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
4520713
label
Nixon Pardon and Papers - Press Conference,1974/09/10 (Buchen)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4520713
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Nixon Pardon and Papers - Press Conference,1974/09/10 (Buchen)
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Nixon, Richard M. (Richard Milhous), 1913-1994
Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
Press conferences
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4520713
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1974-09-01
month
9
year
1974
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-09-01
month
9
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5d978d52fd839541
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 35, folder "Nixon Pardon and Papers - Press
Conference, 1974/09/10 (Buchen)" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford
Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
Digitized from Box 35 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 10, 1974
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
PHILIP BUCHEN
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 12:49 P.M.
MR. HUSHEN: As I announced earlier, Mr. Philip
Buchen, the Counsel to the President has agreed to come
back out here today to answer some of the questions
you have.
Let me say we are going to give them 60 seconds
to get some photographs and then they will go away.
(Laughter)
Let me say at the outset that the document
that is about to be handed out is embargoed until the
completion of the briefing.
MR. BUCHEN: This is a follow-up, of course,
of the meeting we had on Sunday. And at that time someone
asked the question about the disclosures made to me
by Special Prosecutor Jaworski to the areas of investigation
in which his special force was engaged.
And my answer was that the question asked him
was: "What matters could arguably involve further steps?"
And I reported that it read like a list from
one of your newspapers.
You have now before you the document that was
furnished to me and, although the copy of the Special
Prosecutor's memorandum from Henry Ruth to
the Special Prosecutor dated September 3, 1974, on the
subject of Mr. Nixon was sent to me in confidence, Mr.
Jaworski has since advised me that, if I were willing
to assume the responsibility for its release, he would
raise no objection to my doing so.
However, he cautioned that in the event of
its release, he would expect that it bemade available in
its entirety, including the first and last paragraphs
of the memorandum, and I quote that the first paragraph
reads:
"The following matters are still under investi-
gation in this Office and may prove to have some direct
connection to activities in which Mr. Nixon is personally
involved:"
MORE
(over)
- 2 -
At the conclusion of the memorandum Mr. Ruth,
in reporting to Mr. Jaworski, wrote:
"None of these matters at the moment rises to
the level of our ability to prove even a probable
criminal violation by Mr. Nixon, but I thought you
ought to know which of the pending investigations
were even remotely connected to Mr. Nixon. Of course,
the Watergate cover-up is the subject of a separate
memorandum."
Now I will try to field any questions.
Q
Tell us about considering pardons
for everybody involved in Watergate?
MR. BUCHEN: I am not involved in that matter.
Q Well, who is?
MR. BUCHEN: I said at the time of the last
press conference to my knowledge no thought was being given
to that and I have not been called in to do any part
of the study so far. I assume I will be.
Q Who is at this Point?
Q
Who is considering this, the President?
MR. BUCHEN: The President made the statement.
Q
Mr. Buchen, can you tell us if anyone tried
to persuade Mr. Nixon to confess guilt prior to the granting
of the pardon by President Ford?
MR. BUCHEN: No. Mr. Miller, at the time that I
informed him that the President was considering a possible
pardon for Mr. Nixon, was told by me that I thought it would
be very beneficial in the interests of the country, in the
interests of the present Administration and in the interest
of the former President, that as full a statement as possible
should be issued by Mr. Nixon but that I had been told
that that was not a condition to the consideration of the
pardon.
Mr. Miller at that time assured me that he agreed
with me that such a statement should be forthcoming
from his client.
Q
Mr. Bucken, I was wondering, if, as the
President's legal counsel, , would you advise that the
President in this study about the possibility of giving
amnesty to all the Watergate people, that excluded
from the people doing the study should be all Nixon hold-
overs? Would you advise, or do you think it is reasonable
for Nixon holdovers to participate in a study of possible
amnesty to all Nixon defendants?
MORE
- 3 -
MR. BUCHEN: I think that is a decision the
President will have to instruct me on.
Q
How would you advise him?
Q
Did you finish you answer to the earlier
question?
MR. BUCHEN: I was finished.
Q
Could I follow-up then, sir? Did the former
President balk at this, was there negotiation on what
finally came out in his statement afterwards?
Did you see that statement, sir, or did anyone
else in the White House see it prior to its issuance?
MR. BUCHEN: When Mr. Becker came back from
San Clemente, he was able to report the substance of
the statement that he thought would be forthcoming after
the announcement was made.
But we did not have the statement in the form
in which it was ultimately delivered.
Q
Are you satisfied that this was as fulla
statement as possible coming from the former President?
MR. BUCHEN: That is something that I think would
require going into the former President's mind. Obviously,
if you do not condition an act of mercy on the recipient
of the mercy doing anything, you are not in a position
to do much bargaining.
Q
Mr. Buchen, did Mr. Becker go to San Clemente
with a much stronger statement, or a statement --
MR. BUCHEN: He had no statement in hand.
Q
You say he came back with a statement --
he reported the substance of the statement he thought
would be forthcoming. Was that substance substantially
different from the statement that was then issued?
MR. BUCHEN: No, the essential feature was the
statement that the President believed he had not acted
decisively and forthrightly in respect to the Watergate
once it became a judicial proceeding and the regret for
having done wrong was in the report that Becker gave us.
Q
Was it your hope or intention early in those
negotiations to get Mr. Nixon to agree to a statement in
which he admitted his own personal wrong-doing and
involvement in the Watergate cover-up?
MORE
FORD
LIBRACT
- 4 -
MR. BUCHEN: Again I had to rely on what
Mr. Miller believed would be in the best interests of
his client and the country, because I had no authority
to extract a statement of my own making.
Q Not what was in the former President's
mind, but what was in your mind? Do you think that the
final statement met the standards that you and Mr.
Miller discussed at the meeting?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I think they did, because,
as some of your papers have already suggested, the very
fact that a man accepts a pardon does imply that he
believes it is necessary for him to have that pardon, or
that it is useful for him to have that pardon.
And there aren't many instances in which it is
useful to have a pardon unless there is a strong probability
of guilt.
Q
Mr. Buchen, do you think that you and President
Ford misread the public's acceptance of the terms of this
pardon and the acceptance in Congress?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I was not doing much reading
on the outside as to what might happen. That was really
outside my bailiwick, so I cannot tell you.
Q
Mr. Buchen, do you and the President hope
that the former President will at some time, perhaps
in the near future, release some kind of formal statement
detailing further his connection with Watergate?
MR. BUCHEN: I have not given that any thought
and I assume that would be entirely up to the former
President.
Q Mr. Buchen, you were involved in the pre-
accession negotiations and pre-transition operations of
the Ford Administration. Was there at any time any dis-
cussion between any high-ranking member of the Ford group and
any member of the Nixon group as to the possibility of a
pardon for Nixon in advance of his leaving office?
MR. BUCHEN: I answered that question Sunday and,
to my knowledge, there was absolutely none and it never
came up as a matter to be discussed by the transition team.
And I think I participated in virtually all meetings of
the transition team.
Q
How about between Ford and Nixon alone?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't believe so.
Q
Can you find out definitely whether there
was no deal before Nixon left office?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I know the man in the
President's office quite well and I can assure you he
did not make a deal. I know him that well.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, he assured us in a press
conference it would be untimely to do such a thing, and
he assured us when he was nominated for Vice-President
that the American people would not stand for it. Can
you give us an explanation of this?
MR. BUCHEN: Let's take the first; the matter of
untimeliness seems to me to involve a debate that really
makes little sense, because a man who had to consider
whether or not to grant a pardon, it seems to me, has to
consider the fact that if a pardon is desirable, the
earlier it comes, the better.
