Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
12021996
label
Nixon Pardon - Hungate Subcommittee Background Material (3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
12021996
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Nixon Pardon - Hungate Subcommittee Background Material (3)
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Nixon, Richard M. (Richard Milhous), 1913-1994
Governmental investigations
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
12021996
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1974-09-01
month
9
year
1974
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-08-01
month
8
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d1de7d1f83555050
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 33, folder "Nixon Pardon - Hungate
Subcommittee: Background Material (3)" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford
Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
Digitized from Box 33 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Richard Nixon
Prosecutor on behalf of
Memorandum to Special
Memorandum to the
Special Prosecutor
on behalf of
Richard M. Nixon
This memorandum is submitted on behalf of
Richard M. Nixon to bring to the attention of the Special
Prosecutor facts and supporting legal authority which, we
submit, warrant a decision not to seek indictment of the
former President. We wish to emphasize that this memorandum
focuses specifically on issues of law rather than policy.
In so limiting this presentation we do not wish to imply that
all other considerations are irrelevant or inappropriate.
Indeed, we believe it is highly desirable and proper for the
Special Prosecutor to weigh in his judgment the possible
impact of such an indictment on the domestic spirit and on
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
- 2 -
international relations, as well as the more traditional
*
policy considerations entrusted to prosecutorial discretion.
However, the purpose of this memorandum is solely to demon-
strate that one -- and probably the most crucial -- legal pre-
requisite to indicting and prosecuting Mr. Nixon does not
exist: the ability of this government to assure him a fair
trial in accordance with the demands of the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth Amendment and the right to trial by an impartial
jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
*
/
Such intangible but none-the-less critical factors as
domestic and international relations certainly fall with-
in the ambit of the prosecutor's discretion as expressed
in the Standards Relating to The Prosecution Function and
The Defense Function, ABA Project on Standards for Criminal
Justice, March 1971, where it is stated that
"
The prosecutor may in some circum-
stances and for good cause consistent with
the public interest decline to prosecute,
notwithstanding that evidence exists which
would support a conviction. ABA Standards
§ 3.9(b).
A decision to forego prosecution because of overriding
concerns of the national interest is in keeping with
similar prosecutorial decisions to forego prosecution
rather than disclose confidential national security or
law-enforcement information required as evidence. United
States V. Andolchek, 142 F.2d 503 (2d Cir. 1944) ; United
States V. Beekman, 155 F.2d 580 (2d Cir. 1946) ; Chris-
toffel V. United States, 200 F.2d 734 (D.C. Cir. 1952
LIBRARY
- 3 -
I. The Events and Publicity
Surrounding Watergate have
Destroyed the Possibility
of a Trial Consistent with
Due Process Requirements.
Recent events have completely and irrevocably
eliminated, with respect to Richard M. Nixon, the necessary
premise of our system of criminal justice -- that, in the
words of Justice Holmes,
"
the conclusions to be reached
in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in
open court, not by any outside influence, whether of private
talk or public print." Patterson V. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454,
462 (1907). As reiterated by the Court in Turner V. Louisiana,
379 U.S. 466, 472 (1965):
"The requirement that a jury's verdict
'must be based upon the evidence developed
at trial' goes to the fundamental integrity
of all that is embraced in the constitutional
concept of trial by jury."
Never before in the history of this country have a
person's activities relating to possible criminal violations
been subjected to such massive public scrutiny, analysis and
debate. The events of the past two years and the media
coverage they received need not be detailed here, for we are
sure the Special Prosecutor is fully aware of the nature of
the media exposure generated. The simple fact is that the
- 4 -
national debate and two-year fixation of the media on Water-
gate has left indelible impressions on the citizenry, so
pervasive that the government can no longer assure Mr. Nixon
that any indictment sworn against him will produce "a charge
fairly made and fairly tried in a public tribunal free of
"
prejudice, passion [and] excitement
Chambers
V.
Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 236-37, (1940).
Of all the events prejudicial to Mr. Nixon's right
to a fair trial, the most damaging have been the impeachment
proceedings of the House Judiciary Committee. In those pro-
ceedings neither the definition of the "offense," the standard
of proof, the rules of evidence, nor the nature of the fact-
finding body, were compatible with our system of criminal
justice. Yet the entire country witnessed the proceedings,
with their all-pervasive, multi-media coverage and commentary.
And all who watched were repeatedly made aware that a committee
of their elected Representatives, all lawyers, had determined
upon solemn reflection to render an overwhelming verdict
against the President, a verdict on charges time and again
emphasized as constituting "high crimes and misdemeanors" for
which criminal indictments could be justified.
- 5 -
All of this standing alone would have caused even
those most critical of Mr. Nixon to doubt his chances of sub-
sequently receiving a trial free from preconceived judgments
of guilt. But the devastating culmination of the proceedings
eliminated whatever room for doubt might still have remained
as the entire country viewed those among their own Represen-
tatives who had been the most avid and vociferous defenders
of the President (and who had insisted on the most exacting
standards of proof) publicly abandon his defense and join
those who would impeach him for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
None of this is to say, or even to imply, that the
impeachment inquiry was improper, in either its inception or
its conduct. The point here is that the impeachment process
having taken place in the manner in which it did, the con-
ditions necessary for a fair determination of the criminal
responsibility of its subject under our principles of law no
longer exist, and cannot be restored.
