presidential historian, as always, thank you for being with us on american history tv. >> my pleasure. >> next, president ford's two-hour testimony before the criminal justice subcommittee on house judiciary on his pardon of president richard nixon. >> the subcommittee welcomes the president of the united states, gerald r. ford. we appreciate your willingness voluntarily to appear to respond to the questions posed in two privileged resolutions of inquiry.

and to accept inquiries from the subcommittee as it carries out the responsibilities assigned it by the house of representatives. this is perhaps the first documented appearance of a president of the united states before a committee or subcommittee of the united states congress. now, the chair understands, mr. president, that you have a commitment at noon and that the house convenes at 11:30 a.m. today. with these constraints of time in mind, we shall proceed as quickly as possible to accomplish as much as we can in the available time. the questioning will be done by subcommittee members only and under the five-minute rule. president ford's appearance demonstrates his commitment to be open and candid with the american people. it is absolutely vital for the restoration of the public's trust in their governing institutions and elected

officials that frankness be the hallmark of this and future administrations. the newspaper in paris wrote "no european republic invests its president with the right of pardon as sweeping and irrevokeable as that with president ford exercised in favor of richard nixon. in a sense, it takes over from executive privilege by which the former president took refuge of so long to prevent congress and the courts from investigating his conduct." since september 8 when the president issued a free pardon to former president nixon for all crimes he committed as president of the united states, several questions have been raised relating to the circumstances and surrounding the pardon and whether, as a result of the pardon, and subsequent agreements, entered into by the former president and officials of the executive branch, whether the full and complete story of watergate and related activities will ever be

known. in an attempt to resolve these questions, more than 70 members of the house of representatives, republicans and democrats alike, has sponsored bills and resolutions seeking to uncover the full story of the pardon. these bills are currently pending before the subcommittee. included among the 23 bills and resolutions pending are the two privileged resolutions of inquiry considered today. one house resolution 1367 and the second, house resolution 1370. the rules of the house of representatives require prompt committee action on privileged resolutions of inquiry. copies of the resolutions were forwarded to the president requesting a response and the president offered to appear here as he voluntary does today.

-- voluntarily does today. the task we undertake is made easier when the personal -- by the personal friendship and common background we share in the congress. but to faithfully perform our respective tasks, we must insofar as to believe lay aside -- we must insofar as possible lay aside personal relationships and consideration. we are not here because of friendship, but because the responsibility our governmental system of checks and balances and separation of powers places upon us, to seek and reveal the truth to the american people about the working of their government, by cooperation, if possible by confrontation when necessary. i hope the american people, as well as the congress, appreciate the importance of president ford's appearance, as well as the need to do all we can to resolve the questions relating to the pardon of former president nixon. i am convinced the issue will not be behind us until that record is complete. the chair recognizing the chairperson from new jersey.

>> mr. president, as chairman of the committee on the judiciary, i want to welcome you here. not only as the chief executive of this great country, but as a friend and one who served with all of us for so many years. this historic occasion and your voluntary appearance here only demonstrates once more the great institution that we are both proud to be part of and i know that your efforts in coming before this committee voluntarily will assist this subcommittee and this committee on the judiciary in meeting its important responsibilities. with that, mr. president, i'm going to relinquish the responsibility to the chairman of this subcommittee and to the members of the subcommittee who will direct inquiries to you. thank you for coming here.

>> the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. hutchinson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. president, the chairman of the judiciary committee and i, as ranking minority member, are exificio members of this subcommittee. but we appear this morning only in that capacity. sitting at the foot of our subcommittee on our respective sides rather than in our familiar places at its head. in this arrangement, mr. rodino does not displace the chairman of the subcommittee, nor do i place mr. smith of new york as ranking minority of that subcommittee. chairman rodino and i agreed we would not participate in questioning our distinguished visitor this morning, leaving that function to the members of the subcommittee regularly appointed. our participation will be limited to our opening statements. other members of the judiciary committee who are not members of

this subcommittee, some of whom are present here today, will not participate at all. but are interested in the event in the fact that -- in the event that the matter under discussion reaches the full committee. the subcommittee has before it a couple of resolutions of inquiry which were introduced in the house of representatives, referred by the speaker to the judiciary committee, and chairman rodino designated this subcommittee to consider them. by a resolution of inquiry, the house of representatives requests the president or directing the head of one of the departments of government to furnish certain factual information presumably to assist the house in its legislative function. since the pardon power is not

subject to legislative control, i suppose that a question can be raised as to whether a resolution of inquiry might legitimately lie on this question, since the question itself cannot be resolved in the -- by the legislative branch. in any event, the mere introduction of a resolution does not impose a duty upon the executive to respond. neither does committee consideration. indeed, a resolution would be expected only if the house of representatives itself adopted such a resolution, and even then written communication transmitting the factual information called for would ordinarily be sufficient. the personal appearance of the president of the united states before this subcommittee does not humble his high office nor does it violate the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. it is essential if our

government is to operate that the executive and the legislature work together. your meeting with this subcommittee, mr. president here on capitol hill is symbolic of that working together in the national interest. but you do not come, mr. president, in response to any command of the subcommittee, nor even in response to its request. for it made no demand upon you or even a request for your presence. your appearance is entirely voluntary on your part. your americanal appearance here -- your personal appearance here today must not be construed to mean that you will personally appear before this or any other committee of congress in the future and presidents of the united states in the future will be expected to respond to resolutions of inquiry in the future as they have in the past, by written communication. but mr. president,ky not -- i cannot adequately express to you my personal feelings of warm friendship and welcome and

my sense of the high honor that you do this subcommittee, the full judiciary committee and the house of representatives in meeting with us here today. thank you, mr. president. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. president, i too join in welcoming you here and your voluntary appearance before this subcommittee and the house committee on the judiciary. you have come to answer questions in regard to your pardon of richard nixon on september 8, 1974. these questions have been pro-pounded by certain members of congress and generally speaking, the members of congress and the people of the united states of america have a right to know the answers as far as this may be possible. your appearance here has been voluntary and on your own motion and i commend you for take thing -- taking this initiative. i do not think it establishes any precedent, but on the other