It is like making a man walk a plank. You wait
until he takes the first step. You wait until he gets to
the middle of the plank. You wait until he jumps off the
end, and then dive in to rescue him. I think it represents --
let me put it this way. I don't think an act of mercy can
ever be untimely, and it certainly becomes less merciful
if you postpone the agony.
Q Mr. Buchen, in that statement, you are
suggesting that the former President was going to go
off the end of the plank?
MR. BUCHEN: I think there was a strong
possibility.
Q
When Mr. Becker was out at San Clemente,
did he discuss in the President's presence what the
President might say in a statement, and did the President
get angry at the suggestions that he admit guilt?
MR. BUCHEN: I think those negotiations were
entirely with Mr. Ziegler, so I don't think we have any
knowledge of what the President --
Q
The New York Times states this morning
as I quoted it.
Q
You better clear up what you mean by
"walking the plank;" do you mean suicide or going to jail?
MR. BUCHEN: No, as I understand "walking the
plank," it is because the man has been convicted of some
crime that offended the master of the ship, or not
convicted, say indicted.
Q
What about the question of health; Mr.
Buchen, how did that figure into this decision?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know because I wasn't
party to any of the investigations or discussions, if
there were any, about the former President's health.
MORE
FORD is LIBRARY 077835
- 6 -
Q
Did you say Mr. Becker at no time spoke
to Mr. Nixon in San Clemente?
MR. BUCHEN: I didn't say that.
Q
I thought you said the negotiations were
entirely with Mr. Ziegler?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know whether there were
negotiations, but the matter of the content of the
President's statement, which he contemplated giving
when the pardon was issued, was dealt with entirely
through Ron Ziegler. The only face-to-face matters
taken up with the former President dealt with the manner
of managing and disposing of his papers and tapes.
Q Mr. Buchen, did Mr. terHorst ask you on
Friday whether Mr. Becker was involved in discussing
a pardon with the former President during his trip to
California, and if he did, what did you tell him?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, we better clear that one
up.
Jerry terHorst reported to me that someone
had observed Benton Becker and Jack Miller in the area
of San Clemente. Jerry terHorst asked me what the
purpose of my having sent Benton Becker out to San Clemente
was, and I said that the purpose was to take a document
that had been prepared in rough draft before he left
Washington, had been prepared by Mr. Miller, which related
to the management and disposing of the tapes and records.
However, we objected and wanted changes in those
documents, partly because we were concerned as to the
practicality of some of the proposals made insofar as they
involve the Administrator of the General Services
Administration.
The matter is very complex, as you see, so I
suggested, when Mr. Miller said he would have to go and
discuss the terms of that document with his client, that
Mr. Becker go along, so that there would be a way that
Mr. Becker could be on hand as changes, additions or
whatnot were proposed and so that he would available to
report back to me on the progress of the negotiations.
That was the purpose of the assignment.
Q
We specifically asked you if Mr. Becker
was out there engaging in pardon negotiations?
MR. BUCHEN: There were no pardon negotiations,
that is the point.
MORE
- 7 -
Q
Anything at all?
Q
You sent him out with instructions to say
that the President had this under consideration?
Q
Would you answer my question, please?
MR. BUCHEN: Mr. Miller knew that the pardon
was under consideration, and he could report to his client.
It was not necessary for Mr. Becker to do anything in
connection with the pardon.
Q
Didn't Mr. Becker take out a copy of the
proposed pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, he did. It was a draft that
he and I had worked on very hurriedly Thursday afternoon
before he had to leave on the plane. I said, "Benton,
you are going to be five hours on that plane, take a copy
along, keep working on it, I don't think it is in the
form we want to submit to the President for his con-
sideration. Take it along and work on it."
Q
You didn't tell Mr. terHorst that?
MR. BUCHEN: No, I will explain; as you may
appreciate, being counsel to anyone, or lawyer to anyone,
imposes certain restrictions, and I believe, on this
matter, I was under complete restriction as a lawyer
to the President not to disclose what I was doing for
the President on a matter that he regarded as highly
confidential.
Q
Did the subject of pardon ever --
Q
Would you say that you misled Mr. terHorst
on Friday?
MR. BUCHEN: Let me put it this way; I can see
how he could have been misled.
Q
Can you see how he could not have been
misled?
MR. BUCHEN: No, I can see how he could have been
misled. I don't say he could not have been. After all, if
you get a question, why is a man whom you' have sent to
San Clemente there, and I give him an answer, I can see
when he in turn had to respond to the man, or the reporter
making the inquiries, that he would inject a negative,
was he there doing anything else. And I assume that
Jerry said, "Well, as far as I know he wasn't," because
I had not told him he was doing anything else.
MORE
- 8 -
Q
Did you tell him he wasn't out there
discussing the pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: Oh, no.
Q
Why was it something you couldn't talk
about?
MR. BUCHEN: I could talk about the negotiations
on the tapes.
Q
When he asked you about the pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: He didn't ask me about the pardon.
Q
What was the precision of language used in
President Nixon's statement?
MR. BUCHEN: Let me get the question.
Q
What was the need for the secrecy in the
negotiations, whatever they were?
MR. BUCHEN: In the course of any client and
attorney relationship, usually until something happens, you
are under obligation not to disclose the conversations.
Q I mean, what was the need for secrecy about
the fact that a pardon was being considered, generally,
not just your conversations with the President?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, generally, that was the
President's decision and not mine. I was just bound by
my client-attorney relationship.
Q
Mr. Buchen, if Mr. Becker knew all about the
pardon, the President seemed to trust him with that
information, yet he didn't trust Mr. terHorst with that
information?
Q
Or you didn't trust Mr. terHorst with it?
MR. BUCHEN: I had no power to subdelegate in
passing information. The first question is why didn't
the President trust Mr. terHorst to have the information
at the same time I got it?
Q
No, I mean Mr. Becker. You are talking about
the attorney-client relationship, which involves you
and the President; Mr. Becker is someone outside that
relationship, yet he knew about the pardon because he
was working on the pardon agreements.
MR. BUCHEN: No, he had the same relationship
that I had in terms of his being a lawyer and working
MORE
- 9 -
under my supervision as a lawyer for a client. As in a law
office, if a client comes into an office and the lawyer
assigns a law partner to work on it, the obligation extends
to the other lawyer as well as the original one.
Q
Can you be forthright with us on what is
your advice to the President on pardoning other individuals
associated with the --
MR. BUCHEN: I have not given him any advice.
Q
What would be your advice; how do you see
the issue?
MR. BUCHEN: I haven't even had time to study it.
Q
When did the President's other advisers find
out that the pardon was under consideration or was to
be granted, and did they agree with it when they found
out about it?
Q
And did you?
MR. BUCHEN: I was in the room at the time
when certain advisers were told about it on Friday
before Labor Day, but I don't feel free to report their
reactions.
MORE
- 10 -
Q
Can you tell us what role General Haig
played in this granting of the pardon? He was in on
all of this all the time, wasn't he? Was he recommending
a pardon during this period?
Q
What was the question?
MR. BUCHEN: I was asked that question last
night and I can tell you that every occasion when I
was present when the subject was raised and General Haig
was there, he took an absolutely neutral stand.
Q
Did you say you are not part of the study
for the other Watergate defendents? Can you tell me when
you became aware that that study was in the works?
MR. BUCHEN: I learned from Mr. Hartmann and
Mr. Hushen that this matter was brought up at the early
morning conference.
Q
Who brought it up?
Q
Today for the first time?