Even though the unique televised congressional pro-
ceedings looking to the possible impeachment of a President
leave us without close precedents to guide our judgments con
GERALI
- 6 -
cerning their impact on subsequent criminal prosecutions, one
court has grappled with the issue on a much more limited
scale and concluded that any subsequent trial must at minimum
await the tempering of prejudice created by the media coverage
of such events.
In Delaney V. United States, 199 F.2d 107 (1st Cir.
1952), a District Collector of Internal Revenue was indicted
for receiving bribes. Prior to the trial a subcommittee of
the House of Representatives conducted public hearings into
his conduct and related matters. The hearings generated mas-
sive publicity, particularly in the Boston area, including
motion picture films and sound recordings, all of which "afforded
the public a preview of the prosecution's case against Delaney
without, however, the safeguards that would attend a criminal
trial." 199 F.2d at 110. Moreover, the publicized testimony
"ranged far beyond matters relevant to the pending indictments."
199 F.2d at 110. Delaney was tried ten weeks after the close
of these hearings and was convicted by a jury. The Court of
Appeals reversed, holding that Delaney had been denied his
Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury by being forced to
"stand trial while the damaging effect of all that hostile
publicity may reasonably be thought not to have been erased
from the public mind." Id. 114.
GERAL
- 7 -
The Court of Appeals did not suggest that the hear-
ings were themselves improper. Indeed, the court emphatically
stated that
"
[i]t was for the Committee to decide whether
considerations of public interest demanded at that time a full-
dress public investigation
"
Id. 114 (emphasis added).
But the court continued,
"If the United States, through its legisla-
tive department, acting conscientiously
pursuant to its conception of the public
interest, chooses to hold a public hearing
inevitably resulting in such damaging
publicity prejudicial to a person awaiting
trial on a pending indictment, then the
United States must accept the consequence that
the judicial department, charged with the duty
of assuring the defendant a fair trial before
an impartial jury, may find it necessary to
postpone the trial until by lapse of time the
danger of the prejudice may reasonably be
thought to have been substantially removed."
The principle expounded by the court in Delaney is
applicable here. Faced with allegations that the Watergate
events involved actions by the President, the House of Repre-
sentatives determined that not only was an impeachment inquiry
required, but that the inquiry must be open to the public so
that the charges and evidence in support thereof could be
viewed and analyzed by the American people. We need not fault
Congress in that decision. Perhaps --- in the interest of the
country -- there was no other choice. But having pursued a
- 8 -
course purposely designed to permit the widest dissemination
of and exposure to the issues and evidence involved, the
government must now abide by that decision which produced the
very environment which forecloses a fair trial for the subject
of their inquiry.
The foregoing view is not at all incompatible with
the Constitution, which permits the trial of a President fol-
lowing impeachment -- and therefore, some might argue, con-
dones his trial after his leaving office. Nothing in the
Constitution withholds from a former President the same indi-
vidual rights afforded others. Therefore, if developments
in means of communication have reached a level at which their
use by Congress in the course of impeachment proceedings for-
ever taints the public's mind, then the choice must be to
forego their use or forego indictment following impeachment.
Here, the choice has been made.
Further demonstration of the wholly unique nature
of this matter appears in the public discussion of a pardon
for the former President -- which discussion adds to the atmos-
is
FORD
phere in which a trial consistent with due process is impossible.
- 9 -
Since the resignation of Mr. Nixon, the news media
has been filled with commentary and debate on the issue of
whether the former President should be pardoned if charged
with offenses relating to Watergate. As with nearly every other
controversial topic arising from the Watergate events, the
media has sought out the opinions of both public officials and
private citizens, even conducting public opinion polls on the
question. A recurring theme expressed by many has been that
Mr. Nixon has suffered enough and should not be subjected to
further punishment, certainly not imprisonment.
Without regard to the merits of that view, the fact
that there exists a public sentiment in favor of pardoning
the former President in itself prejudices the possibility of
Mr. Nixon's receiving a fair trial. Despite the most fervent
disclaimers, any juror who is aware of the general public's
disposition will undoubtedly be influenced in his judgment,
thinking that it is highly probable that a vote of guilty will
not result in Mr. Nixon's imprisonment. Indeed, the impact
of the public debate on this issue will undoubtedly fall not
only on the jury but also on the grand jury and the Special
Prosecutor, lifting some of the constraints which might other-
wise have militated in favor of a decision not to prosecute
Human nature could not be otherwise.
- 10 -
We raise this point not to suggest that the decision
of whether to prosecute in this case cannot be reached fairly,
but rather to emphasize that this matter -- like none other
before it and probably after it -- has been so thoroughly
subjected to extraneous and highly unusual forces that any
prosecution of Mr. Nixon could not fairly withstand detached
evaluation as complying with due process.
II. The Nationwide Public
Exposure to Watergate
Precludes the Impaneling
of an Impartial Jury
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant trial
by jury, a guarantee that has consistently been held to mean
that each juror impaneled -- in the often quoted language of
Lord Coke -- will be "indifferent as he stands unsworn." Co.
Litt. 155b. See Irvin V. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) ; Turner V.
Louisiana, 379 U.S. 472 (1965). The very nature of the
Watergate events and the massive public discussion of Mr. Nixon's
relationship to them have made it impossible to find any array
of jurymen who can meet the Sixth Amendment standard.