hand it is an example of a splendid cooperation between the executive and legislative branches of our government. which i trust may be followed many times in the future by those who may come after you as president of the united states of america, the world's toughest job. mr. president, i have known you for almost 10 years and in that time i have found you to be a man of frankness and candor, a man in whose word one can trust, a man of the jut most integrity. -- the utmost integrity. it is in the spirit i know you'll answer the questions that have been raised about your pardon of mr. nixon and in this spirit that i know this committee will receive your answers and will interrogate you. thank you. >> mr. president, you have an opening statement? without objection, it will be made part of the record and you may proceed as you see fit. we welcome you here today. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and members of the subcommittee. we meet here today to review the

facts and the circumstances that were the basis for my pardon of former president nixon on september 8, 1974. i want very much to have those facts and those circumstances known. the american people want to know them. and members of congress also want to know them. the two congressional resolutions of inquiry now before this subcommittee serve these purposes. that's why i have volunteered to appear before you this morning and i welcome and thank you for this opportunity to speak to the questions raised which the resolutions. -- raised by the resolutions. my appearance at this hearing of your distinguished subcommittee of the house committee on judiciary has been looked upon as an unusual historic event, one that has no firm precedent in the whole history of presidential relations with the congress.

yet i am here not to make history, but to report history. the history you are interested in covers so recent a period that it is not well understood. if i can make for better understanding of the pardon of former president nixon, then we can help to achieve the purpose i had for granting the pardon when i did. the purpose was to change our national focus. i wanted to do all i could to shift our attentions from the pursuit of a fallen president to the pursuit of the urgent needs of a rising nation. our nation is under the severest of challenges now to employ its full energy and efforts in the pursuit of a sound and growing economy at home, and a stable and peaceful world around us.

we would needlessly be diverted from meeting those challenges if we as a people were to remain sharply divided over whether to indict, bring to trial, and punish a former president who is already condemned to suffer long and deeply in the shame and disgrace brought upon the office that he held. surely we are not a revengeful people. we have often demonstrated a readiness to feel compassion and to act out of mercy. as a people, we have a long record of forgiving even those who have been our country's most destructive foes. yet to forgive is not to forget the lessons of evil. and in whatever ways evil has operated against us. and certainly the pardon granted the former president will not cause us to forget the evils of

the watergate type offenses or to forget the lessons we have learned that a government which deceives its supporters and treats its opponents as enemies must never, never be tolerated. the pardon power entrusted to the president under the constitution of the united states has a long history and rests on precedence going back centuries before our constitution was drafted and adopted. the power has been used sometimes as alexander hamilton saw its purposes. in seasons of ensue reck shun, -- insurrection when a , well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquilty of the commonwealth. in which, if served to pass unapproved, it may never be the last unimproved, possible

afterwards to recall. other times it has been applied to one person as an act of grace, which exemplets the exempts the individual on whom it was bestrowed, from the punishment the law inflights for a crime he has committed. when a pardon is granted, it also represents the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed. however, the constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders. thus, i am firm in my conviction that as president i did have the authority who proclaim a pardon for the former president when i did. yet i can also understand why people are moved to question my action. some may still question my authority.

but i find much of the disagreement turns on whether i should have acted when i did. even then many people have concluded, as i did, that the pardon was in the best interest of the country. because it came at a time when it would be -- it would best serve the purpose i have stated. i came to this hearing, mr. chairman, in the spirit of cooperation, to respond to your inquiries. i do so with the understanding that the subjects to be covered are defined and limited by the questions as they appear in the resolution before you. but even then, we may not mutually agree on what information falls within the proper scope of inquiry by the congress. i feel a responsibility, as you do, that each separate branch of our government must preserve a degree of confidentiality for its internal communications.

congress, for its part, has seen the wisdom of assuring that members be permitted to work under conditions of confidentiality. indeed, earlier this year, the united states senate passed a resolution which reads in part as follows -- "no evidence under the control and in the possession of the senate of the united states can, by the mandate of process of the ordinary courts of justice, be taken from such control or possession but by its permission." in the united states versus nixon, the supreme court unanimously recognized a rightful sphere of confidentiality within the executive branch of the government. which the court determined could only be invaded for overriding reasons of the 5th and 6th amendments to the constitution.

as i have stated before, mr. chairman, my own view is that the right of executive privilege is to be exercised with caution and with restraint. and i was a member of congress, i did not hesitate to question the right of the executive branch to claim a privilege against supplying information to the congress, even if i thought the claim of privilege was being abused. yet i did then and i do now respect the right of executive privilege when it protects advice given to a president in the expectation that it will not be disclosed. otherwise, mr. chairman, no president could any longer count on receiving free and frank views from the people designated to help him reach his official

decisions. also, it is certainly not my intention or even within my authority to detract on this occasion or in any other instance from the generally recognized rights of the president to preserve the confidentiality of internal discussions or communication, whenever it is properly within his constitutional responsibility to do so. these rights are within the authority of any president while he is in office. and i believe maybe exercised as well by a past president. if the information sought pertains to his official functions when he was serving in office. i bring up, mr. chairman, these important points before going into the balance of my statement so that there can be no doubt that i remain mindful of the rights of confidentiality, which a president may and ought to exercise in appropriate

circumstances. however, i do not regard my answers as i have prepared them for purposes of this inquiry to be prejudicial to those rights in the present circumstances or to constitute a precedent for responding to congressional inquiries different in nature or scope or under different circumstances. accordingly, mr. chairman, i shall proceed to explain as fully as i can in my present answers the facts and the circumstances covered by the resolutions of inquiry. i shall start with an explanation of these events which were the first to occur in the period covered by the inquiry before i became president. then i will respond to the separate questions as they are numbered in house resolution 1367 and as they specifically relate to the period after i became president.

house resolution 1367, before this subcommittee, asked for information about certain conversations that may have occurred over a period that includes when i was a member of congress or the vice president. in that entire period, no references or discussions on a possible pardon for then president nixon occurred until august 1 and 2, 1974. you will recall, mr. chairman, that since the beginning of the watergate investigations i had consistently made statements and speeches. about president nixon's innocence, of either planning the break-in or participating in the coverup. i sincerely believe he was innocent.

