth letter requesting\ninformation to assist the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice\nof the Committee on the Judiciary in its consideration of\nH. Res. 1367.\nThe pardon power conferred upon the Executive by Article II,\nSection 2, of the Constitution needs no elaboration here. Nor\ndo the legal decisions relating to pardons. The reasons for my\nexercise of that constitutional responsibility have already been\nexplained. The controlling considerations which led to my\ndecision were the subjects of the pardon proclamation and my\ntelevised message to the American people on September 8 and\nwere the main subjects of my September 16 news conference;\nadditional background information was provided at White House\nbriefings on September 8 and 10. Copies of these materials are\nenclosed.\nRegardless of any background information or advice I may have\nreceived, I ain responsible for the pardon decision. I am\nsatisfied that it was the right course to follow in accord with my\nown conscience and conviction. I hope the Subcommittee will\nagree that we should now all try, without undue recrimination\nabout the past, to heal the wounds that divide Americans. We\nhave much to get done for the country's goals, and I know we\ncan do it together.\nSincerely,\nGerald R. Ford\nThe Honorable William L. Hungate\nChairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice\nCommittee on the Judiciary\nHouse of Representatives\nWashington, D. C. 20515\n2\nA\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nSeptember 8, 1974\nOffice of the White House Press Secretary\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nGRANTING PARDON TO RICHARD NIXON\nBY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nA PROCLAMATION\nRichard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United States on\nJanuary 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second term by the electors\nof forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in office continued until his\nresi gnation on August 9, 1974.\nPursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its Committee on\nthe Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment\nof the President extending over more than eight months. The hearings of\nthe Committee and its deliberations, which received wide national publicity\nover television, radio, and in printed media, resulted in votes adverse to\nRichard Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment.\nAs a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation\nfrom the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible\nindictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not\nhe shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury\nand on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment\nensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial\njury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.\nIt is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could\nnot fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the\ntranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent\nweeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a\nformer President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will\ncause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to\nfurther punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the un-\nprececented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office in the United\nStates.\nNOW, THEREFORE, I Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States,\npursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2,\nof the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full,\nfree, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the\nUnited States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed\nor taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,\n1974.\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 8th day of September\nin the year of our Lord nineteen hundred seventy-four, and of the Independence\nof the United States of America the one hundred ninety-ninth.\nGERALD R. FORD\n#\n#\n#\nB\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nSEPTEMBER 8, 1974\nOFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nREMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT\nANNOUNCING THE GRANTING OF A PARDON\nTO FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON\nTHE OVAL OFFICE\n11:05 A. M. PDT\nLadies and gentlemen, I have come to a decision\nwhich I felt I should tell you and all of my fellow\nAmerican citizens, as soon as I was certain in my own\nmind and in my own conscience. that it is the right\nthing to do.\nI have learned already in this office that the\ndifficult decisions always come to this desk. I must\nadmit that many of them do not look at all the same as\nthe hypothetical questions that I have answered freely\nand perhaps too fast on previous occasions.\nMy customary policy is to try and get all the\nfacts and to consider the opinions of my countrymen and\nto take counsel with my most valued friends. But these\nseldom agree, and in the end, the decision is mine. To\nprocrastinate, to agonize and to wait for a more\nfavorable turn of events that may never come, or more\ncompelling external pressures that may as well be\nwrong as right, is itself a decision of sorts, and\na weak and potentially dangerous course for a President\nto follow.\nI have promised to uphold the Constitution,\nto do what is right as God gives me to see the right,\nand to do the very best that I can for America.\nI have asked your help and your prayers, not\nonly when I became President, but many times since. The\nConstitution is the supreme law of our land and it governs\nour actions as citizens. Only the laws of God, which\ngovern our consciences, are superior to it.\nMORE\n(OVER)\nPage 2\nAs we are a nation under God, so I am sworn to\nuphold our laws with the help of God. And I have sought\nsuch guidance and searched my own conscience with special\ndiligence to determine the right thing for me to do with\nrespect to my predecessor in this place, Richard Nixon,\nand his loyal wife and family.\nTheirs is an American tragedy in which we all\nhave played a part. It could go on and on and on, or\nsomeone must write the end to it. I have concluded that\nonly I can do that, and if I can, I must.\nThere are no historic or legal precedents to which\nI can turn in this matter, none that precisely fit the\ncircumstances of a private citizen who has resigned the\nPresidency of the United States. But it is common\nknowledge that serious allegations and accusations\nhang like a sword over our former President's head,\nthreatening his health as he tries to reshape his life,\na great part of which was spent in the service of this\ncountry and by the mandate of its people.\nAfter years of bitter controversy and divisive\nnational debate, I have been advised, and I am compelled\nto conclude that many months and perhaps more years will\nhave to pass before Richard Nixon could obtain a fair\ntrial by jury in any jurisdiction of the United States\nunder governing decisions of the Supreme Court.\nI deeply believe in equal justice for all\nAmericans, whatever their station or former station.\nThe law, whether human or devine, is no respecter\nof persons, but the law is a respecter of reality.\nThe facts, as I see them, are that a former\nPresident of the United States, instead of enjoying\nequal treatment with any other citizen accused of\nviolating the law, would be cruelly and excessively\npenalized either in preserving the presumption of his\ninnocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of his\nguilt in order to repay a legal debt to society.\nmore\nPage 3\nDuring this long period of delay and potential\nlitigation, ugly passions would again be aroused. And our\npeople would again be polarized in their opinions. And\nthe credibility of our free institutions of Government\nwould again be challenged at home and abroad.\nIn the end, the courts might well hold that Richard\nNixon had been denied due process and the verdict of history\nwould even more beinconclusive with respect to those charges\narising out of the period of his Presidency, of which I am\npresently aware.\nBut it is not the ultimate fate of Richard Nixon\nthat most concerns me, though surely it deeply troubles\nevery decent and every compassionate person. My concern\nis the immediate future of this great country.\nIn this, I dare not depend upon my personal\nsympathy as a long-time friend of the former President,\nnor my professional judgment as a lawyer, and I do\nnot.\nAs President, my primary concern must always\nbe the greatest good of all the people of the United\nStates whose servant I am. As a man, my first considera-\ntion is to be true to my own convictions and my own conscience.\nMy conscience tells me clearly and certainly\nthat I cannot prokong the bad dreams that continue\nto reopen a chapter that is closed. My conscience tells\nme that only I, as President, have the constitutional\npower to firmly shut and seal this book. My conscience\ntells me it is my duty, not merely to proclaim domestic\ntranquility, but to use every means that I have to insure it.\nI do believe that the buck stops here, that I\ncannot rely upon public opinion polls to tell me what\nis right.\nI do believe that right makes might, and that\nif I am wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would\nmake no difference.\nI do believe, with all my heart and mind and\nspirit, that I, not as President, but as a humble servant\nof God, will receive justice without mercy if I fail\nto show mercy.\nFinally, I feel that Richard Nixon and his\nloved ones have suffered enough and will continue to\nsuffer, no matter what I do, no matter what we, as a\ngreat and good Nation, can do together to make his\ngoal of peace come true.\nMORE\nPage 4\nNow, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President\nof the United States, pursuant to the pardon power\nconferred upon me by Article II, Section 2 of the\nConstitution, have granted and by these presents do\ngrant a full, free and absolute pardon unto Richard\nNixon for all offenses against the United States which\nhe, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed\nor taken part in during the period from July (January) 20,\n1969 through August 9, 1974.\n(The President signed the Proclamation)\nIn witness whereof, I have hereunto set my\nhand this 8th day of September in the year of our Lord\n1974, and of the independence of the United States of\nAmerica, the 199th.\nEND\n(AT 11:16 A.M. EDT)\nC\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nSEPTEMBER 8, 1974\nOFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY\nPRESS CONFERENCE\nOF\nPHILIP BUCHEN\nCOUNSELLOR TO THE PRESIDENT\nTHE BRIEFING ROOM\nAT 12:12 P.M.\nMR. TER HORST: Gentlemen, if you are ready for\nthe briefing, we have Philip Buchen, the legal counsel of\nthe White House to address your questions on the President's\nstatement and on the documents you have in your hand.\nAs you know, he is the President's legal adviser.\nHe was very much a participant in the preparation of this\nproclamation and so here is Mr. Buchen to take your questions.\nI think he may have an opening statement which\nhe may like to read first.\nMR. BUCHEN: Thank you, Jerry.\nI appreciate your all being here on this\nSunday morning, or midday.\nI wanted just to say a few things first, because\nit may answer questions in advance, and at the conclusion\nof these remarks, I will try to field the questions you\nthrow this way.\nIn addition to the major developments of this\nmorning when President Ford granted a pardon to former\nPresident Nixon, I have two other legal developments to\nannounce which occurred prior to the issuance of the\nproclamation of pardon.\nThe first involves the opinion of Attorney\nGeneral William B. Saxbe and President Ford dealing with\npapers and other records, including tapes, retained during\nthe Administration of former President Nixon in the White\nHouse offices.\nIn this opinion, the Attorney General concludes\nthat such materials are the present property of Mr, Nixon;\nhowever, it also concluded that during the time the materials\nremain in the custody of the United States, they are subject\nto subpoenas and court orders directed to any official\nwho controls that custody. And in this conclusion, I have\nconcurred.\nMORE\n(OVER)\n- 2 -\nThis opinion was sought by the President from\nthe Attorney General on August 22.\nQ\nWhen you say the President, you mean\nPresident Ford?\nMR. BUCHEN: That is right.\nThe reason for seeking the opinion was the conflict\ncreated between Mr. Nixon's request on the one hand for\ndelivery to his control of the materials, and on the\nother hand, the pending court orders and subpoenas\ndirected at the United States and certain of its officials.\nThe court orders have required that the custody\nof the materials be maintained at their present locations.\nAnd both the orders and subpoenas have called for the\nidentification and production of certain materials allegedly\nrelevant to court proceedings in which the orders and\nsubpoenas originated.\nIn addition, we were advised of interests of\nother parties in having certain records disclosed to them\nunder warning that if they were to be removed and delivered\nto the control of Mr. Nixon, court action would be taken\nto prevent that move and to protect the claimed rights\nto inspection or disclosure.\nTherefore, it became fully apparent that unless\nthis conflict was resolved, the present Administration\nwould be enmeshed for a long time in answering the\ndisputed claims over who could obtain information from\nthe Nixon records, how requested information could, as\na practical matter, be extracted from the vast volume of\nrecords in which it might appear, and how, and by whom\nits relevancy in any particular court proceeding could\nbe determined, and at the same time to try satisfying\nthe claims of Mr. Nixon that he owned the records.\nWithin a week of the request by the Attorney\nGeneral for an opinion made by President Ford, I was\nadvised informally of what its general nature would be.\nFrom that time on, I realized that the opinion itself\nwould mt provide a practical solution to the handling\nand management of the papers so as to reconcile rights and\ninterest of private ownership with the limited but very\nimportant rights and interest of litigants to disclosure\nof selected relevant parts of the materials.\nThus I initiated conversations with the Attorney\nGeneral's Office, Special Prosecutor Jaw rski, with attorneys\nfor certain litigants seeking disclosure, and with Herbert\nJ. Miller, as soon as he became attorney for Mr. Nixon.\nThe purpose of these conversations was to explore\nways for reconciling these different interests in records\nof the previous Administration so that this Administration\nwould not be caught in the middle of trying on a case-by-\ncase basis to resolve each dispute over the right of access\nor disclosure.\nMORE\n- 3 -\nThe outcome of these conversations was the\nconclusion on my part that Mr. Nixon, as the principal\nparty in interest, should be requested to come forth with\nthe proposal for dealing satisfactorily with Presidential\nmaterial of his Administration in ways that offered\nreasonable protection and safeguards to each party who\nhas a legitimate court-supported right to production of\nparticular materials relevant to his case.