PARDON OF RICHARD M. NIXON,
AND RELATED MATTERS
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE
OF THE
*
.'
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS THAT SEEK TO INSURE PUBLIC
ACCESS TO INFORMATION RELATIVE TO WATERGATE AND
ITS RELATED ACTIVITIES
SEPTEMBER 24, OCTOBER 1 AND 17, 1974
Serial No. 60
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-274
WASHINGTON 1 1976
A
~
I.
IA ~
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PETER W. RODINO, JR., New Jersey, Oharmas
EDWARD HUTCHINSON, Michigan
HAROLD D. DONOHUE, Massachusetts
ROBERT McCLORY, Illinois
JACK BROOKS, Texas
HENRY P. SMITH III, Now York
ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin
CHARLES W. SANDMAN, JR., New Jersey
DON EDWARDS, California
TOM RAILSBACK, Illinois
WILLIAM L. HUNGATE, Missouri
CHARLES E, WIGGINS, California
JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan
DAVID W. DENNIS, Indiana
JOSHUA EILBERG, Pennsylvania
HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York
JEROME R. WALDID, California
WILEY MAYNE, Iowa
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama
LAWRENCE :. HOGAN, Maryland
JAMEH R. MANN, South Carolina
M. CALDWELL BUTLER, Virginia
PAUL S. SARBANES, Marfland
0
WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine
JOHN F. SEIBERLING, Ohio
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
GEORGE E. DANIELSON, California
HAROLD V. FROEHLICH, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. DRINAN, Massachusetts
CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
JOSEPH :. MARAZITI, Now Jersey
BARBARA JORDAN, Texas
PAUL N. McCLOSKEY, J., California
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas
ELIZABETH IIOLTZMAN, NewYork
WAYNE OWENS, Utah
EDWARD MEZVINSKY, Iowa
General Counsel
Associate General Counsel
JEROME M. ZEIVMAN,
GARNER J. CLINE,
1IERDERT FUcHs, counsel
WILLIAM P. SHATTUCK, Counsel
I. CHRISTOPkIsR NOLDE, Counsel
ALAN A. PARKER, Counsel
JAMNSE . FALCO,
CoUnsel
MAURICE A. BAR11OZA, Counsel
ROBERT J. TRAINOR, Counsel
ARTHURI P. ENDIWS, Jr., Counsel
DANIEL L. COHEN, OounWe
WILLIAM' P. DIxoN; Counsel
JARED B. STAMELL, Coune
FRANKLIN 0. POLK, ou1sel
THOMAS E. MOONEY, OOU"sel
MICHAEL W. BLOMMER, ounsel
ALEXANDER B. CooK, Counsel
CONSTANTINE J. GEKAS, 0OUsel
ALAN F. Corrny, Jr., Counsel
KENNETH N. KLEE, Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE
WILLIAM L. HUNGATE, Missouri, Ohairmats
HENRY P. SMITH III, Now York
ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin
DAVID W. DENNIS, Indiana
DON EDWARDS, California
WILEY MAYNE, Iowa
JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina
LAWRENCE :, HOGAN, Maryland
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, New York
RoaT J. TaAtNos, Oounsel
THOMAS W. HUTCHISON, Counsel
STEPHEN P. LYNCH, Research Assistant
MICHAEL W. BLOMMER, Associate Counsel
(Its
.CONTENTS
on:
Hearings.held
September 24 1974 ............................................
October 1,1974 ................................................
Octq7beUA,, 1.974 ..............................................
Testimony of:
Abzug, Hon. Bella S ...........................................
Bingham, Hon. Jonathan .......................................
Prepared statement ..............................Danielson, Hon. George E ...........................
Prepared statement .......................................
Ford Hon. Gerald R., President of the United States ..............
Prepared statement ........................................
Gude, Hen. Gilbert ...........................................
Koch Hon. Edward I .................................... . ......
Pag.
1
61
87
22
53
57
63
79
90
151
2
41
51
Prepared statement ........................................
13
McKinney, Hon. Stewart B .....................................
81
Stark Hon Fortncy H .........................................
84
Prepared statement ........ ...............................
Additional statements of:
85
Heckler, Hon. Margaret .......................................
-1
----------Jordan, Hon. Barbara ---.........................
Additional material:
"The Pardon of Nixon Was Timely, Legal, Jaworski Believes" article
147
from the Wall Street Journal .................................
U.S. Supreme Court in Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 883; U.S. Suprente
11
236
U.S.