even in the closing months before the president resigned, i made public statements that in my opinion, the adverse revelations so far did not constitute an impeachable offense. i was coming under increasing criticism for such public statements, but i still believe ed them to be true based on the facts as i knew them. in the early morning of thursday, august 1, 1974, i had a meeting in my vice-presidential office with alexander m. haig, junior, chief of stt for president nixon. i was told in a general way at this meeting about fears arising because of additional tape evidence scheduled for delivery to judge sericka on monday, august 5, 1974.

i was told that there could be evidence which, when disclosed to the house of representatives, how would likely tip the vote in favor of impeachment. however, i was given no indication that this development would lead to any change in president information's plans to impose the impeachment vote. then shortly after noon, general haig requested another important as promptly as possible. --another appointment as promptly as possible. he came to my office about 3:30 p.m. for a meeting that was to last for approximately three quarters of an hour. only then did i learn of the damaging nature of a conversation on june 23, 1972, in one of the tapes which was due to go to judge sericka the

following monday. i described this meeting, mr. chairman, because at one point it did include possible references to a possible pardon for mr. nixon. to which the third and fourth questions in the resolution are directed. however, near the entire meeting covered other subjects all dealing with the totally new situation resulting from the critical evidence on the tape of june 23, 1972. general haig told me he willed -- he had been told of the new and damaging evidence by lawers on the white house staff who had firsthand knowledge of what was on the tape. the substance of this conversation was that the new disclosure would be devastating, even catastrophic insofar as president nixon was concerned.

based on what he had learned of the conversation on the tape, he wanted to know whether i was prepared to assume the presidency within a very short period of time. and whether i would be willing to make recommendations to the president as to what course he should now follow. i cannot really express adequately in words how shocked and how stunned i was by this unbelievable revelation. first was the sudden awareness that i was likely to welcome president under the most troubled circumstances. and secondly, the realization that these new revelations or disclosures ran completely counter to the position that i had taken for months in that i believed the president was not guilty of any impeachable offense.

general haig, in his conversation at any office, went on to tell me about discussions in the white house among those who knew. general haig asked for my assessment of the situation. he wanted my thoughts about the timing of the resignation. , if that decision were to be and, and about how to do it accomplish an orderly change of the administration. we discussed what scheduling problems there might be and what the early organizational problems would be. haig outlined for me the situation as he sought and

the different courses of action that might be available and which were being advanced by various people around him on the white house staff. as i recall, there were different courses being considered. number one, some suggested writing it out -- riding it out letting the impeachment take its course, fighting all the way against the conviction. urginghers were resignation sooner or later. i was told some people backed the first course and other people a resignation. but not with the same views as to how and when it should take place. on the resignation issue, there were put forth a number of options which general haig reviewed with me. as i recall his conversation, various possible options being considered included -- one, the president temporarily step aside under the 25th amendment. number two, delaying the

resignation until further along the impeachment process. number three, trying first to settle for a censure vote as a means of avoiding either impeachment or a need to resign. four, the question of whether the president could pardon himself. five, pardonning various watergate defendants, then himself followed by resignation. a pardon to the president should he resign. the rush of events placed an urgency on what was to be done. it became even more critical in view of a prolonged impeachment trial, which was expected to last possibly four months or longer. the impact of the senate trial on the country, the handling of possible international crises,

the economic situation here at home, and the marked slowdown in the decision-making process within the federal government where all -- were all factors to be considered and were discussed. general haig wanted my views on the various courses of action as well as my attitude on the options of resignation. however, he indicated he was not advocating any of the options. i inquired as to what was the president's pardon power and he answered that it was his understanding from a white house lawyer that a president did have the authority to grant a pardon, even before any criminal action had been taken against an individual. but obviously he was in no position to have any opinion on a matter of law. as i saw it at this point, the question was under the

circumstances, what course of action should i recommend that would be in the best interests of the country? i told general haig that i had to have some time to think. further, that i wanted to talk to james st. claire. i also said i wanted to talk to my wife before giving any response. i had consistently and firmly held the view previously that in no way whatsoever could i recommend either publicly or privately any step by the president that might cause a change in my status as vice president. as the person who would become president if a vacancy occurred for any reason in that office, a vice president i believe should endeavor not to do or say anything which might affect his president's tenure in office. therefore, i certainly was not

even ready under these new circumstances to make any recommendations about resignation, without having adequate time to consider further what i should properly do. shortly after 8:00 the next morning, james st. claire came to my office. although he did not spell in details the new evidence, there was no question in my mind that he considered these revelations to be so damaging that impeachment in the house was a certainty and conviction in the senate a high probability. when i asked mr. st. claire if he knew of hi other new and damaging evidence besides that on june 23, 1972 tape, he said no. when i pointed out to him the various options mentioned to me by general haig, he told me he

had not been the source of any opinion about presidential pardon power. afterthought on the matter, i was determined not to make any recommendations to president nixon on his resignation. i had not given any advice or recommendations in my conversations with his aides. but i also did not want anyone who might talk to the president to suggest that i had some intention to do so. for that reason, mr. chairman, i decided i should call general haig the afternoon of august 2. i did make the calculate that afternoon and told him i wanted him to understand that i had no late thatake the call afternoon and told them i wanted him to understand that i had no

intention of recommending what president nixon should do about resigning or not resigning. and that nothing we had talked about the previous afternoon should be given any consideration in whatever decision the president might make. general haig told me he was in full agreement with this position. my travel schedule called for me to take appearances in mississippi and louisiana over saturday, sunday, and part of monday, august 3, 4, and 5. in the previous eight months i had repeatedly stated my opinion, that the president could not be found guilty of any impeachable offense. any change from my stated views or even refusal to comment further, i fear it would have led to the press that they lead to conclusions that the president resign.