\nMr. Nixon and his attorney then agreed to\npursue this approach and in company with White House\nCounsel, they were able to accomplish the second of the\ndevelopments which I am announcing today.\nAnd that is the letter agreement, of which you\nhave copies, between former President Nixon and Arthur\nF. Sampson, Administrator of the General Services\nAdministration.\nThese two developments are, of course, much less\nsignificant than the one you have learned about earlier.\nPresident Ford has chosen to carry out a responsibility\nexpressed in the Preamble to the Constitution of ensuring\ndomestic tranquility, and has chosen to do so by exercise\nof a power that he alone has under the Constitution to\ngrant a pardon for offenses against the United States.\nAbout a week ago, President Ford asked me to\nstudy traditional precedents bearing on the exercise\nof his right to grant a pardon, particularly with\nreference to whether or not a pardon could only follow\nindictment or conviction. The answer I found, based on\nconsiderable authority, was that a pardon could be\ngranted at any time and need not await an indictment or\nconviction.\nPresident Ford also asked me to investigate how\nlong it would be before prosecution of former President\nNixon could occur, if it were brought, and how long\nit would take to bring it to a conclusion.\nOn this point, I consulted with Special Prosecutor\nJaworski and he advised me as follows, and has authorized\nme to quote his language, and I quote:\n\"The factual situation regarding a trial of\nRichard M. Nixon within Constitutional bounds is un-\nprecedented. It is especially unique in view of the\nrecent House Judiciary Committee inquiry on impeachment,\nresulting in a unanimous adverse finding to Richard M.\nNixon on the article involving obstruction of justice.\n\"The massive publicity given the hearings and\nthe findings that ensued, the reversal of judgment of a\nnumber of Members of the Republican Party following the\nrelease of the June 23rd taperecording, and their\nstatements carried nationwide. And, finally, the\nMORE\n- 4 -\nresignation of Richard M. Nixon require a delay before\nselection of a jury is begun of a period from nine months\nto a year, and perhaps even longer.\n\"This judgment is predicated on a review of the\ndecisions of the United States courts involving prejudicial\npre-trial publicity.\"\nQ Is that the end of the quotes?\nMR. BUCHEN: No, I am going on to indicate\nsomething else that will be of interest to you. That is\nthe end of that quote.\nAnother quote from his communication to me is as\nfollows: \"The situation involving Richard M. Nixon is\nreadily distinguishable from the facts involved in the\ncase of United States versus Mitchell, et al, set for\ntrial on September 30th.\n\"The defendants in the Mitchell case were\nindicted by a grand jury operating in secret session.\nThey will be called to trial, unlike Richard M. Nixon,\nif indicted, without any previous adverse finding by\nan investigatory body holding public hearings on its\nconclusions.\"\nThat is the end of the quotation.\nQ Would you end that last sentence again?\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes. It is an important one.\n\"They,\" meaning the defendants, \"will be called to\ntrial, unlike Richard M. Nixon, if indicted, without any\nprevious adverse finding by an investigatory body holding\npublic hearings on its conclusions.\"\nExcept for my seeking and obtaining this\nadvice from Mr. Jaworski, none of my discussions with\nhim involved any understandings or commitments regarding\nhis role in the possible prosecution of former President\nNixon, or in the prosecution of others.\nPresident Ford has not talked with Mr. Jaworski,\nbut I did report to President Ford the opinion of the\nSpecial Prosecutor about the delay necessary before any\npossible trial of the former President could begin.\nI would also like to add on another subject,\nno action or statement by former President Nixon, which\nhas been disclosed today, however welcome and helpful, was\nmade a pre-condition of the pardon.\nThat is a negative because of the word \"no\"\nat the beginning. I might add that whether or not it\nwas disclosed today, it was not a pre-condition.\nMORE\n- 5 -\nQ\nThere were no secret agreements made?\nMR. BUCHEN: That is right.\nPresident Ford in determining to issue a pardon\nacted solely according to the dictates of his own con-\nscience. Moreover, he did so as an act of mercy not\nrelated in any way to obtaining concessions in return.\nQ\nWould you go over the last phrase?\nQ\nAfter \"mercy\".\nMR. BUCHEN: Mercy not related in any way to\nobtaining concessions in return. However, my personal\nview --\nQ\nIs that yours or Ford's?\nMR. BUCHEN: Mine. -- is that former President\nNixon's words, which I have had a chance to read, as you\nhave, that followed the granting of a pardon, constitute\na statement of contrition which I believe will hasten the\ntime when he and his family may achieve peace of mind and\nspirit and will much sooner bring peace of mind and spirit\nto all of our citizens.\nQ\nWould you review that sentence?\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes.\nHowever, my personal view -- these are my own\nwords -- is that former Presidon Nixon's words expressed\nupon his learning of the pardon, constitute a statement\nof contrition which I believe will hasten the time when\nhe and his family may achieve peace of mind and spirit\nand will much sooner bring peace of mind and spirit to all\nof our citizens.\nNow I have only one other paragraph that I would\nlike to bring out in conclusion. I want to express for\nthe record my heartfelt personal thanks and appreciation\nto a dear firend of the President's and of mine. He is\nBenton Becker, a Washington attorney, who has served\nvoluntarily as my special and trusted consultant and\nemissary in helping to bring about the events recorded\ntoday.\nQ\nEmissary to Mr. Jaworski or Mr. Nixon?\nMR. BUCHEN: To Mr. Miller and Mr. Nixon, not\nto Mr. Jaworski.\nMORE\n- 6 -\nI also acknowledge with deep gratitude the\nservices of William Casselman, II, who is the highly\nvalued counsel -- who was the highly valued counsel to\nVice President Ford for his whole tenure in that office,\nand is now my close associate in the service of the\nPresident of the United States.\nQ\nWho informed President Nixon that he was\ngetting a pardon, and also is President Ford basing this\npardon only on the fact that it would have taken a long\ntime to try the Presidency in his own conscience?\nMR. BUCHEN: Let me take the first question\nfirst.\nWhen Mr. Becker went to San Clemente on\nThursday evening, he was authorised to advise the former\nPresident that President Ford was intending to grant a\npardon, subject, however, to his further consideration\nof the matter because he wanted to reserve the chance to\ndeliberate and ponder somewhat longer, but he was\nauthorized to say that in all probability a pardon would\nbe issued in the near future.\nThe second question?\nQ\nThe second question is: There is no admission\nof guilt here at all and despite your assumptions that it is\ncontrition, there is no actual admission of guilt. Do you\nagree?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, my interpretation is that it\ncomes very close to saying that he did wrong, that he did\nnot act forthrightly.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, what is the linkage between\nthe agreement between Mr. Sampson and Mr. Becker's negotia-\ntions at San Clemente?\nMR. BUCHEN: The initiative for getting an\nagreement that would help solve our problems came from me\nand I advised Mr. Miller as attorney for Mr. Nixon that\nthat was my desire. I so advised him before I knew anything\nabout a contemplated pardon.\nQ Mr. Buchen --\nMR. BUCHEN: May I finish, please?\nHowever, as we purused talks on what to do with\nthe papers, I made it very clear to Mr. Miller that I wanted\nthe initiative to come from him and his client as to the\nspecifics of what he and his client would be willing to do\nregarding the management and ultimate disposition of the\npapers and tapes.\nMORE\n- 7 -\nQ\nMr. Buchen, what will this mean as far as\nformer President Nixon's role as a witness in the upcoming\ntrials are concerned?\nMR. BUCHEN: It would have no effect on that.\nIf the documents do get transferred in a timely fashion,\nit may permit him to review the pertinent material more\nadequately so far as his testimony is concerned.\nMORE\n- 8 -\nQ\nMr. Buchen, doesn't this pardon eliminate\nany possibility that the former President might invoke\nthe Fifth Amendment to testify?\nMR. BUCHEN: I think you better ask his own\nlawyer that. As you know, this applies only to offenses\nagainst the United States. It does not apply to\npossible offenses against State law.\nQ\nBut regarding offenses against the United\nStates, he would have no Fifth Amendment rights now that\nhe has been pardoned; is that correct?\nMR. BUCHEN: I don't know that you can separate\nthem when you plead.\nQ Mr. Buchen, why did the President decide\nto do this now at a time before the jury has been\nsequestered in the September 30th trial?\nMR. BUCHEN: That will have to be information\nthat will have to come from his statement. I have nothing\nto add.\nQ\nCan you tell us if the President has\nassured himself that former President Nixon is not guilty\nor liable to accusation of any very serious charges that\nhave not been made public so far, that there is no other\ntime bomb ticking away?\nMR. BUCHEN: I don't think he said that.\nQ\nNo, no, I am saying, has President Ford done\nanything to assure himself that there is no evidence\nof any more serious criminality committed by former\nPresident Nixon than what is generally out in the House\nJudiciary Committee report and this sort of thing?\nMR. BUCHEN: So far as I know, he has made no\nindependent inquiries. If he had wanted to satisfy\nhimself as to the content of the evidence still in the\nWhite House, of course, that would have been an insur-\nmountable task, as you have no idea of the huge volumes.\nQ\nDid you assure yourself --\nMR. BUCHEN: Just a minute. There are huge\nvolumes. However, I did personally consult with Mr.\nJaworski as to the nature of the investigation being\nconducted and I was able to tell the President that so far\nas I was able to learn through that inquiry, there were\nno time bombs, as you call them.\nMORE\n- 9 -\nQ\nMr. Buchen, what was the President's reaction\nwhen Mr. Becker conveyed this message to him?\nMR. BUCHEN: I don't know that it was done in\nperson. I don't think he was necessarily in the room, so\nI don't believe he can --\nQ\nDid you get any reaction from the President,\neven if it was by mail or through counsel, did the\nPresident say he was grateful for this?\nMR. BUCHEN: The only reaction we have gotten\nis the statement that came over the wire.\nQ\nAre you saying that Ziegler got the word\nfrom Becker and that President Nixon was not informed\npersonally at any time by Ford or by any emissary?\nMR. BUCHEN: I think you will have to ask Mr.\nBecker that. My understanding is that initially the\ntalks went through Mr. Ziegler, but there were also\nface-to-face meetings between Mr. Becker and the\nPresident and what occurred by one method, and one\nby the other, I don't know.\nQ\nThere was no personal contact between\nFord and Nixon?\nMR. BUCHEN: None at all.\nQ\nYou refer to Becker as an emissary and\nyou talk about one meeting out there Thursday to notify\nhim. What were the reasons for his previous trips back\nand forth? What was discussed?\nMR. BUCHEN: Becker only went once.\nQ\nOnly on Thursday?\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes. And not only to discuss that,\nthey had to work out the details of that letter agreement\nbecause Miller and Becker were in negotiation and Miller\nhad to consult his client and they had to make modifications.\nAnd they had to call back to see whether that fit in correct-\nly with what General Services Administration could feasibly\ndo. So, that involved a lot of the time he was out there.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, did Mr. Jaworski inform you that\nan indictment, or indictments, against former President\nNixon were expected?\nMR. BUCHEN: No, he did not.\nMORE\n- 10 -\nQ\nMay I follow that, then? Isn't the granting\nof a pardon at this stage an admission that an indictment\nwas expected and that conviction was probable?\nMR. BUCHEN: I think you have to recall that\nword came out that the Grand Jury at one time wanted to\nname the former President, or then President, as a co-\nconspirator and that is one evidence that something more\nwould have happened.\nAnd I think it is very likely, from all we have\nread, that there would be people who would want him prose-\ncuted and would intend to do so, although I don't say that\nthat was Mr. Jaworski's view.\nQ\nWas Mr. Jaworski ever consulted about this\npardon, ever asked about this?\nMR. BUCHEN: No.\nQ\nDid Jaworski agree to what was done today?\nMR. BUCHEN: He has no voice in it.\nQ\nDo you know what his mood or sentiment was?\nMR. BUCHEN: You will have to ask him. I want\nto get to Peter, here.\nQ\nI wanted to follow up that line. You know\nwe are not able to get a response from Mr. Jaworski's\noffice and it would really help us for you to tell us\nall you can about the status of the investigation against\nthe President, former President Nixon?\nMR. BUCHEN: I don't have that information, Peter.\nThat is kept in his shop.\nQ\nBut in that regard, why was he not consulted\nabout what kind of action he contemplated against the\nPresident before the pardon was issued?\nMR. BUCHEN: We didn't think that was relevant.\nQ\nYou assumed he would be prosecuted; is that\nright?\nMR. BUCHEN: We assumed that he may be prosecuted.\nQ\nWhen was Jaworski told?\nMR. BUCHEN: About the pardon?\nMORE\n- 11 -\nQ\nAbout the pardon.\nMR. BUCHEN: I called him about three-quarters\nof an hour before I knew the President was going to announce\nit so that he would know it.\nQ\nToday?\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes.\nQ\nWhat was his reaction?\nQ\nWhen was that?\nMR. BUCHEN: He thanked me for advising him in\nadvance of his hearing it over the radio or TV.\nQ\nAnd he did not object?\nMR. BUCHEN: He didn't. He didn't say anything\none way or the other.\nQ\nAs we read this statement, which does not\nadmit guilt whatsoever, what is to prevent the former\nPresident from going out, say six months hence, and saying\nthat nothing was really ever proven against him and he\nwas hounded out of office?\nMR. BUCHEN: I guess he has the right to say\nthat because, until an indictment and conviction, I think\nthat would be true in his case as well as anybody else's\ncase who is under a cloud of suspicion.\nQ\nBut President Ford spoke of the historical\naspects of this and what is going to keep history from\ngetting more muddled than ever?\nMR. BUCHEN: I think the historians will take\ncare of that.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, does President Ford plan to grant\na similar pardon to the former President's subordinates who\nare scheduled to go on trial later this month?\nMR. BUCHEN: To my knowledge, he has not given\nthat matter any thought.\nQ\nCan you clarify, was the agreement reached\nwith the GSA about the disposal of the tapes and documents?\nWas the pardon contingent on that?\nMR. BUCHEN: Neither.