79
...................
Court in Burdick v. United States,
Appendixes:
Appendix-l:
Buchen, Philip W., Counsel to the President, letter with enclosures, October 15, 1974, to Ifon. William L. Ifungate,
189
chairman Subcommittee on Criminal Justice -------------Hungate, I-Yon. William L chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice letter dated September 17, 1974, to Hon. Leon
160
Jaworsi ---------------------- .....................
Ford, Hon. Gerald R., President of the United States, letters to
Hon. William L. Hungate, chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice:
160
September 20, 1074 ....................................
187
September 23, 1974 ...................................
September 24, 1974 ..............................
.-188
September 30 1974 ----------------------Hungate, Hon. William L., chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, letters to President Gorald R. Ford:
159
September 17, 1074 ....................................
189
September 17, 1974 ----------------------------------160
September 18, 1974 ----------------------------------188
September 25 1974 ----------------------------- ....
188
------October 7, 1904 ----------------------Jaworski, Hon. Leon, Special Prosecutor, letter dated September 24, 1974, to Hon. William L. Hungate, chairman, Subcom187
mittee on Criminal Justice --------.--------------------Press conference of President Gerald R. Ford on September 16,
101
-----------------------------------------1974
Press conferences of Philip W. Buchen:
166
September 8, 1974 -----------------------------------178
September 10, 1974 ...................................
(l1I)
IV
Appendixes-Continued
Appendix 2:
Page
House Concurrent Resolution 629 ..........................
238
House Concurrent Resolution 630 ...........................
238
House Concurrent Resolution 632 ...........................
239
House Concurrent Resolution 633 ..........................
240
House Concurrent Resolution 636 ..........................
242
House Concurrent Resolution 043 ...........................
243
House Concurrent Resolution 644----------------------.
244
House Concurrent Rsolutioti 646...---------------------246
House Joint Resolution 1118 -------------------------21
House Joint Resolution 1121------------------ -- - 213
House Joint Resolution 1126 ------------------------------215
House Joint Resolution 1130------------..............-....
217
House Joint Resolution 1139 ------------------- ------ 219
House Joint Resolution 1142 ---------...................
.
221
House Joint Resolution 1149
----------------------.........
223
House Joint Resolution 1151 ------------.....................
225
House Jbint Resolution 1152 ................................
226
Rouse Joint Resolution 1155 ................................
228
House Joint Resolution 1157 ------------------------------230
House Joint Resolution 1159 ................................
232
House Joint Resolution 1168....................f............
234
H.R. 16619 ...................-............................
247
H.R. 16751 ---------------------------------------------248
H.R. 16756 ----------------------------------------------- 250
H.R. 16794 ------------------------------------..........
252
HR.16798 ---------------------------------------------- 254
H.R. 16816 ---------------- ---------------------------t
256
H.R. 16878 ---------------------------------------------- 259
House Resolution 1361 ------------------------------------ 191
House Resolution 1363 -----------------------------------193
House Resolution 1367 -------- --------------------------196
199
House Resolution 1368 -----------------------------------House Resolution 1370 ....................................
201
House Resolution 1375. ...................................
203
House Resolution 1382 .....................................
205
House Resolution 1385 -----------------------------------207
House Resolution 1450 .....................................
209
Appendix 3:
261
Federalist paper No. 74 ....................................
Annotated Constitution, excerpt .............................
262
"The Pardoning Power of the President" (ch. I) by W. H.
Humbert ...............................................
265
PARDON OF RICHARD M. NIXON, AND RELATED
MATTERS
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1974
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SuncoMKiTirE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William L. Hungate
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hungate, Kastenmeier, Edwards, Holtzman, Smith, Dennis, and Hogan.
Staff present: Robert J. Trainer, counsel; Stephen P. Lynch,
research assistant; and Michael W. Blommer, 'associate counsel.
Mr. HUNGATE. The subcommittee will be in order. We will resume
our hearings into various bills and resolutions relating to (1) the
pardon of former President Richand M. Nixon; (2) the issuance of
additional pardons to persons involved in Watergate related activities;
(A) the ability and appropriateness of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force to make public the information it has compiled relating to
the alleged criminal conduct of former President Richard M. Nixon:
and (4) the public disclosure of all Watergate related documents and
tapes which were in the custody of the United States between January 20,1969, and August 9,1974.
Primarily the hearing today will be addressed to the second, third,
and fourth points.