Q
Did you say there was a connection between
the pardon for the others and the reaction against the
pardon for Nixon? And secondly, if you are the President's
lawyer and you are not working on it, who is?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I don't know, Ron. I really
don't.
Q
What about the first part of that question;
is he trying to dampen down the reaction by giving out
pardons to the others?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I don't interpret studying
a pardon as predicting what the results would be.
Q
Mr. Buchen, as a lawyer, can you see a
distinction between a President granting a pardon to a
former President and granting pardons or not granting
pardons to former subordinates for involvement in the
same illegal acts?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, there certainly is a
distinction. I will later have available for distribution --
because I don't think there will be many questions on it --
a memorandum, a copy of a memorandum that Mr. Jack Miller
prepared for the Special Prosecutor in which he rather
carefully documents the reason why the situation of his
client is distinguishable from the situation of anybody
else's remotely involved in the acts, or Watergate-related
events.
MORE
- 11 -
You will remember I quoted a letter from Mr.
Jaworski who did say he thought there was a distinction.
Q
Phil, could I ask you this question: Does
not the mere fact that the White House has made a statement
saying that pardons for all Watergate defendants are under
study, does that not intrude upon the judicial process
to the point that the trial for the Watergate defendants,
the trial for September 30, is somehow intruded upon
and interfered with by this statement?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I don't think SO. You see,
after all, the fact that there can be a pardon hangs
over the trial of anybody. That is not a unique situation.
The power to pardon exists in the Federal Constitution
and I believe in every State Constitution.
Q
This is a matter of great and intense
national interest. It is not like the case of any
defendants. This is a case of specific defendants that
have been involved in a great national drama or what
have you, so it is a different case, is it not?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, but the Presidential pardon
power, as well as that of a Governor of a State, hangs
over the judicial process all the time.
Q
What purpose was served by announcing
this morning, or authorizing Jack Hushen to announce it
this morning?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I was not party to that
determination so I can't tell you.
Q What purpose was served by announcing the
Jaworski letter on the ten points?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, as I indicated, it was
given to me on a confidential basis. The comments that
have been made around town is that there was not a
consideration given of what was, what someone else
called "are there any possible time bombs", and we felt
that it would be in the interest -- provided Mr. Jaworski
consented -- that we do provide you with the information
on which the President in part acted before he decided
to grant the pardon.
Q
In this study that is being undertaken,
sir, what is your understanding of the philosophy behind it
-- that families of all Watergate defendants have suffered
enough, or what other considerations?
MORE
- 12 -
MR. BUCHEN: I can't go beyond the statements
Jack gave you. That is all I know.
Q
Where did it first come up?
Q
Where did this subject of possible clemency
for all other Watergate defendants first come up? You
didn't make that clear. You said "an early morning
conference".
Q
What morning?
MR. BUCHEN: This morning.
Q
What were the circumstances?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know except it was reported
to me by Mr. Hartmann and Mr. Hushen that it was raised
this morning.
Q Where?
MR. BUCHEN: I assume with the President. I
don't know the circumstances.
Q
Is this a reaction, Mr. Buchen? Is this
consideration of the study, consideration of pardons,
and the announcement of this study, is this a reaction
to the popular outcry against the pardon of the former
President?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't think so because the fact
that two people are brought into his confidence this
morning and that confidence has been shared with you
today, doesn't mean that that is when the thought came.
I explained on Sunday when the question was
asked me as to whether any thought was given to the way
in which the pardon power might be exercised, if at all,
respecting other people involved, I said that to my
knowledge -- meaning that as far as I knew -- no thought
had been given. But that didn't mean that the thought
processes weren't going on unbeknownst to me or unbeknownst
to the people who got the reports this morning.
Q Mr. Buchen, in going back to my other
question, you said mercy is never untimely. Was the
President not merciful ten days ago when he said it
would be untimely, and was the President lacking in mercy
when he told the committee that the American people
wouldn't stand for it?
What caused him to be suddenly merciful? Could
you tell us what happened?
MORE
- 13 -
MR. BUCHEN: I wish you would come up here
and explain the theory of mercy. You can probably do
a much better job than I can.
But let me tell you, it is not whether to be
merciful, but how he could be merciful, and I do not
think he was aware that he could act before there was
any formal indictment when he made his statement before
the press.
Q
Wasn't the President briefed on that
very point before the news conference? Wasn't he
briefed that there would be a question on pardon and
this was a policy adopted?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
Q
Why was that policy changed, that there
would be no pardon until there was due process?
MR. BUCHEN: You have lost me, I am sorry.
Q
He announced a policy at that news
conference and you say he was briefed on that policy.
MR. BUCHEN: He said that he would make no
commitments. His intention then was to make no commitments
on the pardon until something had been brought to him.
Q
Why was that changed?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, because after the conference,
I assume he reflected on the matter, and then asked me to
find out whether or not he could move quicker than he
had indicated at the press conference.
Q Did you brief him prior to the news
conference that the best policy was for him to wait
until there was some --
MR. BUCHEN: No, I did not.
Q
With whom was he in touch with at that
point? Can you tell us who he consulted between Wednesday
and Friday when he asked you to begin your research into
precedents?
MR. BUCHEN: I have no notion; I really don't, Pete.
MORE
- 14 -
Q
What is your understanding of the
investigation status referred to in the memo? Is
Jaworski going on in his investigation of these
points? Is he going to furnish material to the public?
MR. BUCHEN: I know nothing more than what is in
the memorandum.
Q
The Watergate cover-up, it says, is the
subject of a separate memorandum. Has that memorandum
reached you?
MR. BUCHEN: It has not.
Q Do you know what it concerns?
MR. BUCHEN: I can imagine what it concerns.
Q
Does it indicate to you, as a lawyer reading
this, that that number one is ongoing and unlike this
listing of ten points which according to the memo may
prove to have some connection, but then says there is
no point we can prove regarding Mr. Nixon -- does that
indicate to you that is a different story entirely
when it comes to the cover-up?
MR. BUCHEN: As you know, this memorandum was
issued before the pardon, so I don't know what the effect
of the pardon has on the investigation referred to in
the last paragraph.
Q You must have had some indication from
the Special Proseeutor where he stands with regard to
the cover-up investigation.
MR. BUCHEN: I do not.
Q
In preparing your advice for the President,
did you address at all the time element of granting this
pardon, with specific reference to the possibility that
the Watergate cover-up trial might be affected since the
jury had not been sequestered?
MR. BUCHEN: I did not discuss that with the
President, but I understand, of course, that, one, it
is not certain the jury would be sequestered. I assume
it is available to the attorneys for the defendant to
waive any such request; and, second, I am not sure that
a story like this could possibly have been kept from the
jury however tightly sequestered.
MORE
- 15 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, did you get from Mr. Ziegler
or from Mr. Nixon, either after Mr. Becker returned here
or while he was there, some sort of commitment that the
President would not in the future make statements
protesting his innocence?
MR. BUCHEN: We did not.
Q
Mr. Buchen, are you saying that the Presi-
dent did not know or understand at the time of the
August 28 press conference that the pardoning power
could be exercised before indictment or conviction?
MR. BUCHEN: I certainly had not so advised him,
and he had not asked my advice.
Q
You didn't say that? Do you have reason
to believe that, that he didn't believe he could move
before the indictment was voted?
MR. BUCHEN: That I don't know. I didn't ask
him.
Q
You so far have not given us any explana-
tion for why Mr. Ford changed his mind after that press
conference with the possible exception of his receiving
this documentation of the investigation.
Does that mean that the investigation turned
out to be so serious that he thought the former President
wouldn't withstand it?