\nMORE\n- 12 -\nQ\nThey are not together?\nMR. BUCHEN: Right.\nQ\nNumber two, why did he choose 10:30, Sunday\nmorning, to make the announcement?\nMR. BUCHEN: I think you will have to ask him\nthat. He figured that this was a very solemn moment that\nexemplified, I think, an act that was one of high mercy\nand it seemed appropriate, I think, to him that it should\noccur on a day when we do have thoughts like that, or should.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, I don't understand why you\ncontrast the treatment of Nixon with the treatment of\nMitchell coming up. If I understand your statement right,\nyou said that Mitchell has not had the publicity and the\naction by a hearing as Nixon had before the House Judiciary\nCommittee.\nMR. BUCHEN: That was Mr. Jaworski's statement.\nThat was not mine.\nQ\nI don't understand this and maybe you can\nexplain what you think he means there. Mitchell certainly\nhad the hearing with conclusions and explanations of\nconclusions of a hearing by the Watergate Committee.\nMR. BUCHEN: There was a hearing, but I don't\nknow how conclusive the findings were.\nQ\nThere was a hearing and Mitchell testified.\nThere was a public hearing and there were conclusions and\nrecommendations on that, and a press conference on that,\nand great publicity.\nMORE\n- 13 -\nMR. BUCHEN: I would judge that Mr. Jaworski\ndoes not find those conclusions prejudicial to Mr. Mitchell's\nupcoming case.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, the President, in his statement\nthis morning, referred to this matter threatening the\nformer President's health. Do you have any further details\non that? Do you know anything about the former President's\nhealth that we don't?\nMR. BUCHEN: No, I didn't go out there, so I\ndidn't see the man.\nQ\nDo you know what he meant by that?\nMR. BUCHEN: I think it is generally known\nthat this man has suffered a good deal. I think you people\nwho saw him more recently than I have can form your own\nconclusions.\nQ\nHas Mr. Ford and Mr. Nixon talked this\nmorning?\nMR. BUCHEN: No, not to my knowledge, but I do\nnot believe they did.\nQ\nDo you know, was the President in a depression\nand has the President threatened to commit suicide or\nanything like that?\nMR. BUCHEN: I have no knowledge.\nQ\nYou say that you looked into this matter\nfrom a constitutional standpoint for the President, and\nI am sure you looked into the history of it. Has any\nPresident ever granted a pardon before in history to\nanyone prior to that person being charged with a crime\nformally?\nMR. BUCHEN: Oh, yes, there are lots of\nprecedents for that.\nQ Like what?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, one of your colleagues,\nnamed Mr. Burdick, was pardoned before he was asked to\ntestify regarding some alleged criminality involving the\nCustoms Service during the Wilson Administration and he\nwas given a pardon.\nQ He was a newsman?\nMR. BUCHEN: He was a newsman.\nAnd, of course, the pardons granted by President\nLincoln, for example -- the pardons granted after the\nWhiskey Rebellion and other insurrections, were applied\nto people who were not indicted.\nMORE\n- 14 -\nQ\nMr. Buchen, I am a little confused at your\nwords, more or less dismissing the question of whether\nor not the President would grant pardons to Mr. Haldeman,\nMr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Mitchell and the others who will\ngo on trial September 30th. Is it not fairly\nclear to you, or at least do you not, here in the White\nHouse, admit the possibility that their defense now, in\nlight of the action of President Ford today, will be\nthat the President has pardoned the man under whose\norders they were operating and what is your reaction to\nthis possible line of defense or line of appeal by the\ndefendants in that trial?\nSureLy, this must have been given some con-\nsideration and I again would ask you what you think is\ngoing to happen, what you think the President would do\nwhen confronted with this question?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, I question your broad characteri-\nzation that the acts for which they are being charged were\nnecessarily --\nQ\nI am just suggesting this may be their\ndefense.\nMR. BUCHEN: This may be their defense. Now, that\nwill become Mr. Jaworski's problem and, of course,\nthe judge's problem. You have already seen that Mr.\nJaworski apparently assumes that the situation in their\ncase is far different from the situation in the former\nPresident's case.\nQ Phil, can I ask you this: Did this process\nthat led up to the pardon today start a week ago when the\nPresident came to you?\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes.\nQ\nWas there something that happened just\nprior to his coming to you that got his interest working\nin doing this thing just now?\nMR. BUCHEN: If there was, I don't know what it\nwas, Ron.\nQ\nHave they talked on the phone at any\ntime this week, or immediately prior to this week?\nMR. BUCHEN: They have not talked on the phone\nsince Jack Miller became his attorney.\"\nMORE\n- 15 -\nQ\nDid this process start after last Sunday's\npublication of the Gallup poll that said that the majority\nof the public wanted to see Mr. Nixon prosecuted?\nMR. BUCHEN: Let me figure my dates. That was\nLabor Day week-end, was it? I worked all Labor Day week-\nend so it came before that.\nQ\nTo what extent did the transition team look\nahead to the problem of a pardon, and have you done any work\nat all --\nMR. BUCHEN: They didn't consider that. They had\nfar too much else to consider.\nQ\nAs a matter of equal justice under law,\nwe have now had the two top officials of the United States,\nboth allegedly involved in crimes, namely, Vice President\nAgnew and Mr. Nixon, who have been freed of criminal\ncharges. Both of them are entitled to go around the\ncountry and represent themselves as being innocent. What\nis a citizen to make of that situation when ordinary\ncriminals, including the aides involved in this, have\nto be tried?\nMR. BUCHEN: Of course I cannot speak at all\nfor the treatment of former Vice President Agnew because\nthis Administration was not in any way involved. But I\nthink you have to understand -- and maybe it is a good time\non Sunday to think about it -- that there is a difference\nbetween mercy and justice.\nI don't think that you can assume that mercy is\nequally dispensed or how it could be equally dispensed.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, is there any pardon being\nconsidered for the aides who performed their acts allegedly\nin the name of and in behalf of Richard Nixon?\nMR. BUCHEN: I have already spoken to that question.\nQ\nI don't think you have, Mr. Buchen. I am\nactually talking about those now in prison, not Mr. Nixon.\nJohn Dean and others?\nMR. BUCHEN: So far as I know, no thought has been\ngiven to that.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, is it now possible under the\nagreement on the custody of Presidential tapes and\npapers for any tape made during the Nixon Administration\nto be subpoenaed even though it is not now the subject of\na subpoena?\nMORE\n- 16 -\nMR. BUCHEN: It is possible. In order to get a\nsubpoena, or court order, of course, certain showings\nwould have to be made. It is also possible, of course, for\nthe owner of the tapes to interject objections.\nQ A follow up to that. If the owner of those\ntapes doesn't want to give them up -- he has now been\npardoned of everything -- what is the leverage?\nMR. BUCHEN: It doesn't affect the court orders\nor subpoenas, and he is subject to the consequences of\nnot obeying a valid court order or subpoena.\nQ\nIn other words, that would come under the\nexpiration date of August 9 in the pardon; is that right?\nMR. BUCHEN: That is right.\nQ\nDo you feel the agreement with Mr. Sampson\nhas insured that the Ford Administration cannot be impli-\ncated in any Watergate cover-up? Was that one of your\nconsiderations?\nMR. BUCHEN: That was not involved because I\ndon't think that is a relevant issue.\nQ\nIs there any change in the rules of access\nto documents by former White House aides?\nMR. BUCHEN: The problem is that there would, of\ncourse, be an interim before the Nixon-Sampson letter agree-\nments can be fully implemented. How we will handle the\ninterim arrangements, I am sure can be worked out with\nJack Miller as attorney for Mr. Nixon.\nMORE\n- 17 -\nQ\nAs you recall, in the Agnew case, a paper\nprepared by the Justice Department listing the law viola-\ntions by the former Vice President was presented in court\non the theory that the American people were entitled\nto have the full story in addition to the specific\ncharge to which the former Vice President pleaded?\nIn President Ford's preparation for today, what\nthought did he give to the presentation of an analysis\nby Special Prosecutor Jaworski of the full extent of\nPresident Nixon's role in the Watergate case, and is there\nany understanding at this point of eliminating Special\nProsecutor Jaworski's ability to pursue that type\nof investigation?\nMR. BUCHEN: There is no limitation on what\nMr. Jawarskican do except, of course, the putative\ndefendant has the defense now of pardon.\nOn the first part of your question, there is\na distinct difference between asking a man to plead\nguilty to a limited offense and the treatment of Mr.\nAgnew, of course, was done under very different circumstances\nby the system of justice. In this case, it was reliance\nentirely on the pardon powers which involve acts of\nmercy.\nQ\nYou said earlier that you had assumed that\nMr. Nixon may have been prosecuted, is that as far as\nyou are willing to go on that issue? Did you all think it\nwas likely that he would be prosecuted?\nMR. BUCHEN: If you mean tried or indicted?\nQ Indicted?\nMR. BUCHEN: I think it would be very likely\nthat he would be indicted. How and when he could be tried\nwas still an open question.\nQ\nThis likelihood, is that on the strength\nof your conversation with Mr. Jasorski that you think\nit was very likely?\nMR. BUCHEN: No, it was largely on the basis of\nwhat the Grand Jury apparently intended to do on the basis\nof less evidence than is now available.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, if the ex-President retains the\nsole right of access to the documents and as I understand\nthis GSA agreement, can even limit access by the Archivist\nof the United States and his staff, why should the United\nStates remain as custodian of the documents at all?\nMORE\n- 18 -\nMR. BUCHEN: There is a double-key arrangement.\nIn other words, access can't be obtained by either the\nformer President or the General Services Administration\nexcept by their concurrent acts.\nQ\nBut he could conceivably, to prevent himself\nfrom embarrassment, limit access -- no one could see these\ndocuments during the three years the United States\nagrees to act as custodian.\nMR. BUCHEN: Unless there is a court order or\nsubpoena.\nQ\nWhat about the court orders or subpoenas\nthat are outstanding?\nMR. BUCHEN: We will have to take this agreement\nto the courts involved in those proceedings and seek relief\nfrom the present processes and subpoenas on the basis\nof the current agreement.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, did you and the President give\nmuch consideration to the fact that a criminal trial\ncould have cleared Mr. Nixon of the charges of possible\nguilt, could have cleared him, cleared his name?\nMR. BUCHEN: We certainly recognized that as a\npossibility. Whether it was given any consideration,\nI don't know.\nQ\nI mean by you or the President?\nQ\nWell, you were there. What was your\nown view?\nMR. BUCHEN: My own view is that that was a\npossibility. If that was what the former President wanted\nto do, he certainly would have told us. He didn't have to\naccept the pardon.\nQ\nDid you recommend the pardon?\nMR. BUCHEN: I had nothing to do with recommending\nit or disrecommending it.\nQ\nDid you ever discuss the political implications\nof this pardon with the President?\nMR. BUCHEN: I did not.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, to follow up on some of these\nother questions, it seems that President Ford has an interest\nin building into the public record a record of Mr. Nixon's\nalleged criminality for the same reasons that Mr. Agnew's\nalleged criminality was made a part of the record, to prevent\nhim from saying that he was driven out by political\nopponents, et cetera. Is President Ford satisfied that\nformer President Nixon's record of wrongdoing is sufficiently\nin the public record now?\nMORE\n- 19 -\nMR. BUCHEN: All I can tell you is that he knows\nnothing that you don't know.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, does the pardon in any way\naffect Mr. Nixon's payment of back income taxes?\nMR. BUCHEN: Not at all. This does not apply to\ncivil liabilities.\nQ\nLet's get back to this double-key\narrangement. This is just so much lawyer's language.\nMR. BUCHEN: I know that is complicated.\nQ\nDoes that double-key arrangement prevent\nthe President from going in there and destroying some\nof those tapes if he wanted to?\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes, it does.\nQ\nSo, there is adequate safeguards?\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes.\nQ Does it mean that if any of those tapes\nare subpoenaed and he just refuses to honor those subpoenas,\nthen what would happen?\nMR. BUCHEN: He would be subject to contempt of\nthe court that issued the subpoenas. It doesn't apply to\nany future acts.\nQ\nWhen will the tapes be physically moved\nto this repository in California or are they going\nto remain here?\nMR. BUCHEN: No, they will be moved to the Cali-\nfornia repository as soon as we can get rid of, or\nmodification of the existing orders that require they be\nretained here.\nQ\nIs that that Laguna Niguel pyramid they\nwill be put in?\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes.\nQ\nBut nobody can get in there by themselves.\nThere will always be somebody to watch; is that correct?\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes.\nQ\nWhen you way \"current\", are you referring\nto the two court orders that are pending?\nMORE\n- 20\n;\nMR. BUCHEN: There are at least three court\norders that I know of. One is in the Wounded Knee\ncase in Minnesota. Another is in the nature of an order\nbecause the court declined to issue the order on the\nassurance that documents or tapes could not be moved, and\nthat is the case involving the networks. So, you can\nget Ron to answer your questions on that.\nThe third one is the civil suit in North Carolina\ninvolving a suit by people kept out of a meeting to\ncelebrate Billy Graham Day.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, Mr. Jaworski has, of course,\nin his possession a considerable number of tapes which\nare not the originals. They are copies. This agreement\nwith Mr. Sampson does not affect that, does it? They\ndon't have to be returned to the mass to be moved out to\nLaguna?\nMR. BUCHEN: The copies will be disposed of as\nthe court orders, I assume.\nQ But this does not require them to be re-\nturned to the big group?\nMR. BUCHEN: No.\nQ\nCan I clarify the chronology of all this?\nWhen is the first time the President indicated to you\nhe might want to pardon Mr. Nixon?\nMR. BUCHEN: Just at the start of the Labor Day\nweekend.\nQ\nOn which day?