-- that i wanted to see the president resign to avoid an impeachment vote in the house and problem conviction in the senate. for that reason, i remained firm in my answers to press questions during that trip and repeated my belief in the president's innocence of an impeachable offense. not until i returned to washington did i learn that president nixon was to release the new evidence late on monday, august 5, 1974. at about the same time, i was notified that the president had called a cabinet meeting for tuesday morning, august 6, 1974. at that meeting in the cabinet room, i announced that i was making no recommendations to the president as to what he should do in light of the new evidence. i made no recommendations to him either at that meeting or at any time after that.

in summary, mr. chairman, i assure you there was never any agreement concerning a pardon to mr. nixon if he were to resign and i were to become president. mr. chairman, turning now to house resolution 1367. the first question of house resolution 1367 asks whether i or my representative had specific knowledge of any formal criminal charges pending against richard m. nixon. the answer is no. i had known, of course, mr. chairman, that the grand jury investigating the watergate break-in and coverup had wanted to name president nixon has an unindieted co-conspirator in the cover up. also, i knew that an expensive report had been prepared by the

-- i knew that an extensive report had been prepared by the special prosecution force for the grand jury and had been sent to the house committee on judiciary where i believe it served the staff and the members of the committee in the development of its report on the proposed articles of impeachment. beyond what was disclosed in the publications of the judiciary committee on the subject, and additional evidence released by president nixon on august 5, 1974, i saw on or shortly after september 4 a copy of a memorandum prepared for special prosecutor jarwarski and hen rue rue. -- by the deputy special prosecutor. a copy of this memo has been turn ired by mr. jarwarski to my council and was later made public during a press briefing at the white house on september 10, 1974.

i have supplied the subcommittee with a copy of this memorandum. the memorandum lists matters still under investigation, which, and i quote "may prove to have some direct connection with activities in which mr. nixon is personally involved." the watergate coverup is not included in this list, and the alleged coverup is mentioned only as being the subject of a separate memorandum, not furnished to me. of those matters which are listed in the memorandum, it is stated that none of them at the moment arises to the level of our ability to prove even a problem criminal violation by mr. nixon. this is always the information i -- this is all the information i

had which related even to the possibility of formal criminal charges involving the former president while he had been in office. the second question in the resolution asks whether alexander haig referred to or discussed a pardon with richard nixon or his representatives at any time during the week of august 4, 1974. or any subsequent time. my answer to that question is, not to my knowledge. if any such discussions did occur, they could not have been a factor in my decision to grant the pardon when i did, because i was not aware of them. question three and four of house resolution 1367 deal with the first and all subsequent references to or discussions of a pardon for richard m. nixon with him or any of his representatives or aides.

i have already described at length what discussions took place on august 1 and the 2, 1974, and how these discussions brought no recommendations or commitments whatsoever on my part. these were the only discussions related to questions three and four before i became president. but question four relates also to subsequent discussions. at no time after i became president on august 9, 1974, was the subject of a pardon for richard m. nixon raised by the former president or by anyone representing him. also, no one on my staff brought up the subject until the day before my first press conference on august 28, 1974. at that time, i was advised that questions on the subject might

be raised by media reporters at the press conference. as the press conference proceeded, the first question asked involved a subject as did other later questions. in my answers to those questions, i took a position that while i was the final authority on this matter, i expected to make no commitment one way or the other, depending on what the special prosecutor and courts would do. however, i also stated that i believe the general view of the american people was to spare the former president from a criminal trial. shortly afterwards, i became greatly concerned that if mr.

nixon's prosecution and trial were pro-lightninged, the passions generated -- prolonged, the passions generated would seriously disrupt the healing of our country from the wounds of the past. i concede that the new -- i could see that the new administration could not be effective if it had to operate in the atmosphere of having a former president under prosecution and criminal trial. each step along the way i was deeply concerned would become a public spectacle and the topic of wide public debate and controversy. as i have before stated publicly, these concerns led me to ask from my own legal counsel what my full right of pardon was under the constitution in this situation. and from the special prosecutor,

who criminal actions, if any, were likely to be brought against the former president? how long his prosecution and trial would take. as soon as i had been given this information, mr. chairman, i authorized my counsel, phillip buken, to tell herbert j. miller as attorney for richard nixon of my pending decision to grant a pardon for the former president. i was advised that the closure was made on september 4, 1974 when mr. buken, accompanied by benton becker, met with mr. miller. mr. becker had been asked, with mike in turn, to take on a temporary assignment to assist mr. buken, at a time when no one else of my selection had yet been appointed to the legal staff of the white house.

the fourth question, mr. chairman, in the resolution, also asks about negotiations with mr. nixon or his representatives on the subject of a pardon for the former president. the pardon under consideration was not so far as i was concerned a matter of negotiation. i realize that unless mr. nixon accepted the pardon, i was prying to grab it and it probably would not be effective. -- accepted the pardon i was preparing to grant, it probably would not be effective. so i certainly had no intention to proceed without knowing if it would be accepted. otherwise, i put no conditions on my granting of a pardon which required any negotiations. although negotiations had been started earlier and were conducted through september 6 concerning white house records of the prior administration, i did not make any agreement on

that subject, a condition of the pardon. the circumstances leading to an official agreement on presidential record are not covered by the resolutions before this subcommittee. therefore, i have mentioned discussions on that subject with mr. nixon's attorney only to show that they were related in time to the pardon discussion, but were not a basis for my decision to grant a pardon to the former president. the fifth, sixth, and seventh questions of house resolution 1367 ask whether i consulted with certain persons before making my pardon decision. i did not consult at all with attorney general saxby on the subject of a pardon for mr. nixon. my only conversation on the subject with vice president

natural nominee nelson -- vice presidential nominee nelson rockefeller was to report to him on september 6, 1974, that i was planning to grant the pardon. special prosecutor jarwarski was conducted on my instructions by -- contacted on my instructions by my counsel, phillip buken. one purpose of their discussion was to seek the information i wanted on what possible criminal charges might be brought against mr. nixon. the result of that inquiry was a copy of the memorandum that i have already referred to and have furnished to this subcommittee. the only other purpose was to find out the opinion of the special prosecutor as to how long a delay would follow. in the event of mr. nixon's indictment before a trial would be started and concluded.