MR. BUCHEN: No; I think more significant than
that was the advice that I reported Sunday, namely, that
before there could. be a trial, there would have to be a
delay of a year or more, and I think that was the matter
that concerned him most.
Q
Don't many trials take a year or more to
come to the court or to settle? And why is Mr. Nixon to
be treated any differently in this respect than anyone else?
MR. BUCHEN: Every defendant under the law is
entitled to a prompt trial provided he can have a fair
trial by an impartial jury.
Q
When did you advise the President of the
long delay of nine months or a year? Was that after
the press conference?
MORE
- 16 -
MR. BUCHEN: He asked me after the press
conference, or that Friday, to find the answer. So
apparently someone had told him that that probably would
be the case.
But he wanted his own lawyer to ask the Special
Prosecutor who would be the best judge, of how long it
might take, and that is the reason I went to Mr. Jaworski,
so we would have an expert opinion.
I don't claim to be an expert. On the other
hand, I have read the cases that are cited by Mr. Nixon's
own attorney who makes the same arguments very effectively
in a memorandum that you can all take back to your legal
counsels, because I don't think you want to read it all.
Q
However you did know that indictments could
be very quick, the question of laying out the charges on
the public record would not have taken very long -- maybe
a month; is that correct?
MR. BUCHEN: As you know, the word came out
that the former President -- then the President -- was
about to be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, so the
indictment involves - that involves the defendants, involves
probably everything that involves Mr. Nixon alone.
Q
But it is not the same, really.
MR. BUCHEN: I think it is pretty good evidence
of what that jury intended to do and would have done if
there had not been a pardon.
Q
Was consideration given to the timing of
when this jury would have done this, vis-a-vis the November
elections?
MR. BUCHEN: It had nothing to do with the
elections However, it was evident it was the President's
decision to grant a pardon before the indictment. He
would have to act fairly soon because it was not
possible, of course, to grade the Grand Jury in the time
it would act.
Q
May I clear up a question here?
MR. BUCHEN: Let me get Phil first.
Q
In view of the last sentence in this memo-
randum, didn't you have any qualms about whether you could
give the President full legal advice on what he could do?
When it says here there are other matters and other
memoranda which you have not seen, how could you give
the President full advice on what he could do on the
pardon in view of that?
MORE
- 17 -
MR. BUCHEN: Well, we believed, of course, that
the evidence before the House Judiciary Committee on
this very point that resulted in the article that brought
a unanimous vote ultimately, and based on particularly
the June 23 tapes, gave every indication of what was
involved in the alleged Watergate cover-up and we
didn't think we needed to know any more than that.
Q
I think my notes are correct, that is, you
told us earlier, "I do not think (the President) was
aware that he could grant a pardon before the indictment
when he made his press conference statement." Is that
right?
MR. BUCHEN: As far as I know. I don't believe
that he was or that he understood what, if any, problems --
I am talking legal problems, now -- would arise if he
acted before indictment.
Q
The President seemed to say in his news
conference that he wouldn't act on the pardon until
after an indictment and your explanation, that there
would be nine months or a year, perhaps longer, before
a trial, doesn't really go to the question of why he
changed his mind about waiting until after an indictment
to act on a pardon.
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I guess all I can go back
to is my own analogy. If you are going to -- if you do
come to the conclusion you ought to consider mercy, it
doesn't seem to be very relevant to consider what other
steps you ought to require the man to whom you are granting
mercy must take.
Q
And at the news conference he had not made
up his mind yet?
MR. BUCHEN: He had not made up his mind.
Q
You are saying the main reason he changed
his mind was because somebody told him there would be
this long delay and he asked you to check it out and
you did. And then he decided to grant the pardon? Did
someone decide that the long delay would wreck Mr. Nixon's
health?
MR. BUCHEN: Not that I know of.
Q
Has there been any discussion about the
former President not wishing to testify or be a witness?
MORE
FORD
- 18 -
MR. BUCHEN: Well, he is under subpoena so
he has no choice.
Q
I know, but if you are considering pardons,
if there is consideration for others, that would spare
the former President from testifying, is that part of
this study?
MR. BUCHEN: I have not seen the study, so I
don't know.
Q
In your discussion of the cover-up
memorandum a moment ago, you said the June 23 tape
told you everything you needed to know about that.
MR. BUCHEN: I didn't say everything. I
also said the findings of the House Judiciary Committee.
Q
Right, and earlier he spoke of the
necessity, the acceptance of the pardon, the necessity
for the pardon. Did this mean that you and the President
in offering this pardon to the President, would make
a presumption of guilt?
MR. BUCHEN: First, take the "you" pronoun
out of that and perhaps I can answer it. I did advise
the President that a pardon could be characterized as
implying guilt on the part of the person who was pardoned
because there is no other reason for granting a pardon.
But that did not deter or affect his determination to act
when he finally made up his mind to do SO.
Q
From the perspective of the person who
accepts the pardon, does the acceptance of the pardon
amount to a tacit admission of guilt?
MR. BUCHEN: You can so accept it. The question
never came up. I couldn't find in any cases where that
question was litigated, so I can't give you any authority.
But it just takes common sense and logic to reach that
conclusion.
Let's have one of the women.
MORE
- 19 -
Q
Thank you.
Throughout this, we have heard solely about the
consideration of an indictment and the lengthy period of time
between indictment and trial. Did you try to determine
from Mr. Jaworski the possibility of a plea from the former
President? Now faced with the prospect of a multicount
indictment, as he was and as I am sure Mr. Miller advised
him, it seems extremely likely there might have been a plea
far sooner than there would ever have been an indictment
and trial. Did you ask for any timing on this, and if not,
why not?
MR. BUCHEN: I did consult, of course, with
Mr. Nixon's Attorney, and I was pretty sure from what
he told me that in his mind there would never be a plea.
Q
There would have been a trial then; you are
saying he would have gone the whole route had he not been
pardoned?
MR. BUCHEN: I believe SO.
MR. HUSHEN: Let's take two more questions. We
been out here for forty-five minutes. Two more questions.
Q
Maybe you have answered this; why did
President Ford want mercy for Richard Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: Because I think he truly believed
it would be in the best interests of the country.
Q
Mr. Buchen, if you are done with that answer,
I would like to ask you, as a lawyer, do you think it not
fair and proper that, if the President considers amnesty
or granting a pardon for persons convicted for or indictments
for burglary, perjury, conspiracy in Watergate related
crimes, that he should give equal consideration to pardoning
other persons indicted or convicted of burglary, perjury or
conspiracy in non-Watergate related crimes?
MR. BUCHEN: I wish I were a better student of
the ethics or morality of mercy, but I believe a
representative of the clergy would substantiate my
remarks that, throughout our religious history -- and I
don't mean just the Christian Religion -- there has always
been a separate category of mercy that we know has never
been equally dispensed and we know that it is an act of
grace that is many times inexplicable.
I am sure all of us in the room have sought
mercy on matters that we wanted to blame ourselves for,
or some adverse consequences, and we didn't always get mercy.
MORE
FORD
- 20 -
Mercy seems to work in very unequal fashion.
That is a point on which Jerry terHorst and I have
disagreed. He has a notion, as he said, that mercy
should be dispensed with in the same even-handed fashion
as we would like to see justice dispensed.
But, I believe history tells us mercy doesn't
work the same way.
Q Mr. Buchen --
MR. HUSHEN: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Q Mr. Buchen, is there any limitation on
the power of pardons?
MR. BUCHEN: I refer you to --
Q
Is there any limitation on this at all?
MR. BUCHEN: I refer you to the Constitution.
Q
Is there anything he could do that was more
than this?