\nMR. BUCHEN: I know I started to work Friday\nnight, so it must have been Friday.\nQ\nDid you have any contact with Mr. Miller\non the issue of a pardon?\nMR. BUCHEN: Not at that time. The first contact,\nI think, was on Thursday of this week.\nQ\nAnd you can't suggest what precipitated\nthe President's interest?\nMR. BUCHEN: I do not know.\nQ\nCan you tell us whether the President ever\ntried to -- I hesitate to use \"extract\" -- but get\nany admission of guilt from the President, or was it\nstrictly --\nMR. BUCHEN: He did not.\nMORE\n- 21 -\nQ\nMr. Buchen, you said that President Ford has\nnot talked to former President Nixon since Mr. Nixon\nretained Miller. Could you tell us the last time President\nFord had contact with President Nixon, direct contact?\nMR. BUCHEN: I don't know. I think it may have been\nthe time of the Rockefeller appointment.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, I am not clear on one thing,\nand following up Helen's question, your emissary went out\non that Thursday, Mr. Becker went out on Thursday, that\nwas the only time he went out. I am trying to get clear\nin my mind precisely what it was he told the former\nPresident, or told Mr. Ziegler, and both of them at different\ntimes, that President Ford, in all probability would grant\na pardon. What did he ask either of Mr. Nixon or Mr.\nZiegler? What did he ask that Mr. Nixon do? Did he ask\nthat this statement we have been given today be\nissued? Did he suggest wording and what it should say\nor did he ask for nothing? Did he ask for more than what\nwe got in this statement?\nYou say at one point the former President could\nhave turned down the pardon.\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes.\nQ\nDid he offer that option and did he say\nif the pardon was to be granted, what the former President\nthen should do?\nMR. BUCHEN: The former President was represented\nby counsel, you know.\nQ\nWell, did he make the offer to Mr. Miller?\nMR. BUCHEN: Mr. Miller is shrewd enough\nattorney to know that he could have advised his client\nto accept or reject the pardon.\nTo answer your other question, as you can\nsee, that letter agreement is a very complicated one\nand it involved a lot of practical problems. Before\nMiller and Becker went out, a rough draft of Miller's pro-\nposal was in our hands. But it was obvious that we could\nnot work out the details of what would suit Miller's\nclient and what would suit GSA and what would suit what we\nthought was the best interests of the Government and of the\npotential other parties in interest without going out and\nmaking the final draft out there. And that was done.\nAs far as the statement from the former President\nis concerned, that was a matter that was left entirely\nup to the discretion of his own counsel and his\nown advisers.\nMORE\n- 22 -\nQ\nLet me see if I can put it another\nway, Mr. Buchen. Was the pardon in any of the conversa-\ntions involving yourself, Mr. Becker, or anyone else, with\nanyone representing the former President, was this\npardon contingent on anything?\nMORE\n- 23 -\nMR. BUCHEN: I have said no and I repeat no.\nQ Are you saying if he had not given this\nletter at all, if he had said, \"Well, I will make no letter\nagreement,\" are you saying categorically that a pardon\nwould have been issued anyway?\nMR. BUCHEN: I am not sure because President\nFord could have changed his mind or not made up his mind\nfinally.\nQ\nWhen was the package completed that was\nannounced today?\nMR. BUCHEN: We got the agreement back on early\nSaturday morning and spent that day reviewing it with\nMr. Sampson so that was wound up.\nQ\nYou mean yesterday morning?\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes, yesterday morning. The statement,\nof course, we didn't see until we got it over the wires right\nafter the speech.\nQ\nDid the President know there was going to\nbe a statement before he finally decided on the pardon?\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes.\nQ\nDid he have any idea what the contents would\nbe, what the tone would be?\nMR. BUCHEN: In a general way, yes.\nQ\nYou are saying that the pardon had nothing\nto do with this letter agreement?\nMR. BUCHEN: That was not a condition.\nQ\nThis was a completely independent action?\nMR. BUCHEN: Right. The negotiations for that\nagreement were started independently before even considera-\ntion of a pardon.\nQ\nThe decision to pardon was not made until\nafter this agreement was obtained?\nMR. BUCHEN: That is right.\nQ\nWhat you are saying, you cannot say there\nwould have been a pardon if the agreement had not been\nmade?\nMORE\n- 24 -\nMR. BUCHEN: All I can say is that the President\nhad the right not to grant a pardon because he had not\nfinally made up his mind to do SO,\nQ\nWhen did he make up his mind to do so?\nMR. BUCHEN: I suppose until that pen got on paper\nor until he started making the statement.\nQ\nHe made his decision after the agreement was\nmade?\nMR. BUCHEN: That is correct, but what went on\nin his mind, I don't know.\nQ\nWhen did he write the speech?\nMR. BUCHEN: Last night.\nQ\nIn sending this word through the emissary\nto Mr. Nixon that he was thinking of or expected to\npardon him but was reserving time judgment, was that in\nany way intended as encouragement to Mr. Nixon to get\non with the final agreements and possibly offer the kind of\na statement that he did offer today?\nMR. BUCHEN: That was not the intent. If it\ncreated that impression, it was a wrong impression.\nQ Mr. Buchen, you just said that the President had\nan indication in a general way of content of the former\nPresident's statement. If I may ask a two-part question:\nHow did he obtain this indication, and did he believe, or\nwas he informed, that the statement would be one of contrition?\nMR. BUCHEN: The report was through the mouth\nof Benton Becker, and the characterization of it as an act\nof contrition is mine.\nQ Excuse me, then. What general feeling did the\nPresident have that the statement would be, what indication\ndid he have of what the statement would be? How was it\ncharacterized by Mr. Becker?\nMR. BUCHEN: He in general told the President\nwhat it amounts to and in particular called attention to\nthe fact that there would be an acknowledgement of failure\nto act decisively and forthrightly on the matter of the\nWatergate break-in after it became a judicial proceeding.\nQ\nWas that negotiated at all?\nMR. BUCHEN: It was not negotiated.\nMORE\n- 25 -\nQ\nWas Mr. Becker informed of that on\nThursday at the time he went out there?\nMR. BUCHEN: I think he was informed on Friday\nbecause he got out there very late on Thursday night.\nQ\nDo you know if that information had any\neffect on Mr. Ford's decision?\nMR. BUCHEN: I don't know. I am sure it pleased\nhim and made him feel that it was easier for him to act\nas he contemplated doing.\nMR. BUCHEN:\nWe will take three more questions.\nQ Would you please clear up some things about\nthis letter of agreement. I am sorry, but it will take me\nsome time to understand it. Let me see here if this is\nwhat it means. Unless there is a subpoena or a court\norder which Mr. Nixon would reply to, any ordinary citizen\nof the United States, or any officials, outside of Sampson,\ncould not just go in there and look at these tapes or\nlisten to them, or see them at any time. They will be shut\noff completely to the public?\nMR. BUCHEN: That is right.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, why is the date of July 1969\nmentioned in the pardon?\nMR. BUCHEN: It is January, the date of inaugura-\ntion, January 20. President Ford misspoke when he used\nthe word \"July\".\nQ How complete was your explanation of the\ncase against the former President by Mr. Jaworski? Did\nhe go into what areas that he might be pursuing, what\nhe heard on the tapes that have not been made public?\nAnything like that?\nMR. BUCHEN: The question asked him what matters\ncould arguably involve further steps, and it read like a\nlist from one of your newspapers.\nQ\nDid Mr. Becker talk strictly with you or\ndid he ever speak to Mr. Ford? Did he deal strictly with\nyou?\nMR. BUCHEN: Oh, no; he was also in the room\non occasions when I was speaking to the President.\nQ\nWhy did he pick Becker to do this?\nMORE\n- 26 -\nMR. BUCHEN: Part of the problem, as you may\nknow, is we have a rather understaffed legal staff here\nand Mr. Becker is a man of rare talen that helped during\nthe confirmation hearings of the Vice President, and he is\nsuch a good and trusted friend of both of ours that we\nfelt he was the one we should call on.\nTHE PRESS: Thank you.\nMR. BUCHEN: All I am going to say is, for the\ntapes there will be two five-year windows. The first\nof the five-year windows involves controlled access by\nthe former President for his listening to copies of tapes,\ncopies to be made by an operator who himself does not listen\nto the originals.\nAlso, during the first five-year window, anyone\nwith a legitimate court subpoena or order that is upheld\ncan have access or can require the former President to\nfurnish the information contained on relevant portions of\nthe tapes.\nAt the end of that first five-year period, the\nformer President retains his window, but also can order\nselective destruction of tapes. At the end of the ten-\nyear period, they all get destroyed, all that remain.\nQ\nIn the second five-year window, is that just\nby persons who have legitimate subpoenas and court orders\nclosed off?\nMR. BUCHEN: That is right, because there is a\nfive-year statute of limitations on most, in fact on all,\nFederal offenses and most civil matters, so it is assumed\nthe initial five-year window is long enough.\nQ\nWhat is the limit on destruction after\nfive years plus one day, or can he destroy them all?\nMR. BUCHEN: He can.\nQ He can?\nMR. BUCHEN: He can order them destroyed.\nQ\nIf they were making any copies, would the\noriginals then be destroyed in the second five-year window?\nMR. BUCHEN: The originals will be destroyed.\nThe copies will be destroyed immediately after they are\nused.\nMORE\n- 27 -\nQ\nAnd he could do it after five years and\none day for everything?\nMR. BUCHEN: Right.\nQ\nNow can you go then from there to the\ndocuments?\nMR. BUCHEN: The documents are a different\ncategory. There is no present gift of documents as\ndistinguished from the tapes. However, there is a three-\nyear period when there will be controlled access by the\nowner of those documents requiring the double-key\narrangement with the General Services Administrator. And\nthe former President is under obligation to respond to\nany subpoena involving documents, just as he is to those\ninvolving tapes.\nDuring the three-year period involving documents,\nthe former President will be under obligation to respond\nto subpoenas involving those documents. At any time, the\nformer President can designate certain documents by\ndescription to become the absolute property of the United\nStates.\nHowever, after the three-year period, he may\neither elect to complete his gifts or to withdraw materials\nas he desires. These are documentary materials.\nQ\nWhy the three-year limit?\nMR. BUCHEN: We felt that as a practical matter\non the documentation that would be long enough. It gives\neverybody a warning. Obviously if there is a subpoena\nout that was obtained in the three years and the matter\nof its resolution has not been concluded, the subpoena\nwould prevail.\nQ\nCan you destroy the documents after three\nyears?\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes, if he wants to withdraw them.\nMORE\n- 28 -\nQ\nBy the way, Mr. Buchen, I may be wrong in what\nI am about to say, but I am going to predicate a question\non it, nevertheless.\nI am under the impression that the tapes, as\nopposed to documents, the tapes were -- that things such\nas taperecordings were not covered when Congress covered\nthat loophole and for that reason, the former President\ncould donate those tapes to the Government and claim\na tax exemption.\nYour second window, the ten-year time for destruc-\ntion appears to rule that out; is that right?\nMR. BUCHEN: He has already given them to the U.S.\nGovernment to be a gift effective at the end of the 5-year\nperiod.\nQ\nAfter he destroys them all?\nMR. BUCHEN: He can't destroy them during the\nfirst five-year period.\nQ\nHe has given them as a gift to the United\nStates -- we are talking about tapes now -- he has\ngiven them as a gift to the United States for five\nyears; is that right?\nMR. BUCHEN: No, it is the other way around.\nHe has retained title for five years and the gift takes\neffect at the end of the fifth year.\nQ\nBut he can destroy his gift?\nMR. BUCHEN: He doesn't have access to them.\nQ\nBut he can the next day. Didn't you\nsay five years and one day he could destroy them all?\nMR. BUCHEN: He can order their destruction.\nQ\nWhat can he do with the copies? Can he\ndispose of them for his own purpose?\nMR. BUCHEN: No, the copies will go back into the\nhands of the General Services Administrator and they\nwill be destroyed after he has listened to them.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, after the ten-year period, is it\nmandated that the tapes, all tapes and all copies be\ndestroyed?\nMR. BUCHEN: That is a condition.\nMORE\n- 29 -\nQ\nSo, his gift in the second five years is a\nlimited gift, in time it is a limited gift, say limited\nto five years; is that right?\nMR. BUCHEN: No.\nQ\nYou say he has given them to the United\nStates?\nMR. BUCHEN: Effective five years from now.\nQ\nWhy are they going to be destroyed after\nfive years?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, maybe they never should\nhave been made in the first place. This was his desire\nand I think 1t is consistent with the fact that these\nmatters do involve conversations with people who had no\nrealization that their voices were being recorded.\nAs an old spokesman for the right of privacy,\nI think there is considerable merit for putting these in\na separate category from documents.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, was any consideration given\nto the right of history?\nMR. BUCHEN: I am sure the historians will pro-\ntest, but I think historians cannot complain if evidence\nfor history is not perpetuated which shouldn't have been\ncreated in the first place.\nQ\nIs there anything he can keep, or intends to\nkeep?\nMR. BUCHEN: I am sure there are items in the\ndocuments that he would intend to keep. Of course, it\nwould involve family letters, things of a highly personal\nnature.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, if it is Mr. Nixon's desire to\ndestroy the tapes after ten years, would it not be logical\nto assume he will destroy them after five years?\nMR. BUCHEN: That is his option, order them\ndestroyed.\nQ\nWhat about the gift option? The tax deduction\noption?\nMR. BUCHEN: I am not his tax lawyer and it seems\nto me if you give a gift with instructions that the items\nhave to be destroyed, that the gift immediately loses its\nvalue, so I would think it would be very questionable.\nMORE\n- 30 -\nQ\nWhat about the President, though? Could\nhe --\nMR. BUCHEN: They will not be perpetuated\nbeyond the limited use.\nQ\nDoes the word \"copies\" include written\ntranscripts as well as the originals?\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes.\nQ\nAs a practical matter, at the end of\nfive years, then all the tapes will be destroyed except\nthose under subpoena?