On numerous occasions the Supreme Court has held
that the nature of the publicity surrounding a case was such
that jurors exposed to it could not possibly have rendered a
LIBRA
- 11 -
verdict based on the evidence. See Sheppard V. Maxwell, 384
U.S. 333 (1966) ; Rideau V. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963)
Irvin V. Dowd, supra; Marshall V. United States, 360 U.S. 310
(1959) The most memorable of these was Sheppard V. Maxwell,
in which the Court, describing the publicity in the Cleveland
metropolitan area, referred time and again to media techniques
employed there -- which in the Watergate case have been
utilized on a nationwide scale and for a much longer period
of time. The following excerpts from the Court's opinion are
exemplary:
"Throughout this period the newspapers
emphasized evidence that tended to incrim-
inate Sheppard and pointed out discrepan-
cies in his statements to authorities."
p. 340.
"On the sidewalk and steps in front of the
courthouse, television and newsreel cameras
were occasionally used to take motion
pictures of the participants in the trial,
including the jury and the judge. Indeed,
one television broadcast carried a staged
interview of the judge as he entered the
courthouse. In the corridors outside the
courtroom there was a host of photographers
and television personnel with flash cameras,
portable lights and motion picture cameras.
This group photographed the prospective
jurors during selection of the jury. After the
trial opened, the witnesses, counsel, and
GEROLD
GERAL
jurors were photographed and televised when-
ever they entered or left the courtroom."
pp. 343-44.
- 12 -
* * *
"The daily record of the proceedings was
made available to the newspapers and the
testimony of each witness was printed
verbatim in the local editions, along with
objections of counsel, and rulings by the
judge. Pictures of Sheppard, the judge,
counsel, pertinent witnesses, and the jury
often accompanied the daily newspaper and
television accounts. At times the news-
papers published photographs of exhibits
introduced at the trial, and the rooms of
Sheppard's house were featured along with
relevant testimony." pp. 344-45.
* *
"On the second day of voir dire examination
a debate was staged and broadcast live
over WHK radio. The participants, news-
paper reporters, accused Sheppard's counsel
of throwing roadblocks in the way of the
prosecution and asserted that Sheppard con-
ceded his guilt by hiring a prominent
criminal lawyer." p. 346.*
The Sheppard murder was sensational news and the media reacted
accordingly. In the course they destroyed the state's ability
to afford Sheppard a fair trial.
The sensation of Watergate is a hundredfold that of
the Sheppard murder. But the media techniques remain the
*
The prejudicial publicity in Sheppard commenced well be-
fore trial, even before charges were brought, and con-
tinued throughout the duration of the prosecution.
Although Mr. Nixon has not been criminally tried, the
press coverage of the impeachment proceedings and Water-
gate related criminal trials reflect obvious similarities
to the Sheppard coverage.
- 13 -
same and the destruction of an environment for a trial con-
sistent with due process has been nationwide. The Supreme
Court should not -- upon an appeal by Mr. Nixon ---- have to
recount for history the unending litany of prejudicial
publicity which served to deprive the President of the rights
afforded others.
The bar against prosecution raised by the publicity
in this case defies remedy by the now common techniques of
delaying indictment or trial, changing venue, or scrupulously
screening prospective jurors. Although the court in Delaney,
supra, could not envision a case in which the prejudice from
publicity would be "so permanent and irradicable" that as a
matter of law there could be no trial within the foreseeable
future, 199 F.2d, at 112, it also could not have envisioned
the national Watergate saturation of the past two years.
Unlike others accused of involvement in the Water-
gate events, Mr. Nixon has been the subject of unending public
efforts "to make the case" against him. The question of
Mr. Nixon's responsibility for the events has been the central
political issue of the era. As each piece of new evidence
became public it invariably was analyzed from the viewpoint
RAL
of whether it brought the Watergate events closer to "the
- 14 -
Oval Office" or as to "what the President knew and when he
knew it." The focus on others was at most indirect.
In short, no delay in trial, no change of venue,
and no screening of prospective jurors could assure that
the passions arroused by Watergate, the impeachment proceed-
ings, and the President's resignation would dissipate to the
point where Mr. Nixon could receive the fair trial to which
he is entitled. The reasons are clear. As the Supreme
Court stated in Rideau V. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 717, 726 (1963) :
For anyone who has ever watched television
the conclusion cannot be avoided that this
spectacle, to the tens of thousands of
people who saw and heard it, in a very real
sense was
[the] trial
Any sub-
sequent court proceedings in a community so
pervasively exposed to such a spectacle
could be but a hollow formality.
Not only has the media coverage of Watergate been
pervasive and overwhelmingly adverse to Mr. Nixon, but nearly
every member of Congress and political commentator has rendered
a public opinion on his guilt or innocence. Indeed for nearly
two years sophisticated public opinion polls have surveyed
the people as to their opinion on Mr. Nixon's involvement in
Watergate and whether he should be impeached. Now the polls
ask whether Mr. Nixon should be indicted. Under such condi-
a.