MR. BUCHEN: No, not that I could find in the
Constitution; no.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(1:37 P.M. EDT)
10
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER &, 1974
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
PHILIP BUCHEN
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 12:49 P.M.
MR. HUSHEN: As I announced earlier, Mr. Philip
Buchen, the Counsel to the President has agreed to come
back out here today to answer some of the questions
you have.
Let me say we are going to give them 60 seconds
to get some photographs and then they will go away.
(Laughter)
Let me say at the outset that the document
that is about to be handed out is embargoed until the
completion of the briefing.
MR. BUCHEN: This is a follow-up, of course,
of the meeting we had on Sunday. And at that time someone
asked the question about the disclosures made to me
by Special Prosecutor Jaworski to the areas of investigation
in which his special force was engaged.
And my answer was that the question asked him
was: "What matters could arguably involve further steps?"
And I reported that it read like a list from
one of your newspapers.
You have now before you the document that was
furnished to me and, although the copy of the Special
Prosecutor's memorandum from Henry Ruth to
the Special Prosecutor dated September 3, 1974, on the
subject of Mr. Nixon was sent to me in confidence, Mr.
Jaworski has since advised me that, if I were willing
to assume the responsibility for its release, he would
raise no objection to my doing SO.
However, he cautioned that in the event of
its release, he would expect that it bemade available in
its entirety, including the first and last paragraphs
of the memorandum, and I quote that the first paragraph
reads:
"The following matters are still under investi-
gation in this Office and may prove to have some direct
connection to activities in which Mr. Nixon is personally
involved:"
MORE
FORD
LIBRARY
- 2 -
At the conclusion of the memorandum Mr. Ruth,
in reporting to Mr. Jaworski, wrote:
"None of these matters at the moment rises to
the level of our ability to prove even a probable
criminal violation by Mr. Nixon, but I thought you
ought to know which of the pending investigations
were even remotely connected to Mr. Nixon. Of course,
the Watergate cover-up is the subject of a separate
memorandum."
Now I will try to field any questions.
Q
Tell us about considering pardons
for everybody involved in Watergate?
MR. BUCHEN: I am not involved in that matter.
Q
Well, who is?
MR. BUCHEN: I said at the time of the last
press conference to my knowledge no thought was being given
to that and I have not been called in to do any part
of the study so far. I assume I will be.
Q
Who is at this Point?
Q
Who is considering this, the President?
MR. BUCHEN: The President made the statement.
Q
Mr. Buchen, can you tell us if anyone tried
to persuade Mr. Nixon to confess guilt prior to the granting
of the pardon by President Ford?
MR. BUCHEN: No. Mr. Miller, at the time that I
informed him that the President was considering a possible
pardon for Mr. Nixon, was told by me that I thought it would
be very beneficial in the interests of the country, in the
interests of the present Administration and in the interest
of the former President, that as full a statement as possible
should be issued by Mr. Nixon but that I had been told
that that was not a condition to the consideration of the
pardon.
Mr. Miller at that time assured me that he agreed
with me that such a statement should be forthcoming
from his client.
Q
Mr. Bucken, I was wondering, if, as the
President's legal counsel, , would you advise that the
President in this study about the possibility of giving
amnesty to all the Watergate people, that excluded'
from the people doing the study should be all Nixon hold-
overs? Would you advise, or do you think it is reasonable
for Nixon holdovers to participate in a study of possible
amnesty to all Nixon defendants?
MORE
is
FORD
CERALD
- 3 -
MR. BUCHEN: I think that is a decision the
President will have to instruct me on.
Q
How would you advise him?
Q
Did you finish you answer to the earlier
question?
MR. BUCHEN: I was finished.
Q
Could I follow-up then, sir? Did the former
President balk at this, was there negotiation on what
finally came out in his statement afterwards?
Did you see that statement, sir, or did anyone
else in the White House see it prior to its issuance?
MR. BUCHEN: When Mr. Becker came back from
San Clemente, he was able to report the substance of
the statement that he thought would be forthcoming after
the announcement was made.
But we did not have the statement in the form
in which it was ultimately delivered.
Q
Are you satisfied that this was as' fulla
statement as possible coming from the former President?
MR. BUCHEN: That is something that I think would
require going into the former President's mind. Obviously,
if you do not condition an act of mercy on the recipient
of the mercy doing anything, you are not in a position
to do much bargaining.
Q
Mr. Buchen, did Mr. Becker go to San Clemente
with a much stronger statement, or a statement --
MR. BUCHEN: He had no statement in hand.
Q
You say he came back with a statement --
he reported the substance of the statement he thought
would be forthcoming. Was that substance substantially
different from the statement that was then issued?
MR. BUCHEN: No, the essential feature was the
statement that the President believed he had not acted
decisively and forthrightly in respect to the Watergate
once it became a judicial proceeding and the regret for
having done wrong was in the report that Becker gave us.
Q
Was it your hope or intention early in those
negotiations to get Mr. Nixon to agree to a statement in
which he admitted his own personal wrong-doing and
involvement in the Watergate cover-up?
MORE
SEAL
- 4 -
MR. BUCHEN: Again I had to rely on what
Mr. Miller believed would be in the best interests of
his client and the country, because I had no authority
to extract a statement of my own making.
Q
Not what was in the former President's
mind, but what was in your mind? Do you think that the
final statement met the standards that you and Mr.
Miller discussed at the meeting?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I think they did, because,
as some of your papers have already suggested, the very
fact that a man accepts a pardon does imply that he
believes it is necessary for him to have that pardon, or
that it is useful for him to have that pardon.
And there aren't any many instances in which it is
useful to have a pardon unless there is a strong probability
of guilt.
Q
Mr. Buchen, do you think that you and President
Ford misread the public's acceptance of the terms of this
pardon and the acceptance in Congress?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I was not doing much reading
on the outside as to what might happen. That was really
outside my bailiwick, so I cannot tell you.
Q
Mr. Buchen, do you and the President hope
that the former President will at some time, perhaps
in the near future, release some kind of formal statement
detailing further his connection with Watergate?
MR. BUCHEN: I have not given that any thought
and I assume that would be entirely up to the former
President.
Q
Mr. Buchen, you were involved in the pre-
accession negotiations and pre-transition operations of
the Ford Administration. Was there at any time any dis-
cussion between any high-ranking member of the Ford group and
any member of the Nixon group as to the possibility of a
pardon for Nixon in advance of his leaving office?
MR. BUCHEN: I answered that question Sunday and,
to my knowledge, there was absolutely none and it never
came up as a matter to be discussed by the transition team.
And I think I participated in virtually all meetings of
the transition team.
Q
How about between Ford and Nixon alone?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't believe so.
Q
Can you find out definitely whether there
was no deal before Nixon left office?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I know the man in the
President's office quite well and I can assure you he
did not make a deal. I know him that well.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, he assured us in a press
conference it would be untimely to do such a thing, and
he assured us when he was nominated for Vice-President
that the American people would not stand for it. Can
you give us an explanation of this?
MR. BUCHEN: Let's take the first; the matter of
untimeliness seems to me to involve a debate that really
makes little sense, because a man who had to consider
whether or not to grant a pardon, it seems to me, has to
consider the fact that if a pardon is desirable, the
earlier it comes, the better.
It is like making a man walk a plank. You wait
until he takes the first step. You wait until he gets to
the middle of the plank. You wait until he jumps off the
end, and then dive in to rescue him. I think it represents --
let me put it this way. I don't think an act of mercy can
ever be untimely, and it certainly becomes less merciful
if you postpone the agony.