at a white house press briefing on september 8, 1974, the principled portions of mr. jarwarski's opinion were made public. and this opinion, mr. jarwarski wrote selection of a jury for the trial of the former president, if he were indicts, ed, would require a delay "of a period of nine months to a year and perhaps even longer." on the question of how long it would take to conduct such a trial, he noted that the complexities of the jury selection made it difficult to estimate the time. a copy of the full text of his opinion dated december 4, 1974, i have now furnished to this subcommittee. i did consult with my counsel, phillip buken, benton becker and

john marsh, who is also an attorney. outside of these men serving at the time on my immediate staff, i consulted with no other attorneys or professors of law for facts or legal authorities bearing on my decision to grant a pardon to the former president. questions eight and nine of how resolution 1367 deal with the circumstances of any statement requested or received from mr. nixon. i ask for no confession or statement of guilt, only a statement in acceptance of the pardon when it was granted. no language was suggested or requested by anyone acting for me to my knowledge. my counsel advised me that he had told the attorney for mr. nixon that he believes the

statement should be one expressing contrition and in this respect, i was told mr. miller concurred. before i announce the pardon, i saw a preliminary draft of a proposed statement for mr. nixon. but i did not regard the language of these statements as subsequently issued to be stunt -- to be subject to approval by me or my representatives. the 10th question, mr. chairman, covers any report to my on mr. health by a physician or psychiatrist by led to my -- that led to my pardon decision. i received no such report. whatever information was generally known to me at the time of my pardon decision was based on my own observations of his condition at the time he

resigned as president. and observations reported to me, after that from others who had later seen or talked with him. no such reports were by people qualified to evaluate medically the condition of mr. nixon's health. so they were not a controlling so they were not a controlling factor, in my decision. however, i believe and still believe that prosecution and trial of the former president would have proved a serious threat to his health. as i stated in my message on september 8, 1974. house resolution 1370 is the other resolution of inquiry before this subcommittee. it presents no questions but asks for the full and complete facts upon which was based my decision to grant a pardon to richard m. nixon. i know of no such facts that are not covered by my answer to the question in house resolution 1367, also, subparagraphs one and four, there were no

representations made by my or for me and none by mr. nixon or for him on which my pardon decision was based. subpair gaffe two, the health issue is dealt with by me in answer to questions 10 of the previous resolution. subparagraph three. information available to me about possible offenses in which mr. nixon might have been involved is covered in my answer to the first questions of the earlier resolution. in addition, in an unnumbered pair photograph at the end of

house resolution 13070, seeks information on possible pardons for watergate-related onchtses which others may have committed. i have decided that all persons requesting consideration of hardened requests should submet them through the department of justice. only when i receive information dualy filed and concerned by the pardon of attorney and justice department would i consider the matter. as yet, no such information has been received. and if it does, i will act or decline to act according to the particular circumstances presented, and not on the basis of the unique circumstances as i saw them of former president

nixon. mr. chairman, by these responses to the resolutions of inquiry, i believe i have fully and fairly presented the facts and the circumstances preceding my pardon of former president nixon. in this way, i hope i have contributed to a much better understanding by the american people and the action i took to grant the pardon when i did. for having afforded me this opportunity, i do express my appreciate to you, mr. chairman, and to mr. smith, the other members of the subcommittee and also to chairman rodino, mr. hutchinson the ranking minority member, and to other distinguished members of the full committee who are present. in closing, mr. chairman, i would like to re-emphasize that i acted solely for the reasons i

stated in my proclamation of september 8, 1974. and my accompanying message and that i acted out of my concern to serve the best interest of my county. as i saided then, mr. chairman, and i quote, "my concern is the immediate future of this great country." my conscious tells me it is my duty, not merely to claim it, but to use every means that i have to ensure it." mr. chairman, i thank you and the committee members for the opportunity to make your questions. >> mr. president, we express our appreciate for your aseerns here and bringing facts that will help the american people and the congress. and some will find the answers satisfactory and others who will not. but i would hope that all your appreciate to come before the

american congress pause it another hears. the gentleman from congress? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would also like to join my colleagues in welcoming the president. i don't believe any of us could have anticipated a year ago when the president appeared as a nominee under the 25th amendment . and i would comment no matter how well motivated to put watergate behind us, i can only acknowledge today that several key issues in the news this morning. the president's appearance before this committee, the trial, downtown, the watergate trial itself and even

denomination of mr. rockefeller to be the vice president. occasioned by a vacancy due to watergate. all of these still command the attention of the american people, and i guess we'll have to just be patient. >> mr. president, you indicated that you wanted to spare mr. nixon a criminal trial. did you specifically have any other end in view in terms of protecting mr. nixon in terms of a pardon? that is to say, whatever a pardon would spare the president, other than the criminal trial, were there any other adversities which a pardon would not help mr. nixon with as you saw it? >> as i indicated in the problem la nation i issued and in the statement i made at the time on september 8 rblingts my prime reason was for the benefit of the country, not for any benefits that might be for mr. nixon.

i exercised my pardon authority under the constitution, which relates only to those criminal matters during the period from january 29, 1969, until august 9, 1974. >> i appreciate that, mr. president. but it must have been something you foresaw, which could happen to mr. nixon which justified a pardon. if in fact you were advised, and perhaps you were not, that there is no proceeding going to be commenced against mr. nixon, really a pardon may have been an empty gesture in that event. >> as i indicated, after the

press press conference on august 28, where three questions were raised about the pardon, or the possibility of pardon, i asked my counsel to find out from the special prosecutor what if any charges were being considered by the special prosecutors' office. and as i indicated in my prepared statement, i received from mr. jew wordsky certain information indicating that there were possible or potential criminal proceedings against mr. nixon. >> but you did not determine as a matter of fact that there was any intention to proindict with any of those matters, is that correct? >> in the memorandum i believe of september 4th from mr.

jaworski prepared by mr. root, there was 10 possibilities listed. on the other hand, there was i think well known information that there was a distinct possibility of mr. nixon being indicted on the grounds of obstructing justice. >> the effect of the pardon in terms of the 10 possible areas of investigation as you saw it at the time was to terminate those investigations as well as end any possibility of indictment on those grounds? >> well, the power of pardon does cover any criminal actions during a stipulated period. and as the pardon itself indicated, it went from the day that mr. nixon first took the

oath of office until he actually resigned on august 9. >> my question is did you have reason to believe that other than the 10 areas of investigation and the cover-up that the former president might need to be protected in any other area where a possibility of criminal -- >> i knew of no other -- of any other potential or possible criminal charges, no. >> my time has expired, mr. chairman. >> gentleman from new york, mr. smith.