\nMR. BUCHEN: No, because he reserves the right\nto keep the window open for himself for another five years?\nQ\nJust the President, no public?\nMR. BUCHEN: That is right.\nQ\nIs it a question they can be destroyed\nin five years, but must be destroyed in ten years?\nMR. BUCHEN: They can't be destroyed short of\nfive years.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, Prosecutor Jaworski gave no\nindication that he objected to the pardon. Is it your\nimpression that he sort of feels relieved?\nMR. BUCHEN: Wouldn't you if you were in his\nplace?\nTHE PRESS: Thank you.\nEND\n(AT 1:28 P.M. EDT)\nD\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nSEPTEMBER 10, 1974\nOFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY\nPRESS CONFERENCE\nOF\nPHILIP BUCHEN\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nTHE BRIEFING ROOM\nAT 12:49 P.M.\nMR. HUSHEN: As I announced earlier, Mr. Philip\nBuchen, the Counsel to the President has agreed to come\nback out here today to answer some of the questions\nyou have.\nLet me say we are going to give them 60 seconds\nto get some photographs and then they will go away.\n(Laughter)\nLet me say at the outset that the document\nthat is about to be handed out is embargoed until the\ncompletion of the briefing.\nMR. BUCHEN: This is a follow-up, of course,\nof the meeting we had on Sunday. And at that time someone\nasked the question about the disclosures made to me\nby Special Prosecutor Jaworski to the areas of investigation\nin which his special force was engaged.\nAnd my answer was that the question asked him\nwas: \"What matters could arguably involve further steps?\"\nAnd I reported that it read like a list from\none of your newspapers.\nYou have now before you the document that was\nfurnished to me and, although the copy of the Special\nProsecutor's memorandum from Henry Ruth to\nthe Special Prosecutor dated September 3, 1974, on the\nsubject of Mr. Nixon was sent to me in confidence, Mr.\nJaworski has since advised me that, if I were willing\nto assume the responsibility for its release, he would\nraise no objection to my doing SO.\nHowever, he cautioned that in the event of\nits release, he would expect that it bemade available in\nits entirety, including the first and last paragraphs\nof the memorandum, and I quote that the first paragraph\nreads:\nThe following matters are still under investi-\ngation in this Office and may prove to have some direct\nconnection to activities in which Mr. Nixon is personally\ninvolved:\"\nMORE\n(over)\n- 2 -\nAt the conclusion of the memorandum Mr. Ruth,\nin reporting to Mr. Jaworski, wrote:\n\"None of these matters at the moment rises to\nthe level of our ability to prove even a probable\ncriminal violation by Mr. Nixon, but I thought you\nought to know which of the pending investigations\nwere even remotely connected to Mr. Nixon. Of course,\nthe Watergate cover-up is the subject of a separate\nmemorandum.\"\nNow I will try to field any questions.\nQ\nTell us about considering pardons\nfor everybody involved in Watergate?\nMR. BUCHEN: I am not involved in that matter.\nQ Well, who is?\nMR. BUCHEN: I said at the time of the last\npress conference to my knowledge no thought was being given\nto that and I have not been called in to do any part\nof the study so far. I assume I will be.\nQ Who is at this Point?\nQ Who is considering this, the President?\nMR. BUCHEN: The President made the statement.\nQ Mr. Buchen, can you tell us if anyone tried\nto persuade Mr. Nixon to confess guilt prior to the granting\nof the pardon by President Ford?\nMR. BUCHEN: No. Mr. Miller, at the time that I\ninformed him that the President was considering a possible\npardon for Mr. Nixon, was told by me that I thought it would\nbe very beneficial in the interests of the country, in the\ninterests of the present Administration and in the interest\nof the former President, that as full a statement as possible\nshould be issued by Mr. Nixon but that I had been told\nthat that was not a condition to the consideration of the\npardon.\nMr. Miller at that time assured me that he agreed\nwith me that such a statement should be forthcoming\nfrom his client.\nQ\nMr. Bucken, I was wondering, if, as the\nPresident's legal counsel, , would you advise that the\nPresident in this study about the possibility of giving\namnesty to all the Watergate people, that excluded\nfrom the people doing the study should be all Nixon hold-\novers? Would you advise, or do you think it is reasonable\nfor Nixon holdovers to participate in a study of possible\namnesty to all Nixon defendants?\nMORE\n- 3 -\nMR. BUCHEN: I think that is a decision the\nPresident will have to instruct me on.\nQ\nHow would you advise him?\nQ\nDid you finish you answer to the earlier\nquestion?\nMR. BUCHEN: I was finished.\nQ\nCould I follow-up then, sir? Did the former\nPresident balk at this, was there negotiation on what\nfinally came out in his statement afterwards?\nDid you see that statement, sir, or did anyone\nelse in the White House see it prior to its issuance?\nMR. BUCHEN: When Mr. Becker came back from\nSan Clemente, he was able to report the substance of\nthe statement that he thought would be forthcoming after\nthe announcement was made.\nBut we did not have the statement in the form\nin which it was ultimately delivered.\nQ\nAre you satisfied that this was as fulla\nstatement as possible coming from the former President?\nMR. BUCHEN: That is something that I think would\nrequire going into the former President's mind. Obviously,\nif you do not condition an act of mercy on the recipient\nof the mercy doing anything, you are not in a position\nto do much bargaining.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, did Mr. Becker go to San Clemente\nwith a much stronger statement, or a statement --\nMR. BUCHEN: He had no statement in hand.\nQ\nYou say he came back with a statement --\nhe reported the substance of the statement he thought\nwould be forthcoming. Was that substance substantially\ndifferent from the statement that was then issued?\nMR. BUCHEN: No, the essential feature was the\nstatement that the President believed he had not acted\ndecisively and forthrightly in respect to the Watergate\nonce it became a judicial proceeding and the regret for\nhaving done wrong was in the report that Becker gave us.\nQ\nWas it your hope or intention early in those\nnegotiations to get Mr. Nixon to agree to a statement in\nwhich he admitted his own personal wrong-doing and\ninvolvement in the Watergate cover-up?\nMORE\n- 4 -\nMR. BUCHEN: Again I had to rely on what\nMr. Miller believed would be in the best interests of\nhis client and the country, because I had no authority\nto extract a statement of my own making.\nQ Not what was in the former President's\nmind, but what was in your mind? Do you think that the\nfinal statement met the standards that you and Mr.\nMiller discussed at the meeting?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, I think they did, because,\nas some of your papers have already suggested, the very\nfact that a man accepts a pardon does imply that he\nbelieves it is necessary for him to have that pardon, or\nthat it is useful for him to have that pardon.\nAnd there aren't many instances in which it is\nuseful to have a pardon unless there is a strong probability\nof guilt.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, do you think that you and President\nFord misread the public's acceptance of the terms of this\npardon and the acceptance in Congress?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, I was not doing much reading\non the outside as to what might happen. That was really\noutside my bailiwick, so I cannot tell you.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, do you and the President hope\nthat the former President will at some time, perhaps\nin the near future, release some kind of formal statement\ndetailing further his connection with Watergate?\nMR. BUCHEN: I have not given that any thought\nand I assume that would be entirely up to the former\nPresident.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, you were involved in the pre-\naccession negotiations and pre-transition operations of\nthe Ford Administration. Was there at any time any dis-\ncussion between any high-ranking member of the Ford group and\nany member of the Nixon group as to the possibility of a\npardon for Nixon in advance of his leaving office?\nMR. BUCHEN: I answered that question Sunday and,\nto my knowledge, there was absolutely none and it never\ncame up as a matter to be discussed by the transition team.\nAnd I think I participated in virtually all meetings of\nthe transition team.\nQ\nHow about between Ford and Nixon alone?\nMR. BUCHEN: I don't believe so.\nQ\nCan you find out definitely whether there\nwas no deal before Nixon left office?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, I know the man in the\nPresident's office quite well and I can assure you he\ndid not make a deal. I know him that well.\nMORE\n- 5 -\nQ\nMr. Buchen, he assured us in a press\nconference it would be untimely to do such a thing, and\nhe assured us when he was nominated for Vice-President\nthat the American people would not stand for it. Can\nyou give us an explanation of this?\nMR. BUCHEN: Let's take the first; the matter of\nuntimeliness seems to me to involve a debate that really\nmakes little sense, because a man who had to consider\nwhether or not to grant a pardon, it seems to me, has to\nconsider the fact that if a pardon is desirable, the\nearlier it comes, the better.\nIt is like making a man walk a plank. You wait\nuntil he takes the first step. You wait until he gets to\nthe middle of the plank. You wait until he jumps off the\nend, and then dive in to rescue him. I think it represents --\nlet me put it this way. I don't think an act of mercy can\never be untimely, and it certainly becomes less merciful\nif you postpone the agony.\nQ Mr. Buchen, in that statement, you are\nsuggesting that the former President was going to go\noff the end of the plank?\nMR. BUCHEN: I think there was a strong\npossibility.\nQ\nWhen Mr. Becker was out at San Clemente,\ndid he discuss in the President's presence what the\nPresident might say in a statement, and did the President\nget angry at the suggestions that he admit guilt?\nMR. BUCHEN: I think those negotiations were\nentirely with Mr. Ziegler, SO I don't think we have any\nknowledge of what the President --\nQ\nThe New York Times states this morning\nas I quoted it.\nQ\nYou better clear up what you mean by\n\"walking the plank;\" do you mean suicide or going to jail?\nMR. BUCHEN: No, as I understand \"walking the\nplank,\" it is because the man has been convicted of some\ncrime that offended the master of the ship, or not\nconvicted, say indicted.\nQ\nWhat about the question of health; Mr.\nBuchen, how did that figure into this decision?\nMR. BUCHEN: I don't know because I wasn't\nparty to any of the investigations or discussions, if\nthere were any, about the former President's health.\nMORE\n- 6 -\nQ Did you say Mr. Becker at no time spoke\nto Mr. Nixon in San Clemente?\nMR. BUCHEN: I didn't say that.\nQ\nI thought you said the negotiations were\nentirely with Mr. Ziegler?\nMR. BUCHEN: I don't know whether there were\nnegotiations, but the matter of the content of the\nPresident's statement, which he contemplated giving\nwhen the pardon was issued, was dealt with entirely\nthrough Ron Ziegler. The only face-to-face matters\ntaken up with the former President dealt with the manner\nof managing and disposing of his papers and tapes.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, did Mr. terHorst ask you on\nFriday whether Mr. Becker was involved in discussing\na pardon with the former President during his trip to\nCalifornia, and if he did, what did you tell him?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, we better clear that one\nup.\nJerry terHorst reported to me that someone\nhad observed Benton Becker and Jack Miller in the area\nof San Clemente. Jerry terHorst asked me what the\npurpose of my having sent Benton Becker out to San Clemente\nwas, and I said that the purpose was to take a document\nthat had been prepared in rough draft before he left\nWashington, had been prepared by Mr. Miller, which related\nto the management and disposing of the tapes and records.\nHowever, we objected and wanted changes in those\ndocuments, partly because we were concerned as to the\npracticality of some of the proposals made insofar as they\ninvolve the Administrator of the General Services\nAdministration.\nThe matter is very complex, as you see, so I\nsuggested, when Mr. Miller said he would have to go and\ndiscuss the terms of that document with his client, that\nMr. Becker go along, so that there would be a way that\nMr. Becker could be on hand as changes, additions or\nwhatnot were proposed and so that he would available to\nreport back to me on the progress of the negotiations.\nThat was the purpose of the assignment.\nQ\nWe specifically asked you if Mr. Becker\nwas out there engaging in pardon negotiations?\nMR. BUCHEN: There were no pardon negotiations,\nthat is the point.\nMORE\n- 7 -\nQ\nAnything at all?\nQ\nYou sent him out with instructions to say\nthat the President had this under consideration?\nQ\nWould you answer my question, please?\nMR. BUCHEN: Mr. Miller knew that the pardon\nwas under consideration, and he could report to his client.\nIt was not necessary for Mr. Becker to do anything in\nconnection with the pardon.\nQ\nDidn't Mr. Becker take out a copy of the\nproposed pardon?\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes, he did. It was a draft that\nhe and I had worked on very hurriedly Thursday afternoon\nbefore he had to leave on the plane. I said, \"Benton,\nyou are going to be five hours on that plane, take a copy\nalong, keep working on it, I don't think it is in the\nform we want to submit to the President for his con-\nsideration. Take it along and work on it.\"\nQ\nYou didn't tell Mr. terHorst that?\nMR. BUCHEN: No, I will explain; as you may\nappreciate, being counsel to anyone, or lawyer to anyone,\nimposes certain restrictions, and I believe, on this\nmatter, I was under complete restriction as a lawyer\nto the President not to disclose what I was doing for\nthe President on a matter that he regarded as highly\nconfidential.\nQ\nDid the subject of pardon ever --\nQ\nWould you say that you misled Mr. terHorst\non Friday?\nMR. BUCHEN: Let me put it this way; I can see\nhow he could have been misled.\nQ\nCan you see how he could not have been\nmisled?\nMR. BUCHEN: No, I can see how he could have been\nmisled. I don't say he could not have been. After all, if\nyou get a question, why is a man whom you' have sent to\nSan Clemente there, and I give him an answer, I can see\nwhen he in turn had to respond to the man, or the reporter\nmaking the inquiries, that he would inject a negative,\nwas he there dóing anything else. And I assume that\nJerry said, \"Well, as far as I know he wasn't,\" because\nI had not told him he was doing anything else.\nMORE\n- 8 -\nQ\nDid you tell him he wasn't out there\ndiscussing the pardon?\nMR. BUCHEN: Oh, no.\nQ\nWhy was it something you couldn't talk\nabout?\nMR. BUCHEN: I could talk about the negotiations\non the tapes.\nQ\nWhen he asked you about the pardon?\nMR. BUCHEN: He didn't ask me about the pardon.\nQ\nWhat was the precision of language used in\nPresident Nixon's statement?