Q Mr. Buchen, in that statement, you are
suggesting that the former President was going to go
off the end of the plank?
MR. BUCHEN: I think there was a strong
possibility.
Q When Mr. Becker was out at San Clemente,
did he discuss in the President's presence what the
President might say in a statement, and did the President
get angry at the suggestions that he admit guilt?
MR. BUCHEN: I think those negotiations were
entirely with Mr. Ziegler, so I don't think we have any
knowledge of what the President --
Q
The New York Times states this morning
as I quoted it.
Q
You better clear up what you mean by
"walking the plank;" do you mean suicide or going to jail?
MR. BUCHEN: No, as I understand "walking the
plank," it is because the man has been convicted of some
crime that offended the master of the ship, or not
convicted, say indicted.
Q
What about the question of health; Mr.
Buchen, how did that figure into this decision?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know because I wasn't
party to any of the investigations or discussions, if
there were any, about the former President's health.
MORE
- 6 -
Q
Did you say Mr. Becker at no time spoke
to Mr. Nixon in San Clemente?
MR. BUCHEN: I didn't say that.
Q
I thought you said the negotiations were
entirely with Mr. Ziegler?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know whether there were
negotiations, but the matter of the content of the
President's statement, which he contemplated giving
when the pardon was issued, was dealt with entirely
through Ron Ziegler. The only face-to-face matters
taken up with the former President dealt with the manner
of managing and disposing of his papers and tapes.
Q Mr. Buchen, did Mr. terHorst ask you on
Friday whether Mr. Becker was involved in discussing
a pardon with the former President during his trip to
California, and if he did, what did you tell him?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, we better clear that one
up.
Jerry terHorst reported to me that someone
had observed Benton Becker and Jack Miller in the area
of San Clemente. Jerry terHorst asked me what the
purpose of my having sent Benton Becker out to San Clemente
was, and I said that the purpose was to take a document
that had been prepared in rough draft before he left
Washington, had been prepared by Mr. Miller, which related
to the management and disposing of the tapes and records.
However, we objected and wanted changes in those
documents, partly because we were concerned as to the
practicality of some of the proposals made insofar as they
involve the Administrator of the General Services
Administration.
The matter is very complex, as you see, so I
suggested, when Mr. Miller said he would have to go and
discuss the terms of that document with his client, that
Mr. Becker go along, so that there would be a way that
Mr. Becker could be on hand as changes, additions or
whatnot were proposed and so that he would available to
report back to me on the progress of the negotiations.
That was the purpose of the assignment.
Q
We specifically asked you if Mr. Becker
was out there engaging in pardon negotiations?
MR. BUCHEN: There were no pardon negotiations,
that is the point.
MORE
- 7 -
Q
Anything at all?
Q
You sent him out with instructions to say
that the President had this under consideration?
Q
Would you answer my question, please?
MR. BUCHEN: Mr. Miller knew that the pardon
was under consideration, and he could report to his client.
It was not necessary for Mr. Becker to do anything in
connection with the pardon.
Q
Didn't Mr. Becker take out a copy of the
proposed pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, he did. It was a draft that
he and I had worked on very hurriedly Thursday afternoon
before he had to leave on the plane. I said, "Benton,
you are going to be five hours on that plane, take a copy
along, keep working on it, I don't think it is in the
form we want to submit to the President for his con-
sideration. Take it along and work on it."
Q
You didn't tell Mr. terHorst that?
MR. BUCHEN: No, I will explain; as you may
appreciate, being counsel to anyone, or lawyer to anyone,
imposes certain restrictions, and I believe, on this
matter, I was under complete restriction as a lawyer
to the President not to disclose what I was doing for
the President on a matter that he regarded as highly
confidential.
Q
Did the subject of pardon ever --
Q
Would you say that you misled Mr. terHorst
on Friday?
MR. BUCHEN: Let me put it this way; I can see
how he could have been misled.
Q
Can you see how he could not have been
misled?
MR. BUCHEN: No, I can see how he could have been
misled. I don't say he could not have been. After all, if
you get a question, why is a man whom you' have sent to
San Clemente there, and I give him an answer, I can see
when he in turn had to respond to the man, or the reporter
making the inquiries, that he would inject a negative,
was he there doing anything else. And I assume that
Jerry said, "Well, as far as I know he wasn't," because
I had not told him he was doing anything else.
MORE
- 8 -
Q
Did you tell him he wasn't out there
discussing the pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: Oh, no.
Q
Why was it something you couldn't talk
about?
MR. BUCHEN: I could talk about the negotiations
on the tapes.
Q
When he asked you about the pardon?
MR. BUCHEN: He didn't ask me about the pardon.
Q
What was the precision of language used in
President Nixon's statement?
MR. BUCHEN: Let me get the question.
Q
What was the need for the secrecy in the
negotiations, whatever they were?
MR. BUCHEN: In the course of any client and
attorney relationship, usually until something happens, you
are under obligation not to disclose the conversations.
Q
I mean, what was the need for secrecy about
the fact that a pardon was being considered, generally,
not just your conversations with the President?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, generally, that was the
President's decision and not mine. I was just bound by
my client-attorney relationship.
Q
Mr. Buchen, if Mr. Becker knew all about the
pardon, the President seemed to trust him with that
information, yet he didn't trust Mr. terHorst with that
information?
Q
Or you didn't trust Mr. terHorst with it?
MR. BUCHEN: I had no power to subdelegate in
passing information. The first question is why didn't
the President trust Mr. terHorst to have the information
at the same time I got it?
Q
No, I mean Mr. Becker. You are talking about
the attorney-client relationship, which involves you
and the President; Mr. Becker is someone outside that
relationship, yet he knew about the pardon because he
was working on the pardon agreements.
MR. BUCHEN: No, he had the same relationship
that I had in terms of his being a lawyer and working
MORE
- 9 -
under my supervision as a lawyer for a client. As in a law
office, if a client comes into an office and the lawyer
assigns a law partner to work on it, the obligation extends
to the other lawyer as well as the original one.
Q
Can you be forthright with us on what is
your advice to the President on pardoning other individuals
associated with the --
MR. BUCHEN: I have not given him any advice.
Q
What would be your advice; how do you see
the issue?
MR. BUCHEN: I haven't even had time to study it.
Q
When did the President's other advisers find
out that the pardon was under consideration or was to
be granted, and did they agree with it when they found
out about it?
Q
And did you?
MR. BUCHEN: I was in the room at the time
when certain advisers were told about it on Friday
before Labor Day, but I don't feel free to report their
reactions.
MORE
- 10 -
Q
Can you tell us what role General Haig
played in this granting of the pardon? He was in on
all of this all the time, wasn't he? Was he recommending
a pardon during this period?
Q What was the question?
MR. BUCHEN: I was asked that question last
night and I can tell you that every occasion when I
was present when the subject was raised and General Haig
was there, he took an absolutely neutral stand.
Q
Did you say you are not part of the study
for the other Watergate defendents? Can you tell me when
you became aware that that study was in the works?
MR. BUCHEN: I learned from Mr. Hartmann and
Mr. Hushen that this matter was brought up at the early
morning conference.
Q Who brought it up?
Q
Today for the first time?
Q Did you say there was a connection between
the pardon for the others and the reaction against the
pardon for Nixon? And secondly, if you are the President's
lawyer and you are not working on it, who is?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I don't know, Ron. I really
don't.
Q What about the first part of that question;
is he trying to dampen down the reaction by giving out
pardons to the others?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I don't interpret studying
a pardon as predicting what the results would be.