>> mr. president, and in regard to your answer on page 18 of your statement of whether you consulted with certain persons and that connection -- and in connection with question number six of h.r. 1367, you stated in regard to the vice presidential nominee nelson rockefeller that your only conversation on the subject with him was to report to him on september 6, 1974, when i was planning to grant the pardon. now, the question asks whether he gave you any facts or legal authorities and my question is did he do so? >> nelson rockefeller did not give me any facts or legal authorities. he was in my office to discuss with me the proceedings concerning his nomination. and at the conclusion of a

discussion on that matter, i felt that i should inform him of the possible or prospective action that i would be taking. but he gave me no facts, he gave me no legal advice concerning the pardon. >> mr. president, as you are minority leader of the congress, before you became vice president of the united states, did you at any time discuss the wisdom or advisability of a possible presidential pardon for president nixon with president nixon or any of his representatives or any member of the white house staff? that's within the period before you became vice president. >> the answer is cat gorily no. before i became vice president, mr. smith, i on several occasions i can't recall how many, indicated to president

nixon himself that i thought he should not resign. if my memory is accurate, mr. smith, before i became vice president, there were individuals both in the congress and otherwise who were advocating that mr. nixon resign. i do recall on one or more occasions telling mr. nixon in my judgment, he should not because i thought that would be an admission of guilt and on the information that i had at that time, i did not believe mr. nixon was guilty of any impeachable offense. >> thank you, mr. president. you touched upon your observations of president nixon's health and i wonder whether at any time before you became vice president of the united states that you -- did you learn any facts about his

physical or mental health which later became relevant to your decision to pardon mr. nixon? >> well, before i was vice president, i saw mr. nixon periodically coming to the white house for leadership meetings or for other reasons, and during that period, i had the distinct impression that his health was good. and i didn't see any discernible change in my own opinion until the last day or two of his presidency. and i did notice the last time i saw him in the oval office on august 9, i thought he was drawn and possibly a little thinner.

but that's the only observation i made. >> thank you. >> gentleman from california, mr. edwards. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. president, on pages 10 and 11 of your statement, you indicate that there were some general discussions with general haig and mr. saint claire before the resignation about the pardon power in general. did they have any reason to carry a message to then-president nixon that this pardon power could possibly be used on his behalf if he resigns? >> none whatsoever. categorically no. >> then why, mr. president, why were the general discussions about pardons? >> as i indicated in my prepared statement, general haig came to me first to apprise me of the dramatic change in the situation. and as i indicated in the

prepared statement, told me that i should be prepared to assume the presidency very quickly and wanted to know whether i was ready to do that. secondly, he did indicate that in the white house, among the president's advisors, there were many options being discussed as to what course of action the president should take. and in the course of my discussion on august 1 with -- with general haig, he outlined as i did in the prepared text the many options that were being discussed. he asked for any recommendations i would make, and as i indicated in the prepared text, i made none. >> thank you. mr. president, mr. buicken said several times and i believe you have mentioned that the pardon did involve a certain aspect of mercy.

would not the same considerations of mercy apply to the watergate defendants downtown who now are putting forth as their chief defense their allegation that they were merely acting under orders of mr. nixon -- then president -- and their boss? >> mr. edwards, in light of the fact that these trials are being carried out at the present time, i think it's inadvisable for me to comment on any of the proceedings in those trials. >> mr. president, put yourself in the position of the high school teacher shall we say in watts or the burr owes of san jose or harlem, and if you were such a teacher, how would you explain to the young people of american, the american concept of equal justice under law? >> mr. edwards, mr. nixon was the 37th president of the united states.

he had been preceded by 36 others. he is the only president in the history of this country who has resigned under shame and disgrace. i think that that in and of itself can be understood, can be explained to the students or to others. that was a major, major step and a matter of i'm sure grave, grave deliberations by the former president and it certainly as i have said several times constituted shame and disgrace. >> thank you, mr. president. mr. president, do you think that it is wise to pardon a man or -- before indictment or trial for

offenses that are completely unknown to you and which might possibly be terribly serious? >> well, as i indicated, mr. edwards, i did to the best of my ability check with probably the best authority in the country on what, if any, charges would be made against mr. nixon. those were or potentially were serious charges. i think that in taking the action i did concerning those charges, i was exercising in a proper way the pardon authority given a president under the constitution. >> thank you, mr. president. >> gentleman from indiana, mr. dennis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. president, i would like to state that i too share with my colleagues a deep appreciation for your appearance here before our subcommittee this morning. mr. president, on page seven of

your statement where you were talking about your first -- or your sect interview with general haig in the afternoon of august 1, you state that i described this meeting because at one point it did include references to a possible pardon for mr. nixon. i take it that you have spelled out what those references were over on pages nine, where the options are spelled out on page 10 where you state that you inquired as to what was the president's pardon power. >> yes. it is spelled out in the item instances one through six. the various options involving a pardon. >> and does that include

everything that was said at that time on the subject of pardons substantially? >> yes, sir. >> mr. president, i note that on page 10 you state that you asked the general as to what the president's pardon power was and he very properly replied that he had certain information but couldn't give legal opinion. when, where and from whom did you ultimately obtain the opinion that you were entitled under the doctrine of exparty garland and so on to issue a pardon when there had been no charge or no conviction? >> when i came back to the oval office, mr. dennis, following a press conference on august 28 where three questions were raised by the news media involving a pardon. i instructed my counsel, mr. buken, to check in a -- in an

authoritative way what pardon power a president had. and he several days later -- i don't recall precisely -- came back and briefed me on my pardon power as president of the united states. >> mr. president, the exercise of executive clemency is of course a well-recognized part of the legal system in this country. exercised by you and all your predecessors. is that not correct? >> that is correct, sir. >> and that you have given this committee as i understand your testimony this morning your complete statement as to your

reasons for exercising that power in this particular case. >> i have, sir. >> and in answer to my friend, mr. edwards, you have stated the fact that you felt that for an ex-president of the united states to resign under these circumstances was sufficient strong punishment and that that should answer the problems of those who have raised the question of equal justice under the law? >> that is correct, sir. >> and that you would consider other possible pardons on the facts of those particular cases if and when they were presented to you. >> that is correct.