FORD.
tions, few Americans can have failed to have formed an opinion
- 15 -
as to Mr. Nixon's guilt of the charges made against him. Few,
if any, could -- even under the most careful instructions
from a court -- expunge such an opinion from their minds so
as to serve as fair and impartial jurors. "The influence
that lurks in an opinion once formed is so persistent that
it unconsciously fights detachment from the mental processes
of the average man." Irvin V. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 727 (1961)
And as Justice Robert Jackson once observed, "The naive
assumption that prejudicial effects can be overcome by in-
structions to the jury,
all practicing lawyers know to
be unmitigated fiction." Krulewitch V. United States, 336
U.S. 440, 453 (1949) (concurring opinion). See also Delaney V.
United States, 199 F.2d 107, 112-113 (1st Cir. 1952).
CONCLUSION
The media accounts of Watergate, the political
columnists' debates, the daily televised proceedings of the
House Judiciary Committee, the public opinion polls, the
televised dramatizations of Oval Office conversations, the
newspaper cartoons, the "talk-show" discussions, the letters-
FURD
to-the-editor, the privately placed commercial ads, even GENEO
GE
- 16 -
bumper stickers, have totally saturated the American people
with Watergate. In the process the citizens of this country
-- in uncalculable numbers -- from whom a jury would be
drawn have formulated opinions as to the culpability of
Mr. Nixon. Those opinions undoubtedly reflect both politi-
cal and philosophical judgments totally divorced from the
facts of Watergate. Some are assuredly reaffirmations of
personal likes and dislikes. But few indeed are premised
only on the facts. And absolutely none rests solely on evidence
admissible at a criminal trial. Consequently, any effort to
prosecute Mr. Nixon would require something no other trial
has ever required -- the eradication from the conscious and
subconscious of every juror the opinions formulated over a
period of at least two years, during which time the juror
has been subjected to a day-by-day presentation of the Water-
gate case as it unfolded in both the judicial and political
arena.
Under the circumstances, it is inconceivable that
the government could produce a jury free from actual bias.
But the standard is higher than that, for the events of the
past two years have created such an overwhelming likelihood
R.
FOND
CERALD
- 17 -
of prejudice that the absence of due process would be in-
*
/
herent in any trial of Mr. Nixon.
It would be forever
regrettable if history were to record that this country ---
in its desire to maintain the appearance of equality under
law -- saw fit to deny to the former President the right of
a fair trial so jealously preserved to others through the
constitutional requirements of due process of law and of
trial by impartial jury.
Herbert J. Miller, Jr.
MILLER, CASSIDY, LARROCA & LEWIN
1320 19th Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D. C. 20036
(202) 293-6400
Of Counsel
William H. Jeffress, Jr.
R. Stan Mortenson
*
"It is true that in most cases involving
claims of due process deprivations we
require a showing of identifiable preju-
dice to the accused. Nevertheless, at
times a [procedure] employed by the State
involves such a probability that prejudice
will result that it is deemed inherently
FORM & CERALO LIERA
lacking in due process." Estes V. Texas,
381 U.S. 532, (1965).
R.FORD FORD
LEGINA mee hag
6 Jug '74
GENTLEMEN,
AT THE OUTSET I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SEVERAL POINTS.
FIRST, EVERYONE HERE RECOGNIZES THE DIFFICULT POSITION
I AM IN, I AM A PARTY IN INTEREST.
SECOND, NO ONE REGRETS MORE THAN I DO THIS WHOLE
TRAGIC EPISODE. I HAVE DEEP PERSONAL SYMPATHY FOR YOU
MR. PRESIDENT, AND YOUR FINE FAMILY.
THIRD, I. WISH TO EMPHASIZE THAT HAD I KNOWN AND HAD
I
IT BEEN DISCLOSED TO ME WHAT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN REFERENCE
TO THE WATERGATE AFFAIR IN THE LAST TWENTY-FOUR HOURS, I
WOULD NOT HAVE MADE A NUMBER OF THE STATEMENTS THAT I HAVE
MADE, EITHER AS MINORITY LEADER OR AS VICE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES.
FOURTH, I DO NOT EXPECT TO MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATION
TODAY TO THE PRESIDENT AS TO WHAT HE SHOULD DO AND NEITHER
DO I EXPECT TO MAKE ANY SUCH RECOMMENDATION TO ANY OF THE
OTHERS AT THIS MEETING.
:
FORD
RALD
(MORE)
-2-
FIFTH, WHETHER THE FULL DISCLOSURES WILL MEET THE
CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IS A
MATTER THAT CAN ONLY BE FINALLY RESOLVED BY THE UNITED STATES
SENATE IN A PROCEEDING AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE CONSTITUTION.
FINALLY, LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT I EXPECT TO CONTINUE
TO SUPPORT FULLY THE ADMINISTRATION'S FOREIGN POLICY AND
FIGHT AGAINST INFLATION.
GERALE R. FORD
VP Press Conference
8/3/74 (Hattiesburg)
024838
)
VICE PRESIDENT FORD'S PRESS CONFERENCE, AUGUST 3, 1974
HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI
Vice President:
people here and I welcome the old folks back
again. Thank you; it's an opportunity that I look forward to to answer any
questions. Yes.
Ques: Mr. Vice President. This morning in the local news here, there
was a comment about the resolution introduced by Republican Paul Finley
calling for a censure measure rather than impeachment. Have you ever
seen anything like this happen
than go through the long ordeal
of the impeachment process fo. the nation?
Presidents Tf I had my druthers, I w ld rather have he House of
Representa ves vote as I think the facts justify which is acquittal. But
if you have no alternative, except a vote for impeachment or censure,
certainly I ould orefer the cen ure.