Q Mr. Buchen, as a lawyer, can you see a
distinction between a President granting a pardon to a
former President and granting pardons or not granting
pardons to former subordinates for involvement in the
same illegal acts?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, there certainly is a
distinction. I will later have available for distribution --
because I don't think there will be many questions on it --
a memorandum, a copy of a memorandum that Mr. Jack Miller
prepared for the Special Prosecutor in which he rather
carefully documents the reason why the situation of his
client is distinguishable from the situation of anybody
else's remotely involved in the acts, or Watergate-related
events.
MORE
- 11 -
You will remember I quoted a letter from Mr.
Jaworski who did say he thought there was a distinction.
Q
Phil, could I ask you this question: Does
not the mere fact that the White House has made a statement
saying that pardons for all Watergate defendants are under
study, does that not intrude upon the judicial process
to the point that the trial for the Watergate defendants,
the trial for September 30, is somehow intruded upon
and interfered with by this statement?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I don't think SO. You see,
after all, the fact that there can be a pardon hangs
over the trial of anybody. That is not a unique situation.
The power to pardon exists in the Federal Constitution
and I believe in every State Constitution.
Q
This is a matter of great and intense
national interest. It is not like the case of any
defendants. This is a case of specific defendants that
have been involved in a great national drama or what
have you, so it is a different case, is it not?
MR. BUCHEN: Yes, but the Presidential pardon
power, as well as that of a Governor of a State, hangs
over the judicial process all the time.
Q
What purpose was served by announcing
this morning, or authorizing Jack Hushen to announce it
this morning?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I was not party to that
determination so I can't tell you.
Q
What purpose was served by announcing the
Jaworski letter on the ten points?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, as I indicated, it was
given to me on a confidential basis. The comments that
have been made around town is that there was not a
consideration given of what was, what someone else
called "are there any possible time bombs", and we felt
that it would be in the interest -- provided Mr. Jaworski
consented -- that we do provide you with the information
on which the President in part acted before he decided
to grant the pardon.
Q
In this study that is being undertaken,
sir, what is your understanding of the philosophy behind it
-- that families of all Watergate defendants have suffered
enough, or what other considerations?
MORE
- 12 -
MR. BUCHEN: I can't go beyond the statements
Jack gave you. That is all I know.
Q
Where did it first come up?
Q
Where did this subject of possible clemency
for all other Watergate defendants first come up? You
didn't make that clear. You said "an early morning
conference".
Q
What morning?
MR. BUCHEN: This morning.
Q
What were the circumstances?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't know except it was reported
to me by Mr. Hartmann and Mr. Hushen that it was raised
this morning.
Q Where?
MR. BUCHEN: I assume with the President. I
don't know the circumstances.
Q
Is this a reaction, Mr. Buchen? Is this
consideration of the study, consideration of pardons,
and the announcement of this study, is this a reaction
to the popular outcry against the pardon of the former
President?
MR. BUCHEN: I don't think so because the fact
that two people are brought into his confidence this
morning and that confidence has been shared with you
today, doesn't mean that that is when the thought came.
I explained on Sunday when the question was
asked me as to whether any thought was given to the way
in which the pardon power might be exercised, if at all,
respecting other people involved, I said that to my
knowledge -- meaning that as far as I knew -- no thought
had been given. But that didn't mean that the thought
processes weren't going on unbeknownst to me or unbeknownst
to the people who got the reports this morning.
Q Mr. Buchen, in going back to my other
question, you said mercy is never untimely. Was the
President not merciful ten days ago when he said it
would be untimely, and was the President lacking in mercy
when he told the committee that the American people
wouldn't stand for it?
What caused him to be suddenly merciful? Could
you tell us what happened?
MORE
- 13 -
MR. BUCHEN: I wish you would come up here
and explain the theory of mercy. You can probably do
a much better job than I can.
But let me tell you, it is not whether to be
merciful, but how he could be merciful, and I do not
think he was aware that he could act before there was
any formal indictment when he made his statement before
the press.
Q
Wasn't the President briefed on that
very point before the news conference? Wasn't he
briefed that there would be a question on pardon and
this was a policy adopted?
MR. BUCHEN: That is right.
Q
Why was that policy changed, that there
would be no pardon until there was due process?
MR. BUCHEN: You have lost me, I am sorry.
Q
He announced a policy at that news
conference and you say he was briefed on that policy.
MR. BUCHEN: He said that he would make no
commitments. His intention then was to make no commitments
on the pardon until something had been brought to him.
Q
Why was that changed?
MR. BUCHEN: Well, because after the conference,
I assume he reflected on the matter, and then asked me to
find out whether or not he could move quicker than he
had indicated at the press conference.
Q
Did you brief him prior to the news
conference that the best policy was for him to wait
until there was some --
MR. BUCHEN: No, I did not.
Q
With whom was he in touch with at that
point? Can you tell us who he consulted between Wednesday
and Friday when he asked you to begin your research into
precedents?
MR. BUCHEN: I have no notion; I really don't, Pete.
MORE
Annyan
- 14 -
Q
What is your understanding of the
investigation status referred to in the memo? Is
Jaworski going on in his investigation of these
points? Is he going to furnish material to the public?
MR. BUCHEN: I know nothing more than what is in
the memorandum.
Q
The Watergate cover-up, it says, is the
subject of a separate memorandum. Has that memorandum
reached you?
MR. BUCHEN: It has not.
Q
Do you know what it concerns?
MR. BUCHEN: I can imagine what it concerns.
Q
Does it indicate to you, as a lawyer reading
this, that that number one is ongoing and unlike this
listing of ten points which according to the memo may
prove to have some connection, but then says there is
no point we can prove regarding Mr. Nixon -- does that
indicate to you that is a different story entirely
when it comes to the cover-up?
MR. BUCHEN: As you know, this memorandum was
issued before the pardon, so I don't know what the effect
of the pardon has on the investigation referred to in
the last paragraph.
Q
You must have had some indication from
the Special Prosecutor where he stands with regard to
the cover-up investigation
MR. BUCHEN: I do not.
Q
In preparing your advice for the President,
did you address at all the time element of granting this
pardon, with specific reference to the possibility that
the Watergate cover-up trial might be affected since the
jury had not been sequestered?
MR. BUCHEN: I did not discuss that with the
President, but I understand, of course, that, one, it
is not certain the jury would be sequestered. I assume
it is available to the attorneys for the defendant to
waive any such request; and, second, I am not sure that
a story like this could possibly have been kept from the
jury however tightly sequestered.
MORE
- 15 -
Q
Mr. Buchen, did you get from Mr. Ziegler
or from Mr. Nixon, either after Mr. Becker returned here
or while he was there, some sort of commitment that the
President would not in the future make statements
protesting his innocence?
MR. BUCHEN: We did not.
Q
Mr. Buchen, are you saying that the Presi-
dent did not know or understand at the time of the
August 28 press conference that the pardoning power
could be exercised before indictment or conviction?
MR. BUCHEN: I certainly had not so advised him,
and he had not asked my advice.
Q You didn't say that? Do you have reason
to believe that, that he didn't believe he could move
before the indictment was voted?
MR. BUCHEN: That I don't know. I didn't ask
him.
Q
You so far have not given us any explana-
tion for why Mr. Ford changed his mind after that press
conference with the possible exception of his receiving
this documentation of the investigation.
Does that mean that the investigation turned
out to be so serious that he thought the former President
wouldn't withstand it?
MR. BUCHEN: No; I think more significant than
that was the advice that I reported Sunday, namely, that
before there could be a trial, there would have to be a
delay of a year or more, and I think that was the matter
that concerned him most.