The Chair would announce that the President has indicated his
desire to appear before the subcommittee in response to the two privileged resolutions of inquiry at a time mutually convenient to the Chief
Executive and to the committee. I would say that I express the appreciation of the committee for the President's desire to take this action
personally. I think again, it's consistent with the frankness and openness he regularly displayed as a Member of the House.
The time of the meeting will be worked out after a meeting of the
subcommittee members in conjunction with the officials at the White
House. At this time, if there is no objection, I will insert into the
record a statement submitted to the subcommittee by our colleague,
Congresswoman Jordan.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Barbara Jordan follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA JORDAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR'S RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO THE PUBLI
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, as members of the House Committee on the Judiciary, we have weathered a storm which swept a President out
of office. When our Constitution was tested, we did not succumb, we did not for(61)
44-274---75-5
62
sake it, we did not abandon our oaths. The question before us today is whether
or not a President can resign knowing the injustices he committed while in office, will never be publicly scrutinized. I believe the American people have an
absolute right to know whether, during his tenure, a President acted legally or
illegally in executing his duties. No circumstance I can imagine should compromise that axiom; not resignation, not. death, not assassination, nothing.
When the House Judiciary Committee began reviewing the plethora of information assembled by its impeachment inquiry staff, it soon found It difficult to
withhold information from the public. Concerned with the rights of defendants,
and due process for the President, the Committee released all -the information in
its possession which would not degrade or defame. Through the summer months
the Committee released over 13,000 pages of information. The public had trouble
digesting it all.
Did the release of the information prejudice any trials? I think not. Did the
release of the information prejudice the President's case? Members of the
'resident's party fully supported the Committee's action. I would suggest the
Special Prosecutor follow the example of the House Judiciary Committee and
release the information at his disposal bearing upon the President's conduct in
office.
The Special Prosecutor has in his possession tapes, documents and other memoranda not scrutinized by the House Judiciary Committee. Of the tapes subpeonaed by the Committee, sixty-three were not supplied. The Special Prosecutor
secured possession of the tapes as the result of a Supreme Court decision to which
the Committee was not a party. These tapes and documents contain Information
concerning the President's involvement, and the alleged culpability of his former
aides, in covering up the Watergate break-in and its aftermath.
In addition, the Special Prosecutor has in his possession information gleaned
from his investigations of possible destruction of evidence, income tax evasion,
and appropriation of campaign funds for his own personal use. While these investigations had not been completed prior to the time President Ford pardoned
former President Nixon, the investigation into the possible involvement of other
individuals is continuing.
To a certain extent, release of some or all of the Information in the Special
Prosecutor's possession is a matter of timing. Some may emerge during the upcoming trials. Some may be released with the handing down of new Indictments.
During the normal workings of the Judicial process, some of this Information will
emerge. But we must go beyond that. We must provide a means whereby the
American people, within the limits of due process, can be privy to the actions their
President implemented while in office.
None of the bills before the Subcommittee require the Special Prosecutor to
divulge information which would Jeopardize the rights of defendants or compromise the government's case. We should not consider for a moment, trading
rights of due process for the public's right to know. And yet I cannot help but
believe that between the two, lies a vast middle ground.
The information in the Special Prosecutor's possession can be classified into
two categories: inculpatory and exculpatory. Within our normal Judicial processes, government prosecutors divulge that information which is inculpatorythat information which will prove their case. Prosecutors are not generally
required to defend their belief, as a result of -their investigation, there is no substantiating evidence to believe, with probable cause, a crime has been cQmmitted.
Prosecutors are not required to defend negative findings. Should the Special Prosecutor be required, by legislation, to divulge information which he believes does
not inculpate the former President in any criminal act?
Because the question of probable cause is open to judgment, U.S. Attorneys are
normally given wide latitude to decide whether to bring an indictment, Assume,
for example, the Special Prosecutor thought the information available to him
did not substantiate an allegation that the President willfully and knowingly
submitted false tax returns. Should the Special Prosecutor be required, nevertheless, to support his judgment after having been required to divulge the Information upon which he based his opinion? I know this Subcommittee will consider this issue carefully before reporting a bill to the full Committee.
Mr. HUNGATE. At this time I would also include Chapter I of The
PardoningPower of the Pre8ident by W. H. Humbert. This work has
been most helpful to the Subcommittee and its staff in their preparation for these hearings. (See p. 265 for Chapter I.) Mr. Smith