Ques: Mr. Vice President. In the past weeks there have been numerous
editorials and news stories suggesting very politely that it's time for you
to shut up. You have now been to three cities here in Mississippi today.
On all of the occasions you did not talk about the President's impeachment
problems. Have you decided to heed this advice and retire to the sidelines?
Vice President: Well, as you have noticed, I'm sure, on each of the three
places I spoke in Mississippi: Golden Triangle, Jackson and here in
Hattiesburg and Laurel I have spoken out very strongly on behalf o. the
President as the architect of peace and that he has achieved something
that no other President has accomplished. In the limited time that $ have
in these engagements, I think that it is vitally important to speak
about the LIDRARY
affirmative things which I have done. I don't want anybody to get the
wrong impression. My views are just as strong today as they were two
days ago. I believe the President is innocent of ny impeach: ble offense
and I ha ven't cha ged my mind.
Ques: Are you going to continue saying this or are you going to retire to
the sidelines at their suggestion?
Vice President: Well, I am going to do as I have done here in Mississippi-
to come and talk with people or listen to people. If I'm asked as you have
asked me, I will answer the que tions on this occasion as I have in the past
that I think the President is innocent but in the limited time (and I think they
gave me five minutes or maybe six minutes) I had to decide what was the
more important thing to say. But, I don't want any impression created that
I have changed my mind about the President's innocence.
Ques: Mr. Vice President. In May of this year you stated that you thought
the vote of the House would be about fifty-fifty for or against impeachment. How
do you feel about it today?
Vice President: I think the situation in the House has eroded considerably.
The odds are significantly changed.
Ques: Mr. Vice President. In spite of the strategy of our own Corg ressmen,
the Southern strategy has definitely been drastically damaged by Watergate.
A good example is the pro-impeachment vote of Representative Walter Flowers
of Alabama. If the President is convicted in the Senate, do you feel that you
can regain this loss to Southern support and if so, how will you do
Vice President: I've always had a great many friends in the south and
FORD the LIBRAR
2
House, both democratic as well as republican. During the period that I
served in the House, we went from no republicans in the ten or eleven states
to, I think, 33 or 34 at the present time. I like to believe that maybe I helped
in this process. I can assure you that I'm going to maximize my efforts as
I think I've done today to work to elect and reelect republican members of the
House. I think it's important, I think it's vital, that we have some balance
in every state between democrats and republicans in the Congress. I
t hink it's good; I think it's healthy for America.
Ques: You stated that you think the President had eroded, had lost his
strength, as I understood it, in the House.
Vice President: That's right.
Ques: Do you now think he will be impeached?
Vice President: I suspect that the odds are such, unless there's some change,
thenhe may be.
Ques: Y had a meeting the other day with General Haig. Afterwards your
Pres. Secretar,, Mr. Miltich said that you had discussed impeachment and so
forth and he also said that you had been doing a lot of thinking with regard to
your position on impeachment and when the proper time comes you're going
to make your views known. Ha the proper time ome?
Vice President: I have met with Al Haig. I don't think this is unusual because
I meet with him, I would say, at least twice a week every week. We did on this
the situation was in the House, what could be done if anything to donvince the
occasion as we have in the past, met to discuss our impressions BERALE what
members of the House that the President wa innocent as both of us fe el.
Now, I don't think that what you reported one of my staff members said was
accurate to my feelings. I never told a staff member on my part that I
was changing my position as to the innocence-or guilt of the President. I
still believe the President is innocent of any impeachable offen e and any-
body on staff who thinks I've changed is wrong. Now, haps there comes
a time when it is advisable under the circumstances for me to say I have this
viewpoint; I'm not going to say. any more but don't come to the conclusion,
b y my lack of speaking, that I have backed off. I have not.
Ques: You have come to that time where
Vice President: No, I don't think I've come to that time.
Ques: When was the last time you saw the President?
Vice President: About ten days ago.
Ques: In San Clemente?
Vice President: Yes.
Ques: Governor Wallace said he couldn't be here because he had a prior
engagement that could have been broken if this had been an official visit
rather than a political visit. What do you feel about this?
Vice President: I would never under any circumstances criticize any local
public official or state public official. I understand very well the problem
of commitments, speaking commitments, or other commitments that some-
body in public life has and let me assure you and the Governor that I would be
delighted to see him either in Washington or when I come back. I just
understand the practical problems that he has.
FORD
Ques: In the event that you are elev. ted to the Presidency through impaach-
ment processes, what are your ns for the Cabinet?
Ans: Well, I think it's approp iate for me to talk about those specifics.
4
Ques: Now that your political struggle was recently used to describe the
impeachment proceedings against President Nixon, with the President
being the underdog, do you believe that this is adequate description of what
is happening in Washington at the present.
Vice President: I think the President is being attacked in a partisan way by
a segment of the members of the Congress. I've said it before and I reit rate
it here. The eight members on the committee on judiciary that voted against
me had no moral or ethical or other reasons for voting against me except
that they didn't agree with my pòlitical philosophy. The thirty-five in the
House who voted against me had the same reasons. They had no ther reason.
They're sort of the hard core of this element, and I think it' partisan.
Ques: You stated that this trip would be both a political visit to Mississippi
and recreational. Do you plan to take off some time after your visit to our
State?