\nMR. BUCHEN: Let me get the question.\nQ\nWhat was the need for the secrecy in the\nnegotiations, whatever they were?\nMR. BUCHEN: In the course of any client and\nattorney relationship, usually until something happens, you\nare under obligation not to disclose the conversations.\nQ\nI mean, what was the need for secrecy about\nthe fact that a pardon was being considered, generally,\nnot just your conversations with the President?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, generally, that was the\nPresident's decision and not mine. I was just bound by\nmy client-attorney relationship.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, if Mr. Becker knew all about the\npardon, the President seemed to trust him with that\ninformation, yet he didn't trust Mr. terHorst with that\ninformation?\nQ\nOr you didn't trust Mr. terHorst with it?\nMR. BUCHEN: I had no power to subdelegate in\npassing information. The first question is why didn't\nthe President trust Mr. terHorst to have the information\nat the same time I got it?\nQ\nNo, I mean Mr. Becker. You are talking about\nthe attorney-client relationship, which involves you\nand the President; Mr. Becker is someone outside that\nrelationship, yet he knew about the pardon because he\nwas working on the pardon agreements.\nMR. BUCHEN: No, he had the same relationship\nthat I had in terms of his being a lawyer and working\nMORE\n- 9 -\nunder my supervision as a lawyer for a client. As in a law\noffice, if a client comes into an office and the lawyer\nassigns a law partner to work on it, the obligation extends\nto the other lawyer as well as the original one.\nQ\nCan you be forthright with us on what is\nyour advice to the President on pardoning other individuals\nassociated with the --\nMR. BUCHEN: I have not given him any advice.\nQ\nWhat would be your advice; how do you see\nthe issue?\nMR. BUCHEN: I haven't even had time to study it.\nQ\nWhen did the President's other advisers find\nout that the pardon was under consideration or was to\nbe granted, and did they agree with it when they found\nout about it?\nQ\nAnd did you?\nMR. BUCHEN: I was in the room at the time\nwhen certain advisers were told about it on Friday\nbefore Labor Day, but I don't feel free to report their\nreactions.\nMORE\n- 10 -\nQ\nCan you tell us what role General Haig\nplayed in this granting of the pardon? He was in on\nall of this all the time, wasn't he? Was he recommending\na pardon during this period?\nQ\nWhat was the question?\nMR. BUCHEN: I was asked that question last\nnight and I can tell you that every occasion when I\nwas present when the subject was raised and General Haig\nwas there, he took an absolutely neutral stand.\nQ\nDid you say you are not part of the study\nfor the other Watergate defendents? Can you tell me when\nyou became aware that that study was in the works?\nMR. BUCHEN: I learned from Mr. Hartmann and\nMr. Hushen that this matter was brought up at the early\nmorning conference.\nQ\nWho brought it up?\nQ\nToday for the first time?\nQ\nDid you say there was a connection between\nthe pardon for the others and the reaction against the\npardon for Nixon? And secondly, if you are the President's\nlawyer and you are not working on it, who is?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, I don't know, Ron. I really\ndon't.\nQ\nWhat about the first part of that question;\nis he trying to dampen down the reaction by giving out\npardons to the others?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, I don't interpret studying\na pardon as predicting what the results would be.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, as a lawyer, can you see a\ndistinction between a President granting a pardon to a\nformer President and granting pardons or not granting\npardons to former subordinates for involvement in the\nsame illegal acts?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, there certainly is a\ndistinction. I will later have available for distribution --\nbecause I don't think there will be many questions on it --\na memorandum, a copy of a memorandum that Mr. Jack Miller\nprepared for the Special Prosecutor in which he rather\ncarefully documents the reason why the situation of his\nclient is distinguishable from the situation of anybody\nelse's remotely involved in the acts, or Watergate-related\nevents.\nMORE\n- 11 -\nYou will remember I quoted a letter from Mr.\nJaworski who did say he thought there was a distinction.\nQ\nPhil, could I ask you this question: Does\nnot the mere fact that the White House has made a statement\nsaying that pardons for all Watergate defendants are under\nstudy, does that not intrude upon the judicial process\nto the point that the trial for the Watergate defendants,\nthe trial for September 30, is somehow intruded upon\nand interfered with by this statement?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, I don't think SO. You see,\nafter all, the fact that there can be a pardon hangs\nover the trial of anybody. That is not a unique situation.\nThe power to pardon exists in the Federal Constitution\nand I believe in every State Constitution.\nQ\nThis is a matter of great and intense\nnational interest. It is not like the case of any\ndefendants. This is a case of specific defendants that\nhave been involved in a great national drama or what\nhave you, so it is a different case, is it not?\nMR. BUCHEN: Yes, but the Presidential pardon\npower, as well as that of a Governor of a State, hangs\nover the judicial process all the time.\nQ\nWhat purpose was served by announcing\nthis morning, or authorizing Jack Hushen to announce it\nthis morning?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, I was not party to that\ndetermination so I can't tell you.\nQ\nWhat purpose was served by announcing the\nJaworski letter on the ten points?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, as I indicated, it was\ngiven to me on a confidential basis. The comments that\nhave been made around town is that there was not a\nconsideration given of what was, what someone else\ncalled \"are there any possible time bombs\", and we felt\nthat it would be in the interest -- provided Mr. Jaworski\nconsented -- that we do provide you with the information\non which the President in part acted before he decided\nto grant the pardon.\nQ\nIn this study that is being undertaken,\nsir, what is your understanding of the philosophy behind it\n-- that families of all Watergate defendants have suffered\nenough, or what other considerations?\nMORE\n- 12 -\nMR. BUCHEN: I can't go beyond the statements\nJack gave you. That is all I know.\nQ\nWhere did it first come up?\nQ\nWhere did this subject of possible clemency\nfor all other Watergate defendants first come up? You\ndidn't make that clear. You said \"an early morning\nconference\".\nQ\nWhat morning?\nMR. BUCHEN: This morning.\nQ\nWhat were the circumstances?\nMR. BUCHEN: I don't know except it was reported\nto me by Mr. Hartmann and Mr. Hushen that it was raised\nthis morning.\nQ\nWhere?\nMR. BUCHEN: I assume with the President. I\ndon't know the circumstances.\nQ\nIs this a reaction, Mr. Buchen? Is this\nconsideration of the study, consideration of pardons,\nand the announcement of this study, is this a reaction\nto the popular outcry against the pardon of the former\nPresident?\nMR. BUCHEN: I don't think so because the fact\nthat two people are brought into his confidence this\nmorning and that confidence has been shared with you\ntoday, doesn't mean that that is when the thought came.\nI explained on Sunday when the question was\nasked me as to whether any thought was given to the way\nin which the pardon power might be exercised, if at all,\nrespecting other people involved, I said that to my\nknowledge -- meaning that as far as I knew -- no thought\nhad been given. But that didn't mean that the thought\nprocesses weren't going on unbeknownst to me or unbeknownst\nto the people who got the reports this morning.\nQ Mr. Buchen, in going back to my other\nquestion, you said mercy is never untimely. Was the\nPresident not merciful ten days ago when he said it\nwould be untimely, and was the President lacking in mercy\nwhen he told the committee that the American people\nwouldn't stand for it?\nWhat caused him to be suddenly merciful? Could\nyou tell us what happened?\nMORE\n- 13 -\nMR. BUCHEN: I wish you would come up here\nand explain the theory of mercy. You can probably do\na much better job than I can.\nBut let me tell you, it is not whether to be\nmerciful, but how he could be merciful, and I do not\nthink he was aware that he could act before there was\nany formal indictment when he made his statement before\nthe press.\nQ\nWasn't the President briefed on that\nvery point before the news conference? Wasn't he\nbriefed that there would be a question on pardon and\nthis was a policy adopted?\nMR. BUCHEN: That is right.\nQ\nWhy was that policy changed, that there\nwould be no pardon until there was due process?\nMR. BUCHEN: You have lost me, I am sorry.\nQ\nHe announced a policy at that news\nconference and you say he was briefed on that policy.\nMR. BUCHEN: He said that he would make no\ncommitments. His intention then was to make no commitments\non the pardon until something had been brought to him.\nQ\nWhy was that changed?\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, because after the conference,\nI assume he reflected on the matter, and then asked me to\nfind out whether or not he could move quicker than he\nhad indicated at the press conference.\nQ\nDid you brief him prior to the news\nconference that the best policy was for him to wait\nuntil there was some --\nMR. BUCHEN: No, I did not.\nQ\nWith whom was he in touch with at that\npoint? Can you tell us who he consulted between Wednesday\nand Friday when he asked you to begin your research into\nprecedents?\nMR. BUCHEN: I have no notion; I really don't, Pete.\nMORE\n- 14 -\nQ\nWhat is your understanding of the\ninvestigation status referred to in the memo? Is\nJaworski going on in his investigation of these\npoints? Is he going to furnish material to the public?\nMR. BUCHEN: I know nothing more than what is in\nthe memorandum.\nQ\nThe Watergate cover-up, it says, is the\nsubject of a separate memorandum. Has that memorandum\nreached you?\nMR. BUCHEN: It has not.\nQ Do you know what it concerns?\nMR. BUCHEN: I can imagine what it concerns.\nQ Does it indicate to you, as a lawyer reading\nthis, that that number one is ongoing and unlike this\nlisting of ten points which according to the memo may\nprove to have some connection, but then says there is\nno point we can prove regarding Mr. Nixon -- does that\nindicate to you that is a different story entirely\nwhen it comes to the cover-up?\nMR. BUCHEN: As you know, this memorandum was\nissued before the pardon, so I don't know what the effect\nof the pardon has on the investigation referred to in\nthe last paragraph.\nQ\nYou must have had some indication from\nthe Special Prosecutor where he stands with regard to\nthe cover-up investigation.\nMR. BUCHEN: I do not.\nQ\nIn preparing your advice for the President,\ndid you address at all the time element of granting this\npardon, with specific reference to the possibility that\nthe Watergate cover-up trial might be affected since the\njury had not been sequestered?\nMR. BUCHEN: I did not discuss that with the\nPresident, but I understand, of course, that, one, it\nis not certain the jury would be sequestered. I assume\nit is available to the attorneys for the defendant to\nwaive any such request; and, second, I am not sure that\na story like this could possibly have been kept from the\njury however tightly sequestered.\nMORE\n- 15 -\nQ\nMr. Buchen, did you get from Mr. Ziegler\nor from Mr. Nixon, either after Mr. Becker returned here\nor while he was there, some sort of commitment that the\nPresident would not in the future make statements\nprotesting his innocence?\nMR. BUCHEN: We did not.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, are you saying that the Presi-\ndent did not know or understand at the time of the\nAugust 28 press conference that the pardoning power\ncould be exercised before indictment or conviction?\nMR. BUCHEN: I certainly had not so advised him,\nand he had not asked my advice,\nQ\nYou didn't say that? Do you have reason\nto believe that, that he didn't believe he could move\nbefore the indictment was voted?\nMR. BUCHEN: That I don't know. I didn't ask\nhim.\nQ\nYou so far have not given us any explana-\ntion for why Mr. Ford changed his mind after that press\nconference with the possible exception of his receiving\nthis documentation of the investigation.\nDoes that mean that the investigation turned\nout to be so serious that he thought the former President\nwouldn't withstand it?\nMR. BUCHEN: No; I think more significant than\nthat was the advice that I reported Sunday, namely, that\nbefore there could be a trial, there would have to be a\ndelay of a year or more, and I think that was the matter\nthat concerned him most.\nQ\nDon't many trials take a year or more to\ncome to the court or to settle? And why is Mr. Nixon to\nbe treated any differently in this respect than anyone else?\nMR. BUCHEN: Every defendant under the law is\nentitled to a prompt trial provided he can have a fair\ntrial by an impartial jury.\nQ\nWhen did you advise the President of the\nlong delay of nine months or a year? Was that after\nthe press conference?\nMORE\n- 16 -\nMR. BUCHEN: He asked me after the press\nconference, or that Friday, to find the answer. So\napparently someone had told him that that probably would\nbe the case.\nBut he wanted his own lawyer to ask the Special\nProsecutor who would be the best judge, of how long it\nmight take, and that is the reason I went to Mr. Jaworski,\nso we would have an expert opinion.\nI don't claim to be an expert. On the other\nhand, I have read the cases that are cited by Mr. Nixon's\nown attorney who makes the same arguments very effectively\nin a memorandum that you can all take back to your legal\ncounsels, because I don't think you want to read it all.\nQ\nHowever you did know that indictments could\nbe very quick, the question of laying out the charges on\nthe public record would not have taken very long -- maybe\na month; is that correct?\nMR. BUCHEN: As you know, the word came out\nthat the former President -- then the President -- was\nabout to be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, so the\nindictment involves -- that involves the defendants, involves\nprobably everything that involves Mr. Nixon alone.\nQ\nBut it is not the same, really.\nMR. BUCHEN: I think it is pretty good evidence\nof what that jury intended to do and would have done if\nthere had not been a pardon.\nQ\nWas consideration given to the timing of\nwhen this jury would have done this, vis-a-vis the November\nelections?\nMR. BUCHEN: It had nothing to do with the\nelections However, it was evident it was the President's\ndecision to grant a pardon before the indictment. He\nwould have to act fairly soon because it was not\npossible, of course, to grade the Grand Jury in the time\nit would act.\nQ\nMay I clear up a question here?\nMR. BUCHEN: Let me get Phil first.\nQ\nIn view of the last sentence in this memo-\nrandum, didn't you have any qualms about whether you could\ngive the President full legal advice on what he could do?