>> and that there was no condition attached to this pardon, and no sort of agreement made in respect thereto before it was granted? >> none whatsoever. >> thank you, mr. president. i have no further questions. >> gentleman from south dakota, mr. mann. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. president, we asked you about the termination of the investigation by the special prosecutor's office. was it your intention by the pardon to terminate the investigation by the special prosecutor's office in the 10 areas that you received the report from that office on? >> i think the net result of the pardon was in effect just that, yes, sir. >> and is that part of the

reason that you didn't consult with mr. jaworski with reference to the agreements as to how that might affect his further investigations? >> well, as i pointed out, the taped agreement was initiated between my legal counsel and mr. nixon some time before the question of a pardon ever arose. the reason for that, mr. mann, is that i came in to office and almost immediately there were demands and requests, not only from the special prosecutor's as i recall but from other sources as to those tapes and other documents. and one of first things i did when these problems came to my desk was to ask the attorney general for his opinion as to the ownership of those tapes. or any other documents. and once we got that information, then we felt that there ought to be some discussion as to where the tapes and other documents would be held and under what circumstances. >> now reason of course the mandate of the special

prosecutor's office was not directed solely at president nixon. but is it not so that the pardon in effect terminated that investigation in so so far as -- in so far as other parties, other possible defendants and in getting to the true facts of the matters that have disturbed our national political life during these past two years? >> i do not believe that the action i took in pardoning president nixon had any impact on any other mandate that that special prosecutor's office had. >> what response would you have if the special prosecutor's office now requested access to certain of the tapes now in the custody of the government? >> the material that is still held by the government in my understanding of the supreme court decision permits the special prosecutor to obtain any

of that material for its responsibility. and i of course -- not in a personal way would make sure that that information was made available to the special prosecuter's office. >> according to the press reports, president nixon was visited on september 22 and thereafter met with you in washington. are you at liberty to discuss -- to tell us the gist of the communication involving president nixon from mr. stone to you? >> mr. stone came to see me about a program that he's used very successfully in his business. a program which he's very proud of and he was urging me to institute it in the vary -- in the various bureaus of the federal government. there was no other message conveyed by him from mr. nixon to me. >> did you ever discuss the pardon with former president nixon after his resignation and

prior to the granting of the pardon? >> are you repeat that again, please? >> did you have any personal conversation with former president nixon about the pardon between his resignation and september the 8th? >> absolutely not. >> now, on -- in response to mr. edwards' question about equal justice under the law, i know that you make a distinction that here we are talking about the office of president of the united states. but let's assume that we are talking about the president of a bank or governor of a state. or a chief justice of the united states supreme court. and whose minds those of very

high political offices. do you think any of those persons who are allegedly criminally culpable through resignation should be entitled to any treatment different from any other citizens? >> mr. mann, i don't think i should answer a hypothetical question of that kind. i was dealing with reality. and i have given in my best judgment the reasons for the action that i took. and to pass judgment on any other person or individual holding any other office in public or private, i think it would be inappropriate for me. >> the -- you have heard the maxim that the law is no respect to the persons. do you agree with that?

>> certainly it should be. >> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from iowa, mr. main. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. president, i believe that the chairman and others in their questioning have established very clearly that your appearance here today is an entirely voluntary one on your part, that it was your idea, that you have not been requested by the committee to come in person. that we had indicated that it would be entirely satisfactory as far as we were concerned if some assistant appeared instead. >> that is correct, sir. >> i do not think, however, that it has yet been made clear in

the record and i think this should be, that it is also true that you willing to come and to tell this full story as you have done before the committee and on television before the american people much earlier than today. is that not true? >> yes, i think the original schedule was set for about a week ago. i have forgotten the exact date. >> but my recollection and you can correct me if i am wrong is that as early as september 30 you offered and volunteered to appear before the subcommittee at our next regular meeting which would have been -- on october the 1st. but it was indicated to you that that would be too early for the committee to be able to accommodate such an appearance.

>> i don't recall that detail, but when i indicated that i would voluntarily appear, a member of my staff met with i think chairman hundredgate and between them, they tried to work out what was an acceptable, agreeable final as to when i should appear. >> there was of course the concern which developed in the subcommittee as to whether there would be any possible jeopardy to the impaneling of the jury in the what degate cases. but i think this timetable should be established and i would ask the chairman if that is not his recollection that originally the president did say that he would be glad to appear

on october 1? >> not being under oath, the chair is glad to reply that the gentleman -- his recollection is the same as mine. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just think the point should be made that there has been no stalling at all or delay on the part of the president in making this appearance, but that he was not only willing to make the statement, but to do it much earlier. >> if the gentleman would yield briefly. >> i'm happy to yield. >> that is precisely the fact and it was consideration on the fact of many of us concerning the proper effect on any trials that held us to this day. >> now, mr. president, i think there was perhaps one part of mr. kastenmeier's questioning of that was left unanswered, and i'm going to try to go into that again. did you by granting this pardon

have any intention of stopping the investigations of any other defendants or potential defendants? >> none whatsoever. >> mr. president, ever since i first heard of the watergate break in i have felt that this was a matter which should be fully investigated and prosecuted and that anybody found criminally involved should be punished as provided by the law. i have repeatedly stated i thought our american system of justice as administered in the courts was fully capable of handling the situation if permitted to proceed without interference. i have been apprehensive that the activity of some of the legislative committees and the large amount of publicity attending upon those activities might make it impossible for our court system to function as it should. and i have also been fearful