Vice President: Well, I'm going on from here to New Orleans. I'm going to
make a speech there this evening and I hope to play, maybe, some golf
tomorrow.
Ques: Monday, House inority Leader John Rhodes
he was going to hold a press conference presumably to offer his
thoughts on the impeachment question. Do you view this, if he does go for
impeachment, as a serious setback to the White House strategy?
Vice President: Since I don't know what John Rhodes is going to safund
don't think I should speculate. What he says are his words and I don't
LIBRAR
think I should forecast or speculate as to the impact of them so with that
observation, I think I'll wait to hear what John says.
5
Ques: Today in your address you noted the efforts of the President in
Foreign relations. Do you feel that the impeachr ent proceedings have
somewhat affected ou foreign relations?
Vice President: I don't think the impeachment proceedings thus far have
had an adverse impact on the conduct of our foreign affairs. After all we
have been extremely successful. The President ended a war, brought
back our POWs got involved in and successfully ended the war in the
Middle East. I can't see any evidence of any adv se impact so far. But,
it is conceivable and it is possible that the prolongation of this pro cess could
have an adverse impact on our problems both overseas as well as at home.
I hope not but it is conceivable.
Ques: Why is it that when supporters of the President go around talking,
are seen on television,
they always totally skirt the
domestic side. We know the President's forte is foreign policy, what is
going on here? The President came to Jackson to
measure
up
economy in the second
and everybody who
Vice President: Let me ask this question. I understand that unemployment in
t he state of Mississippi is the lowest of almost any state and that you're very
proud of it. I understand that you're moving into an industrial development
here in Mississippi that you're very proud of it. Are you saying that
Mississippi is unhappy?
Answer: No, I'm not saying that Mississippi is unhappy. I'm not saving
that the Federal Government deserves credit for that either.
GERALD
LIBRARY
6
Vice President: Well, I happen to believe fromwhat I hear that Mississippi
is just going like mad and I'm proud of them.
Answer: Inaudible.
Vice President: I would rather have, and I think the country would rather
have, jobs rather than a Federal program. I think it's far better for a
person to work for either the local Government or private enterprise than
for some program. There's nothing sacrosanct about a Federal program.
The quicker we get rid of them all the better off we'll be. And, the point
I try to make is I want people who used to work for Federal programs to have
a job in private enterprise and that's what we need and that's what I under-
stand you're doing in Mississippi.
Ques: Inaudible.
Answer: Well, my words today are the same as they were from October 12th.
I have no intention of being a candidate for any political office in 1976 and I
can't look down the road that far. I'll just repeat what I've said in the past.
Ques: Thank you Mr. Vice President.
Vice President: Thank you very much. See you all later.
in
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
7
VP Press Conference
8/3/74 (New Orleans)
270888
.
and
and
VICE PRESIDENT FORD'S PRESS CONFERENCE, AUGUST 3, 1974
NEW ORLEANS FAIRMONT HOTEL
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: I'll simply repcat what I've said. I think the situation
has eroded and the possibility is that the vote will be unfavorable to the
President.
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: In none of the meetings was the any discussion of the
resignation of the President. I did meet with Mr. Simons, Secretary of
the Treasury, because the day after he got back from his trip to the Middle
East he called and wanted to fully brief me on what he observed and what his
views were on the oil problem and related matters. Because of the jammed
up schedule I didn't have a chance to see Mr. Ash. We scheduled him, I
t hink, either Monday or Tuesday. I met ith Bill Timmons and the others
on the legislative programs. Unfortunately, Bill could not be there but
Ij
the other were so the meetings othe than the on th A1 Haig were the
routine meetings that I have with the President's legislative representatives,
cabinet officers, who whenever they think they have a message to give me,
they call and we get together. Yes.
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: I think the strategy is what it has always been; that the
facts houl get out, be debated and or the basis of the facts the President
and his advisors feel that he is not guilty of an impeachable offense. I think
it's a straightforward strategy now as it ha been in the past.
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: My trips out were planned some months ago and
happened to coincide with the President's situation in the House
FORD fist LIBRARY 07/830
Representatives. There was no coordination between this trip and the current
situation in the House of Representatives.
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: Well, the full discussion of the evidence before the committee,
the full discussion of any and all evidence that's available and to get through
Chuck Wiggins, Dave Dennis, Charlie Sandman (sp) and others of the debate
on the President's point of view.
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: No, there was no discussion of my travels. The White
House gets a copy of my travel schedule. They know where I'm going and there
was no discussion of any change in that regard. There was no discussion of
any change in my role in the program to try and get the best foot forward as
far as the President's concerned.
Ques Inaudible.
Vice President: Well, we're a long way from any final action in the Congress
on matters now or to be presently before the House. I can only repeat under
these circumstances my oft-said statement that I have no intention of running
for any political office in 1976. Yes.
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: Number 1, Mr. Treen had nothing to do whatsoever with
Watergate. So, what's happened as far as individuals are concerned, Mr.
Treen has no connection whatsoever with Watergate. Mr. Treen canrun
on his fine service to his constituents. He can be a candidate in support FORD
of what I think are the sound policies of the Nixon Administration in
GERALD
LIBRAR
s
achieving peace, maintaining it and building for peace in the future and
2
Mr. Treen stands for the policies which I think are sound for peace and a
solid economy and if he continues the fine service to his constituents
personal interest in their problems, I think Mr. Treen has a good record
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: I don't understand.