\nWhen it says here there are other matters and other\nmemoranda which you have not seen, how could you give\nthe President full advice on what he could do on the\npardon in view of that?\nMORE\n- 17 -\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, we believed, of course, that\nthe evidence before the House Judiciary Committee on\nthis very point that resulted in the article that brought\na unanimous vote ultimately, and based on particularly\nthe June 23 tapes, gave every indication of what was\ninvolved in the alleged Watergate cover-up and we\ndidn't think we needed to know any more than that.\nQ\nI think my notes are correct, that is, you\ntold us earlier, \"I do not think (the President) was\naware that he could grant a pardon before the indictment\nwhen he made his press conference statement.\" Is that\nright?\nMR. BUCHEN: As far as I know. I don't believe\nthat he was or that he understood what, if any, problems --\nI am talking legal problems, now -- would arise if he\nacted before indictment.\nQ\nThe President seemed to say in his news\nconference that he wouldn't act on the pardon until\nafter an indictment and your explanation, that there\nwould be nine months or a year, perhaps longer, before\na trial, doesn't really go to the question of why he\nchanged his mind about waiting until after an indictment\nto act on a pardon.\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, I guess all I can go back\nto is my own analogy. If you are going to -- if you do\ncome to the conclusion you ought to consider mercy, it\ndoesn't seem to be very relevant to consider what other\nsteps you ought to require the man to whom you are granting\nmercy must take.\nQ\nAnd at the news conference he had not made\nup his mind yet?\nMR. BUCHEN: He had not made up his mind.\nQ\nYou are saying the main reason he changed\nhis mind was because somebody told him there would be\nthis long delay and he asked you to check it out and\nyou did. And then he decided to grant the pardon? Did\nsomeone decide that the long delay would wreck Mr. Nixon's\nhealth?\nMR. BUCHEN: Not that I know of.\nQ\nHas there been any discussion about the\nformer President not wishing to testify or be a witness?\nMORE\n- 18 -\nMR. BUCHEN: Well, he is under subpoena so\nhe has no choice.\nQ\nI know, but if you are considering pardons,\nif there is consideration for others, that would spare\nthe former President from testifying, is that part of\nthis study?\nMR. BUCHEN: I have not seen the study, so I\ndon't know.\nQ\nIn your discussion of the cover-up\nmemorandum a moment ago, you said the June 23 tape\ntold you everything you needed to know about that.\nMR. BUCHEN: I didn't say everything. I\nalso said the findings of the House Judiciary Committee.\nQ\nRight, and earlier he spoke of the\nnecessity, the acceptance of the pardon, the necessity\nfor the pardon. Did this mean that you and the President\nin offering this pardon to the President, would make\na presumption of guilt?\nMR. BUCHEN: First, take the \"you\" pronoun\nout of that and perhaps I can answer it. I did advise\nthe President that a pardon could be characterized as\nimplying guilt on the part of the person who was pardoned\nbecause there is no other reason for granting a pardon.\nBut that did not deter or affect his determination to act\nwhen he finally made up his mind to do SO.\nQ\nFrom the perspective of the person who\naccepts the pardon, does the acceptance of the pardon\namount to a tacit admission of guilt?\nMR. BUCHEN: You can so accept it. The question\nnever came up. I couldn't find in any cases where that\nquestion was litigated, so I can't give you any authority.\nBut it just takes common sense and logic to reach that\nconclusion.\nLet's have one of the women.\nMORE\n- 19 -\nQ\nThank you.\nThroughout this, we have heard solely about the\nconsideration of an indictment and the lengthy period of time\nbetween indictment and trial. Did you try to determine\nfrom Mr. Jaworski the possibility of a plea from the former\nPresident? Now faced with the prospect of a multicount\nindictment, as he was and as I am sure Mr. Miller advised\nhim, it seems extremely likely there might have been a plea\nfar sooner than there would ever have been an indictment\nand trial. Did you ask for any timing on this, and if not,\nwhy not?\nMR. BUCHEN: I did consult, of course, with\nMr. Nixon's Attorney, and I was pretty sure from what\nhe told me that in his mind there would never be a plea.\nQ\nThere would have been a trial then; you are\nsaying he would have gone the whole route had he not been\npardoned?\nMR. BUCHEN: I believe SO.\nMR. HUSHEN: Let take two more questions. We\nbeen out here for forty-five minutes. Two more questions.\nQ\nMaybe you have answered this; why did\nPresident Ford want mercy for Richard Nixon?\nMR. BUCHEN: Because I think he truly believed\nit would be in the best interests of the country.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, if you are done with that answer,\nI would like to ask you, as a lawyer, do you think it not\nfair and proper that, if the President considers amnesty\nor granting a pardon for persons convicted for or indictments\nfor burglary, perjury, conspiracy in Watergate related\ncrimes, that he should give equal consideration to pardoning\nother persons indicted or convicted of burglary, perjury or\nconspiracy in non-Watergate related crimes?\nMR. BUCHEN: I wish I were a better student of\nthe ethics or morality of mercy, but I believe a\nrepresentative of the clergy would substantiate my\nremarks that, throughout our religious history --- and I\ndon't mean just the Christian Religion -- there has always\nbeen a separate category of mercy that we know has never\nbeen equally dispensed and we know that it is an act of\ngrace that is many times inexplicable.\nI am sure all of us in the room have sought\nmercy on matters that we wanted to blame ourselves for,\nor some adverse consequences, and we didn't always get mercy.\nMORE\n- 20 -\nMercy seems to work in very unequal fashion.\nThat is a point on which Jerry terHorst and I have\ndisagreed. He has a notion, as he said, that mercy\nshould be dispensed with in the same even-handed fashion\nas we would like to see justice dispensed.\nBut, I believe history tells us mercy doesn't\nwork the same way.\nQ\nMr. Buchen --\nMR. HUSHEN: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.\nQ\nMr. Buchen, is there any limitation on\nthe power of pardons?\nMR. BUCHEN: I refer you to --\nQ\nIs there any limitation on this at all?\nMR. BUCHEN: I refer you to the Constitution.\nQ\nIs there anything he could do that was more\nthan this?\nMR. BUCHEN: No, not that I could find in the\nConstitution; no.\nTHE PRESS: Thank you.\nEND\n(1:37 P.M. EDT)\nE\nPRESS CONFERENCE NO. 2\nof the\nPRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES\n8:00 P.M. EDT\nSeptember 16, 1974\nMonday\nIn the East Room\nAt the White House\nWashington, D.C.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Please sit down.\nLadies and gentlemen, this press conference is\nbeing held at a time when many Americans are observing the\nJewish religious new year. It begins a period of self-\nexamination and reconciliation. In opening this press\nconference, I am mindful that the spirit of this holy day\nhas a meaning for all Americans.\nIn examining one's deeds of the last year and\nin assuming responsibility for past actions and personal\ndecisions, one can reach a point of growth and change. The\npurpose of looking back is to go forward with a new and\nenlightened dedication to our highest values.\nThe record of the past year does not have to\nbe endlessly relived, but can be transformed by commitment\nto new insights and new actions in the year to come.\nLadies and gentlemen, I am ready for your\nquestions.\nMr. Cormier.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, some Congressional\nRepublicans who have talked to you have hinted that you\nmay have had a secret reason for granting President Nixon\na pardon sooner than you indicated you would at the last\nnews conference, and I wonder if you could tell us what\nthat reason was.\nTHE PRESIDENT: At the outset, let me say I\nhad no secret reason, and I don't recall telling any\nRepublican that I had such a reason. Let me review quickly,\nif I might, the things that transpired following the last\nnews conference.\nMORE\nPage 2\nAs many of you know, I answered two, maybe\nthree questions concerning a pardon at that time. On\nreturn to the office, I felt that I had to have my counsel\nundertake a thorough examination as to what my right of\npardon was under the Constitution. I also felt that\nit was very important that I find out what legal actions,\nif any, were contemplated by the Special Prosecutor.\nThat information was found out, and it was\nindicated to me that the possibility exists, the very\nreal possibility that the President would be charged with\nobstructing justice and ten other possible criminal\nactions.\nIn addition, I asked my general counsel to\nfind out, if he could, how long such criminal proceedings\nwould take, from the indictment, the carrying on of the\ntrial, et cetera, and I was informed that this would\ntake a year, maybe somewhat longer, for the whole process\nto go through.\nI also asked my counsel to find out whether\nor not under decisions of the judicial system a fair\ntrial would be given to the former President.\nAfter I got that information, which took two\nor three days, I then began to evaluate, in my own mind,\nwhether or not I should take the action, which I\nsubsequently did.\nMiss Thomas.\nMORE\nPage 3\nQUESTION: Throughout your Vice Presidency,\nyou said that you didn't believe that former President\nNixon had ever committed an impeachable offense. Is\nthat still your belief or do you believe that his\nacceptance of a pardon implies his guilt, or is an\nadmission of guilt?\nTHE PRESIDENT: The fact that 38 members of\nthe House Committee on the Judiciary, Democrat and\nRepublican, have unanimously agreed in the report that\nwas filed that the former President was guilty of an\nimpeachable offense, I think is very persuasive\nevidence.\nAnd the second question, I don't recall --\nQUESTION: An admission of guilt?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Was the acceptance of the\npardon by the President an admission of guilt? The\nacceptance of a pardon, I think, can be construed by\nmany, if not all, as an admission of guilt.\nYes, Mr. Nessen.\nQUESTION: What reports have you received on\nMr. Nixon's health, and what effect, if any, did this\nhave on your decision to pardon him now?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I have asked Dr. Lukash, who\nis the head physician in the White House, to keep me\nposted in proper channels as to the former President's\nhealth. I have been informed on a routine day-to-day\nbasis, but I don't think I am at liberty to give any\ninformation as to those reports that I have received.\nYou also asked what impact did the President's\nhealth have on my decision. I think it is well known\nthat just before I gave my statement at the time that\nI gave the pardon I personally wrote in a phrase \"the\nthreat to the President's health,\nThe main concern that I had at the time I made\nthe decision was to heal the wounds throughout the\nUnited States. For a period of 18 months or longer, we\nhad had turmoil and divisiveness in the American society.\nAt the same time, the United States had major problems\nboth at home and abroad that needed the maximum personal\nattention of the President and many others in the Govern-\nment.\nIt seemed to me that as long as this divisiveness\ncontinued, this turmoil existed, caused by the charges\nand counter charges, the responsible people in the\nGovernment could not give their total attention to the\nproblems that we had to solve at home and abroad.\nMORE\nPage 4\nAnd the net result was that I was more\nanxious to heal the Nation. That was the top priority.\nI felt then, and I feel now, that the action I took\nwill do that. I couldn't be oblivious, however, to\nnews accounts that I had concerning the President's health,\nbut the major reason for the action. took related to the\neffort to reconcile divisions in cur country and to\nheal the wounds that had festered far too long.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, after you had told us\nthat you were going to allow the legal process to go on\nbefore you decided whether to pardon him, why did\nyou decide on Sunday morning, abruptly, to pardon Presi-\ndent Nixon?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I didn't decide abruptly. I\nexplained a moment ago the process that I went through\nsubsequent to the last press conference. When I had\nassembled all of that information that came to me\nthrough my counsel, I then most carefully analyzed the\nsituation in the country and I decided that we could not\nafford in America an extended period of continued turmoil\nand the fact that the trial, and all of the parts thereof,\nwould have lasted a year -- perhaps more -- with the\ncontinuation of the divisions in America. I felt that\nI should take the action that I did, promptly and\neffectively.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, I would like to ask you\na question about the decision relating to custody of the\nNixon tapes and documents. Considering the enormous\ninterest that the Special Prosecutor's office had in\nthose documents for .further investigation, I am wondering\nwhy the negotiations with Mr. Nixon's representatives were\nconducted strictly between the counsel in your office\nwithout bringing in discussions with either Mr. Jaworski's\nrepresentatives or those from the Justice Department.\nTHE PRESIDENT: In the first place, I did receive\na memorandum, or legal opinion, from the Department of\nJustice which indicated that in the opinion of the\nDepartment of Justice, the documents, tapes, the\nownership of them were in the hands of the former\nPresident. Historically, that has been the case for all\nPresidents.\nNow, the negotiations for the handling of the\ntapes and documents were undertaken and consummated by my\nstaff and the staff of the former President. I believe\nthat they have been properly preserved and they will be\navailable under subpoena for any criminal proceeding.\nNow, the Special Prosecutor's staff has indicated some\nconcern. I am saying tonight that my staff is working with\nthe Special Prosecutor's staff to try and alleviate\nany concerns that they have. I hope a satisfactory\narrangement can be worked out.\nMORE\nPage 5\nQUESTION: Mr. President, during your\nconfirmation hearings as Vice President, you said that\nyou did not think that the country would stand for a\nPresident to pardon his predecessor. Has your mind been\nchanged about such public opinion?\nTHE PRESIDENT: In those hearings before\nthe Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, I\nwas asked a hypothetical question, and in answer to\nthat hypothetical question I responded by saying that\nI did not think the American people would stand for such\nan action.\nNow that I am in the White House and don't\nhave to answer hypothetical questions but have to\ndeal with reality, it was my judgment, after analyzing\nall of the facts, that it was in the best interest of\nthe United States for me to take the action that I did.\nI think if you will reread what I said in\nanswer to that hypothetical question, I did not say I\nwouldn't. I simply said that under the way the question\nwas phrased, the American people would object.