Q
Don't many trials take a year or more to
come to the court or to settle? And why is Mr. Nixon to
be treated any differently in this respect than anyone else?
MR. BUCHEN: Every defendant under the law is
entitled to a prompt trial provided he can have a fair
trial by an impartial jury.
Q
When did you advise the President of the
long delay of nine months or a year? Was that after
the press conference?
MORE
- 16 -
MR. BUCHEN: He asked me after the press
conference, or that Friday, to find the answer. So
apparently someone had told him that that probably would
be the case.
But he wanted his own lawyer to ask the Special
Prosecutor who would be the best judge, of how long it
might take, and that is the reason I went to Mr. Jaworski,
so we would have an expert opinion.
I don't claim to be an expert. On the other
hand, I have read the cases that are cited by Mr. Nixon's
own attorney who makes the same arguments very effectively
in a memorandum that you can all take back to your legal
counsels, because I don't think you want to read it all.
Q
However you did know that indictments could
be very quick, the question of laying out the charges on
the public record would not have taken very long -- maybe
a month; is that correct?
MR. BUCHEN: As you know, the word came out
that the former President -- then the President -- was
about to be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, so the
indictment involves -- that involves the defendants, involves
probably everything that involves Mr. Nixon alone.
Q
But it is not the same, really.
MR. BUCHEN: I think it is pretty good evidence
of what that jury intended to do and would have done if
there had not been a pardon.
Q
Was consideration given to the timing of
when this jury would have done this, vis-a-vis the November
elections?
MR. BUCHEN: It had nothing to do with the
elections However, it was evident it was the President's
decision to grant a pardon before the indictment. He
would have to act fairly soon because it was not
possible, of course, to grade the Grand Jury in the time
it would act.
Q
May I clear up a question here?
MR. BUCHEN: Let me get Phil first.
Q
In view of the last sentence in this memo-
randum, didn't you have any qualms about whether you could
give the President full legal advice on what he could do?
When it says here there are other matters and other
memoranda which you have not seen, how could you give
the President full advice on what he could do on the
pardon in view of that?
MORE
- 17 -
MR. BUCHEN: Well, we believed, of course, that
the evidence before the House Judiciary Committee on
this very point that resulted in the article that brought
a unanimous vote ultimately, and based on particularly
the June 23 tapes, gave every indication of what was
involved in the alleged Watergate cover-up and we
didn't think we needed to know any more than that.
Q
I think my notes are correct, that is, you
told us earlier, "I do not think (the President) was
aware that he could grant a pardon before the indictment
when he made his press conference statement." Is that
right?
MR. BUCHEN: As far as I know. I don't believe
that he was or that he understood what, if any, problems --
I am talking legal problems, now would arise if he
acted before indictment.
Q
The President seemed to say in his news
conference that he wouldn't act on the pardon until
after an indictment and your explanation, that there
would be nine months or a year, perhaps longer, before
a trial, doesn't really go to the question of why he
changed his mind about waiting until after an indictment
to act on a pardon.
MR. BUCHEN: Well, I guess all I can go back
to is my own analogy. If you are going to -- if you do
come to the conclusion you ought to consider mercy, it
doesn't seem to be very relevant to consider what other
steps you ought to require the man to whom you are granting
mercy must take.
Q
And at the news conference he had not made
up his mind yet?
MR. BUCHEN: He had not made up his mind.
Q
You are saying the main reason he changed
his mind was because somebody told him there would be
this long delay and he asked you to check it out and
you did. And then he decided to grant the pardon? Did
someone decide that the long delay would wreck Mr. Nixon's
health?
MR. BUCHEN: Not that I know of.
Q
Has there been any discussion about the
former President not wishing to testify or be a witness?
MORE
- 18 -
MR. BUCHEN: Well, he is under subpoena so
he has no choice.
Q
I know, but if you are considering pardons,
if there is consideration for others, that would spare
the former President from testifying, is that part of
this study?
MR. BUCHEN: I have not seen the study, so I
don't know.
Q
In your discussion of the cover-up
memorandum a moment ago, you said the June 23 tape
told you everything you needed to know about that.
MR. BUCHEN: I didn't say everything. I
also said the findings of the House Judiciary Committee.
Q
Right, and earlier he spoke of the
necessity, the acceptance of the pardon, the necessity
for the pardon. Did this mean that you and the President
in offering this pardon to the President, would make
a presumption of guilt?
MR. BUCHEN: First, take the "you" pronoun
out of that and perhaps I can answer it. I did advise
the President that a pardon could be characterized as
implying guilt on the part of the person who was pardoned
because there is no other reason for granting a pardon.
But that did not deter or affect his determination to act
when he finally made up his mind to do SO.
Q
From the perspective of the person who
accepts the pardon, does the acceptance of the pardon
amount to a tacit admission of guilt?
MR. BUCHEN: You can so accept it. The question
never came up. I couldn't find in any cases where that
question was litigated, so I can't give you any authority.
But it just takes common sense and logic to reach that
conclusion.
Let's have one of the women.
MORE
- 19 -
Q
Thank you.
Throughout this, we have heard solely about the
consideration of an indictment and the lengthy period of time
between indictment and trial. Did you try to determine
from Mr. Jaworski the possibility of a plea from the former
President? Now faced with the prospect of a multicount
indictment, as he was and as I am sure Mr. Miller advised
him, it seems extremely likely there might have been a plea
far sooner than there would ever have been an indictment
and trial. Did you ask for any timing on this, and if not,
why not?
MR. BUCHEN: I did consult, of course, with
Mr. Nixon's Attorney, and I was pretty sure from what
he told me that in his mind there would never be a plea.
Q
There would have been a trial then; you are
saying he would have gone the whole route had he not been
pardoned?
MR. BUCHEN: I believe SO.
MR. HUSHEN: Let!sutake two more questions. We
been out here for forty-five minutes. Two more questions.
Q
Maybe you have answered this; why did
President Ford want mercy for Richard Nixon?
MR. BUCHEN: Because I think he truly believed
it would be in the best interests of the country.
Q
Mr. Buchen, if you are done with that answer,
I would like to ask you, as a lawyer, do you think it not
fair and proper that, if the President considers amnesty
or granting a pardon for persons convicted for or indictments
for burglary, perjury, conspiracy in Watergate related
crimes, that he should give equal consideration to pardoning
other persons indicted or convicted of burglary, perjury or
conspiracy in non-Watergate related crimes?
MR. BUCHEN: I wish I were a better student of
the ethics or morality of mercy, but I believe a
representative of the clergy would substantiate my
remarks that, throughout our religious history -- and I
don't mean just the Christian Religion -- there has always
been a separate category of mercy that we know has never
been equally dispensed and we know that it is an act of
grace that is many times inexplicable.
I am sure all of us in the room have sought
mercy on matters that we wanted to blame ourselves for,
or some adverse consequences, and we didn't always get mercy.
MORE
LIBRARY
- 20 -
Mercy seems to work in very unequal fashion.
That is a point on which Jerry terHorst and I have
disagreed. He has a notion, as he said, that mercy
should be dispensed with in the same even-handed fashion
as we would like to see justice dispensed.
But, I believe history tells us mercy doesn't
work the same way.
Q
Mr. Buchen --
MR. HUSHEN: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Q
Mr. Buchen, is there any limitation on
the power of pardons?
MR. BUCHEN: I refer you to --
Q
Is there any limitation on this at all?
MR. BUCHEN: I refer you to the Constitution.
Q
Is there anything he could do that was more
than this?
MR. BUCHEN: No, not that I could find in the
Constitution; no.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(1:37 P.M. EDT)