Ques: (Inaudible)
on
Vice President: Well, I think that Mr. Treen running/his own of a record
of fine service with no connection whatsoever with people involved in
Watergate, I'm delighted to be here to speak up on his behalf. Well, I
don' t think the American people are going to blame every republican just
because of the misdeeds of a few. Just for example, there are some members
of Congress on the democratic side who in one way or another, appear to be
involved in some illegal, unethical (whichever you want to call it) campaign
funding. I don't blame every democrat just because some seem to have made
a mistake. I don't think the American people will either. Yes.
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: Well, I meet rather frequently with General Haig. We have
a number of matte S, a number of things, that we frequently discuss: legis-
lation, the situation as far as Watergate is concerned. It was not an extra-
ordinary meeting, if that's what you want me to say. It was an ordinary
meeting of the kind that we frequ ntly have and has no ex ordinary impli-
cations.
Ques: Inaudible.
3
Vice President: I'm not going to speculate on that. That's too far down the
road.
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: Well I got telephone call from Senator B b Griffin con-
cerning a loc Mic igan matter. Yes.
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: Well, I think it would be a tragedy because of the fine job
that Dave Treen's done. Mr. Treen ran in a district that has been held by
a democrat for almost a century or more. He won by, as I recall, 54- or
55 per cent. That's not what you would call a big margin, but having won
a nd having done a good job, I'm not going to speculate on whether it's back-
lash. I just think it would be a tragedy because he's been on one of the most
important committees, the Committee on Armed Services, that has a great
connection with this area and having done a good job I just think it would be
most unfortunate.
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: It is because d the fine quality of Dave Treen and the fact
that he was elected in 1972 as the only republican in this area. I think
Dave Treen is an extraordinarily able member of the Congress and I'm
delighted to come down here to participate in any way I can to be helpful
Ques: Inaudible.
LIGRARY GERALD
Vice President: I can't say for sure on that because the circumstances may
vary but today, because of the 1 imited time in the three areas where I spoke
there were other things that I thought were more important. I haven't made
a decision on the particular question that you asked.
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: I have read most if not all of it and on the basis of what I
have read and what I have heard, I've come to the clusion as I've said
many times that I think the President is innocent of n impeachable offense.
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: Let me say those transcripts don't confer sainthood on
anybody and I don't like some of th things that were done and some of the
things that happen d but that's quite different from an impeachable offense.
I don't like some of the things that were done under previous democratic
as well as republican presidential administrations, but despite my disapproval
of those things, that doesn't mean that that president should have been im-
peached. There's a very severe and serious difference between what I don't
like as to an administration whether it's Johnson or Truman or Eisenhower
or Kennedy. There's some things I didn't like. And I don't like some things
that happened as reflected in the tapes, but that's quite different. Seriously
different from an impeachable offense.
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice Presid nt: My view is that censure is less serious. Therefore, if the
alternative was presented and if I were in the House I would favor it, but I
can't tell you how it's going to turn out because it's omething that I have no
part of not being in the House.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
Qui s: Inaudible.
Vice President: Well, I think some of the comments that have been made in
the committees, some of the nev S media observations, some of the public
5
expression. I think that the President has been well informed that some of
the things that took place, some of the comments in the transcripts, were
.not to the public's liking I think the message has
(could be
"has gotten there").
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: You mean the 64 that are being
Well, I have read or
heard or heard about all the evidence that went to th committee.
I have
not heard of
the 64 tha are in the process of being deliver d to Judge
Sirica.
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: If that was the alternative to impeachment, yes. But
I (unfinished)
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: No, I would prefer that over the other because I think that
does reflect some of the things that the public don't approve of the way the
office was run.
Ques: Inaudible.
Vice President: Well, you so surprised me by the fact that we are getting
off a one-track mind here that I'm hardly prepared
thank you
very much
GERALD FORD ABRART
6
Statement by VP 8/5/74
STATEMENT VICE PRESIDENT GERALD R. FORD
OFFICE 0. THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON, D.C.
FOR IMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Monday, August 5, 1974
Paul Miltich 456-2364
I have not listened to the tapes nor have I read the transcripts of the
President's conversations with Mr. Haldeman. Without knowing what was said
and the context of it my comment would serve no useful purpose and I shall
have none.
Indeed, I have come to the conclusion that the public interest is no
longer served by repetition of my previously expressed belief that on the basis
of all the evidence known to me and to the American people the Fresident is
ot guilty of an impeachable offense under the Constitutional definition of
"treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Inasmuch as addition-
al evidence is about to be forthcoming from the President, which he says may
be damaging, I intend to respectfully decline to discuss impeachment matters in
public or in response to questions until the facts are more fully available.
The whole truth should be the objective of the trial before the Senate.
Under the Constitution the Vice President is relieved of his role as Presiding
Officer of the Senate when it sits to try a President on impeachment charges
FORD
The wisdom of this provision is obvious, for the Vice President regardless
07V839
LIBRARY
hi. personal feelings is a party of interest as the Constitutional successor
if President is removed from office. Since President Andrew Johnson was
President who succeeded to the Presidency upon the death of
Lincoln, and no provision then existed for filling a vacancy in the
Vice Presidency, there are no precedents to guide me except my own common
sense and my conscience. Both tell me to let my widely known views on the im-
peachment issue stand until I have reason to change them and to refuse further
comment at this time.