\nBut I am absolutely convinced when dealing with\nreality in this very, very difficult situation, that\nI made the right decision in an effort, an honest,\nconscientious effort, to end the divisions and the\nturmoil in the United States.\nMr. Lisagor.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, is there any safe-\nguard in the tapes agreement that was made with Mr. Nixon,\nfirst, with their destruction in the event anything\nhappens to him, because under the agreement they will\nbe destroyed, and secondly, should not the tapes be\nkept in the White House until the Special Prosecutor has\nfinished dealing with them?\nTHE PRESIDENT: The tapes and the documents\nare still in our possession and we are, as I said a\nmoment ago, working with the Special Prosecutor's office,\nto alleviate any concerns they have as to their disposition\nand their availability.\nThe agreement as to destruction is quite clear-\ncut. As long as Mr. Nixon is alive and during the\nperiod of time that is set forth, they are available for\nsubpoena by a court involving any criminal proceedings.\nI think this is a necessary requirement for the protection\nof evidence for any such action.\nMORE\nPage 6\nQUESTION: Mr. President, recent Congress-\nional testimony has indicated that the CIA, under the\ndirection of a committee headed by Dr. Kissinger,\nattempted to destablize the Government of Chile under\nformer President Allende.\nIs it the policy of your Administration to\nattempt to destabilize the governments of other\ndemocracies?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Let me answer in general. I\nthink this is a very important question.\nOur Government, like other governments, does\ntake certain actions in the intelligence field to help\nimplement foreign policy and protect national security. I\nam informed reliably that Communist nations spend vastly\nmore money than we do for the same kind of purposes.\nNow, in this particular case, as 'I understand\nit, and there is no doubt in my mind, our Government had no\ninvolvement whatsoever in the Allende coup. To my\nknowledge, nobody has charged that. The facts are we had\nno involvement in any way whatsoever in the coup itself.\nIn a period of time, three or four years ago,\nthere was an effort being made by the Allende government\nto destroy opposition news media, both the writing press\nas well as the electronic press, and to destroy opposition\npolitical parties.\nThe effort that was made in this case was\nto help and assist the preservation of opposition news-\npapers and electronic media and to preserve opposition\npolitical parties.\nI think this is in the best interest of the\npeople in Chile, and certainly in our best interest.\nNow, may I add one further comment.\nThe 40 committee was established in 1948. It\nhas been in existence under Presidents since that time.\nThat committee reviews every covert operation undertaken\nby our Government, and that information is relayed to the\nresponsible Congressional committees where it is reviewed\nby House and Senate committees.\nIt seems to me that the 40 committee should\ncontinue in existence, and I am going to meet with the\nresponsible Congressional committees to see whether or\nnot they want any changes in the review process so that\nthe Congress, as well as the President, are fully informed\nand are fully included in the operations for any such\naction.\nMORE\nPage 7\nQUESTION: In view of public reaction, do\nyou think the Nixon pardon really served to bind up the\nNation's wounds? I wonder if you would assess public\nreaction to that move.\nTHE PRESIDENT: I must say that the decision\nhas created more antagonism than I anticipated. But as\nI look over the long haul with a trial or several trials\nof a former President, criminal trials, the\npossibility of a former President being in the dock so\nto speak, and the divisions that would have existed not\njust for a limited period of time, but for a long\nperiod of time, it seems to me that when I had the\nchoice between that possibility and the possibility of\ntaking direct action hoping to conclude it, I am\nstill convinced, despite the public reaction so far, that\nthe decision I made was the right one.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, in regard to the\npardon, you talk about the realities of the situation.\nNow those realities rightly or wrongly included a good\nmany people who speculate abcut whether or not there is\nsome sort of arrangement -- even some of them call a deal --\nbetween you and the former President or between your staff\nand his staff, resignation in exchange for a full pardon.\nThe question is: Is there or was there, to\nyour knowledge, any kind of understanding about this?\nTHE PRESIDENT: There was no understanding, no\ndeal between me and the former President, nor between my\nstaff and the staff of the former President, none\nwhatsoever.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, there is a bill that\nthe Treasury Department has put forward, I think it is\nabout 38 pages. Under this bill, which deals with getting\nhold of the returns, Internal Revenue returns of the\ncitizens of the country, you could take action to get those\nreturns whenever you wanted to.\nI wonder if you are aware of this, and if you\nfeel that you need to get those returns of citizens.\nMORE\nPage 8\nTHE PRESIDENT: It is my understanding that a\nPresident has, by tradition and practice, and by law,\nthe right to have access to income tax returns. I\npersonally think that is something that should be kept\nvery closely held. A person's income tax return is\na very precious thing to that individual and, therefore,\nI am about to issue an Executive Order that makes it even\nmore restrictive as to how those returns can be handled\nand I do think that a proposed piece of legislation that is\ncoming to me and subsequently will be submitted, as I\nrecollect, to the Congress would also greatly tighten up\nthe availability or accessibility of income tax returns.\nI think they should be closely held and I can assure\nyou that they will be most judiciously handled as far as I\nam concerned.\nYes.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, looking beyond the Nixon\npapers and in view of some criticism in Congress, do you believe\nwe may have now reached the point where Presidential\nWhite House papers should remain in the Government's\nhands as the property of the Government?\nTHE PRESIDENT: As far as I am personally\nconcerned, I can see a legitimate reason for Presidential\npapers remaining the property of the Government. In my\nown case, I made a decision some years ago to turn over\nall of my Congressional papers, all of my Vice Presidential\npapers to the University of Michigan archives.\nAs far as I am concerned, whether they go to the\narchives for use or whether they stay the possession of the\nGovernment, I don't think it makes too much difference.\nI have no desire, personally, to retain whatever\npapers come out of my Administration.\nMr. Mollenhoff.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, at the last press\nconference you said, \"The code of ethics that will be\nfollowed will be the example that I set.\" Do you find\nany conflicts of interest in the decision to grant a\nsweeping pardon to your life-long friend and your\nfinancial benefactor with no consultation for advice\nand judgment for the legal fallout?\nTHE PRESIDENT: The decision to grant a pardon\nto Mr. Nixon was made primarily, as I have expressed, for\nthe purpose of trying to heal the wounds throughout the\ncountry between Americans on one side of the issue or the\nother. Mr. Nixon nominated me for the office of Vice\nPresident. I was confirmed overwhelmingly in the House\nas well as in the Senate. Every action I have taken,\nMr. Mollenhoff, is predicated on my conscience without\nany concern or consideration as to favor as far as I am\nconcerned.\nMORE\nPage 9\nYes.\nQUESTION: If your intention was to heal the\nwounds of the Nation, sir, why did you grant only a\nconditional amnesty to the Vietnam war veterans while\ngranting a full pardon to President Nixon?\nTHE PRESIDENT: The only connection between those\ntwo cases is the effort that I made in the one to heal\nthe wounds involving the charges against Mr. Nixon and my\nhonest and conscientious effort to heal the wounds\nfor those who had deserted military service or dodged the\ndraft. That is the only connection between the two.\nIn one case, you have a President who was forced\nto resign because of circumstances involving his Administra-\ntion and he has been shamed and disgraced by that resigna-\ntion. In the case of the draftdodgers and Army and\nmilitary deserters, we are trying to heal the wounds by\nthe action that I took with the signing of the proclama-\ntion this morning.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, another concern that has\nbeen voiced around the country since the pardon is that\nthe judicial process as it finally unwinds may not write\nthe definitive chapter on Watergate and perhaps with par-\nticular regard to Mr. Nixon's particular involvement,\nhowever total, however it may have been in truth, My\nquestion is, would you consider appointing a special\ncommission with extraordinary powers to look into all of the\nevidentiary material and to write that chapter and not\nleave it to later history?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, it seems to me as I look\nat what has been done, I think you find a mass of evidence\nthat has been accummulated. In the first instance. you\nhave the very intensive investigation conducted by the\nHouse Committee on the Judiciary. It was a very well-\nconducted investigation. It came up with volumes of\ninformation.\nIn addition, the Special Prosecutor's office\nunder Mr. Jaworski has conducted an intensive investigation\nand the Special Prosecutor's office will issue a report at\nthe conclusion of their responsibilities that I think will\nprobably make additional information available to the\nAmerican people.\nAnd thirdly, as the various criminal trials proceed\nin the months ahead, there obviously will be additional\ninformation made available to the American people. So,\nwhen you see what has been done and what undoubtedly\nwill be done, I think the full story will be made available\nto the American people.\nMORE\nPage 10\nQUESTION: Mr. President, could you give us an\nidea who would succeed General Haig, and how are you\ncoming on your search for a Press Secretary?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Do I have a lot of candidates\nhere? (Laughter) No shows. (Laughter)\nI have several people in mind to replace\nGeneral Haig, but I have made no decision on that. It\nwas just announced today that the NATO countries have\naccepted him as the officer handling those responsibilities.\nI think he is to take office succeeding General\nGoodpaster on December 15. He assumes his responsi-\nbilities as the head of U.S. military forces November 1.\nIn the next few days undoubtedly I will make the decision\nas to the individual to succeed him.\nSo far as the Press Secretary is concerned,\nwe are actively working on that and we hope to have an\nannouncement in a relatively short period of time.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, prior to your deciding\nto pardon Mr. Nixon, did you have, apart from those\nreports, any information either from associations of the\nPresident or from his family or from any other source\nabout his health, about his medical condition?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Prior to the decision that I\nmade granting a pardon to Mr. Nixon, I had no other\nspecific information concerning his health other than\nwhat I had read in the news media or heard in the news\nmedia. I had not gotten any information from any of the\nNixon family. The sole source was what I had read in\nthe news media plus one other fact.\nOn Saturday before the Sunday a member of my\nstaff was working with me on the several decisions I\nhad to make. He was, from my staff, the one who had\nbeen in negotiations on Friday with the President and\nhis staff.\nAt the conclusion of decisions that were made,\nI asked him, how did the President look, and he reported\nto me his observations.\nBut other than what I had read or heard and\nthis particular incident, I had no precise information\nconcerning the President's health.\nMORE\nPage 11\nQUESTION: Mr. President, your own economic\nadvisers are suggesting that to save the economy which\nis very bad and very pessimistic, we are hearing the\nword \"depression\" used now. I wonder how you feel about\nwhether we are heading for a depression?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Let me say very strongly that\nthe United States is not going to have a depression. The\noverall economy of the United States is strong. Employment\nis still high. We do have the problem of inflation. We\ndo have related problems, and we aregoing to come up with\nsome answers that I hope will solve those problems.\nWe are not going to have a depression. We are\ngoing to work to make sure that our economy improves in the\nmonths ahead.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, in the face of massive\nfood shortages and the prospects of significant starvation,\nwill the United States be able to significantly increase its\nfood aid to foreign countries, and what is our position\ngoing to be at the Rome conference on participation in\nthe world grain reserves?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Within the next few days a\nvery major decision in this area will be made. I am not\nat liberty to tell you what the answer will be because\nit has not been decided.\nBut it is my hope that the United States for\nhumanitarian purposes will be able to increase its\ncontribution to those nations that have suffered because\nof drought or any of the other problems related to human\nneeds.\nMORE\nPage 12\nQUESTION: Back to the CIA, under what inter-\nnational law do we have a right to attempt to destablize the\nconstitutionally-elected government of another country,\nand does the Soviet Union have a similar right to try\nto destabilize the Government of Canada, for example, or\nthe United States?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I am not going to pass judgment\non whether it is permitted or authorized under\ninternational law. It is a recognized fact that historically,\nas well as presently, such actions are taken in the best\ninterest of the countries involved.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, last month when you\nassumed the Presidency, you pledged openness and candor.\nLast week you decided on the ex-President's pardon in\nvirtually total secrecy. Despite all you have said tonight,\nthere would still seem to be some confusion, some\ncontradiction.\nMy question is this: Are the watchwords if\nyour Administration still openness and candor?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Without any question, without\nany reservation. And I think in the one instance that\nyou cite, it was a sole decision, and believe me, it\nwasn't easy, and since I was the only one who could make\nthat decision, I thought I had to search my own soul\nafter consulting with a limited number of people, and I\ndid it, and I think in the longrun it was the right\ndecision.\nTHE PRESS: Thank you, Mr. President.\nEND\n(AT 8:30 P.M. EDT)"
}