There is another compelling reason for my decision. When I was nominated
by the President to be Vice President ten months ago, I promised the Congress
that confirmed me that I would do my very best to be a calm communicator and
ready conciliator between the Executive and Legislative branches of our Federal
government. I have done so. But in the impeachment process the President and
the Congress are now in an adversary relationship which as deeply divides the
legislators as it does the people they represent.
There are many urgent matters on America's agenda in which I hope to con-
tinue to serve this great country as a communicator and conciliator. The busi-
ness of government must go on and the genuine needs of the people must be served.
I believe I can make a better contribution to this end by not involving myself
daily in the impeachment debate, in which I have no Constitutional role.
###
LIBRARY GERALD FORD
Statement by the President
8/5/74
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 5, 1974
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I have today instructed my attorneys to make available to the House
Judiciary Committee, and I am making public, the transcripts of three
conversations with H.R. Haldeman on June 23, 1972. I have also turned
over the tapes of these conversations to Judge Sirica, as part of the
process of my compliance with the Supreme Court ruling.
On April 29, in announcing my decision to make public the original set of
White House transcripts, I stated that "as far as what the President personall
knew and did with regard to Watergate and the cover-up is concerned, these
materials -- together with those already made available -- will tell it all. 11
Shortly after that, in May, I made a preliminary review of some of the 64
taped conversations subpoenaed by the Special Prosecutor.
Among the conversations I listened to at that time were two of those of
June 23. Although I recognized that these presented potential problems, I
did not inform my staff or my Counsel of it, or those arguing my case, nor
did I amend my submission to the Judiciary Committee in order to include
and reflect it. At the time, I did not realize the extent of the implications
which these conversations might now appear to have. As a result, those
arguing my case, as well as those passing judgment on the case, did so with
information that was incomplete and in some respects erroneous. This was
a serious act of omission for which I take full responsibility and which I
deeply regret.
Since the Supreme Court's decision twelve days ago, I have ordered my
Counsel to analyze the 64 tapes, and I have listened to a number of them
myself. This process has made it clear that portions of the tapes of these
June 23 conversations are at variance with certain of my previous statements.
Therefore, I have ordered the transcripts made available immediately to
the Judiciary Committee so that they can be reflected in the Committee's
report, and included in the record to be considered by the House and Senate.
In a formal written statement on May 22 of last year, I said that shortly
after the Watergate break-in I became concerned about the possibility that
the FBI investigation might lead to the exposure either of unrelated covert
activities of the CIA, or of sensitive national security matters that the
so-called "plumbers" unit at the White House had been working on, because
of the CIA and plumbers connections of some of those involved. I said that
I therefore gave instructions that the FBI should be alerted to coordinate
with the CIA, and to ensure that the investigation not expose these sensitive
national security matters.
That statement was based on my recollection at the time -- some eleven
months later -- plus documentary materials and relevant public testimony
of those involved.
(ever)
FORD LIBRAS
MORE
- 2 -
The June 23 tapes clearly show, however, that at the time I gave those
instructions I also discussed the political aspects of the situation, and that
I was aware of the advantages this course of action would have with respect
to limiting possible public exposure of involvement by persons connected
with the re-election committee.
My review of the additional tapes has, so far, shown no other major in-
consistencies with what I have previously submitted. While I have no way
at this stage of being certain that there will not be others, I have no reason
to believe that there will be. In any case, the tapes in their entirety are
now in the process of being furnished to Judge Sirica. He has begun what may
be a rather lengthy process of reviewing the tapes, passing on specific claims
of executive privilege on portions of them, and forwarding to the Special
Prosecutor those tapes or those portions that are relevant to the Watergate
investigation.
It is highly unlikely that this review will be completed in time for the House
debate. It appears at this stage, however, that a House vote of impeachment
is, as a practical matter, virtually a foregone conclusion, and that the issue
will therefore go to trial in the Senate. In order to ensure that no other
significant relevant materials are withheld, I shall voluntarily furnish to the
Senate everything from these tapes that Judge Sirica rules should go to the
Special Prosecutor.
I recognize that this additional material I am now furnishing may further
damage my case, especially because attention will be drawn separately to
it rather than to the evidence in its entirety. In considering its implications,
therefore, I urge that two points be borne in mind.
The first of these points is to remember what adually happened as a result
of the instructions I gave on June 23. Acting Director Gray of the FBI did
coordinate with Director Helms and Deputy Director Walters of the CIA. The
CIA did undertake an extensive check to see whether any of its covert acti-
vities would be compromised by a full FBI investigation of Watergate. Deputy
Director Walters then reported back to Mr. Gray that they would not be
compromised. On July 6, when I called Mr. Gray, and when he expressed
concern about improper attempts to limit his investigation, as the record
shows, I told him to press ahead vigorously with his investigation -- which he
did.
The second point I would urge is that the evidence be looked at in its entirety,
and the events be looked at in perspective. Whatever mistakes I made in the
handling of Watergate, the basic truth remains that when all the facts were
brought to my attention I insisted on a full investigation and prosecution of
those guilty. I am firmly convinced that the record, in its entirety, does not
justify the extreme step of impeachment and removal of a President. I trust
that as the Constitutional process goes forward, this perspective will prevail.
#
#
#