that the executive branch would intervene to limit or handicap the normal functioning of the courts. mr. president, i must say to you that i'm deeply concerned that both the legislative and executive branches have indeed interfered with our courts making it extremely difficult for the traditional american system of justice to proceed in the regular manner in this case. and i was very disturbed by the granting of this pardon, particularly at such an early stage. even though certainly there is no question that under the law, you had the right to act as you did. now, i realize that hindsight is always better than foresight,

but i'm wondering if after all that has happened and with further opportunity for reflection if you do not now feel that you perhaps acted too hastily in this case? >> mr. main, i have thought about that a great deal because there has been criticism of the timing. but as i reviewed my thoughts prior to the granting of the pardon, i had to look at this factual situation. if i granted the pardon when i did, it went as -- it would as quickly achieve tult, the results of what i wanted -- which is permit the government, both the congress and the president to proceed to the solution of the problems. now some people say in their criticism and i understand it and i'm not critical of the points they raised -- i should have waited until mr. nixon was indicted. inferring that i should have then pardoned him if i was going to do so. well, other people say that i should have waited until he was convicted, if he was convicted and at that time i should have pardoned him. others have indicated that i

should have waited to a conviction and a jail sentence if that were the result. now, all of that process, whether it's the indictment, the possible conviction, a conviction, plus a jail sentence would have taken as i tried to explain at least a year and probably much longer. and during that whole period of time, mr. main, all of the things that i wanted to avoid, namely, the opportunity for our government -- the president and the congress and others to get to the problems we have would have been i think deeply upset and road blocked. so i'm convinced after reflection as i was previously that the timing of the pardon was done at the right time.

>> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you. >> representative from new york, ms. holeson. >> thank you. mr. ford, i wish to applaud your historical appearance here today. 3today. at the same time, however, i wish to express my dismay that the format of this hearing will not be able to provide to the american public the full truth and all of the facts respecting your issuance of pard on the richard nixon. unfortunately, each member of this committee will have only five minutes in which to ask questions about this most serious matter. unfortunately, despite my urging the committee failed to give sufficient time for each committee member to ask the questions that were appropriate. the committee declined to prepare fully for your coming by calling other witnesses, such as

alexander haig, mr. buken, mr. becker and has failed to insist also on full production of documents by you respecting the issuance of this pardon. i must confess any own lack of uneasiness at participating in a proceeding that has raised such high expectations and unfortunately will not be able to respond to them. i would like to point out, mr. president, at the resolutions of inquiry that prompted your appearance here today have resulted from dark suspicions that have been created in the public's mind. perhaps these suspicions are totally unfounded and i sincerely hope that they are. but nonetheless we must all confront the reality of these suspicions.

and the suspicions that were created by the circumstances of the pardon which you issued, the secrecy with which i was issued and the reasons for which it was issued, which made people question whether or not in fact it was a deal. >> may i comment there? i want to assure you, the members of this subcommittee, the members of the congress and the american people there was no deal period, under no circumstances. >> well, mr. president, i appreciate that statement and i'm sure many of the american people do as well. but they are also asking questions about the pardon and i would like to specify a few of them for you so that perhaps we can have some of these answered. i think from the mail i have received from all over the country as well as my own district, i know that the people want to understand how you can explain having pardoned richard nixon without specifying any of the crimes for which he was pardoned. and how can you explain pardoning richard nixon without obtaining any acknowledgment of guilt from him? how do you explain the failure to consult the attorney general of the united states with respect to the issuance of the

pardon even though in your confirmation hearings you had indicated that the attorney general's opinion would be critical in any dekigs to pardon the former president? how can this extraordinary haste and the secrecy with the pardon was carried out be explained? how can you explain that it was accompanied by an agreement with respect to the tapes which in essence and in the public's mind hamper's the special prosecuter's access and was done in the public's mind with disregard to the public's right to know about nixon's misconduct in office? and in addition, the public i think wants an explanation of how benton becker was used to ropt the interest of the united states in negotiating a taped agreement when at this very time he was under investigation by the united states for possible criminal charges. and how also can you explain not having consulted leon jaworski the special prosecutor before approving of the tape's agreement? i think mr. president, that these are only a few of the questions that have existed in the public's mind before and

unfortunately still remain not resolved. and as i have -- since i have a very brief time, i would like to ask you in addition to these questions, one further one, and this is the suspicions have been raised that the reason for the pardon and the simultaneous tapes agreement was to ensure that the tape recordings between yourself and richard nixon never came out in public. to alleviate this suspicion once and for all, would you be willing to turn over to this subcommittee all tape recordings of conversations between yourself and richard nixon? >> those tapes under -- and in the opinion of the attorney general which i sought according to the attorney general and i might add according to past press debt belong to president nixon. those tapes pooh -- those tapes are in our control.

they are under an agreement which protects them totally, fully for the special prosecutor's office or for any other criminal proceedings. those tapes will not be delivered to anybody until a satisfactory agreement is reached with the special prosecutor's office. we have held them because his office did request that. and as long as we have them, held in our possession for the special prosecutor's benefit, i see no way whatsoever that they can be destroyed, that they can be kept from proper utilization in criminal proceedings. now, those tapes belong to mr. nixon according to the attorney general, but they're being held for the benefit of the special prosecutor, and i think that's the proper place for them to be kept.

>> gentleman from maryland, mr. hogan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm frankly amazed that my good friend, the gentlelady from new york and her accusatory opening speech because certainly the gentle lady knows that it's the usual and ordinary and routine procedure of this subcommittee and this committee to operate under the five-minute rule. there is nothing extraordinary about us today allocating five minutes of time for questioning to each member of the committee. we always operate this way. her other observation about not doing any preparatory work by calling other witnesses was rejected as far as i recall by all other members of the subcommittee on the basis that this resolution of inquiry is directed to the president of the united states and properly so.

so it would be totally inappropriate for the resolution of inquiry to address itself to individuals other than the subject of that resolution. that resolution of inquiry. now, mr. president, i would like to join too too in commending you for your statement and your openness and candor in coming in this very historic event. i'm frankly concerned that some of the questioning by my colleagues asking questions if all men aren't equal under the law, because certainly being the outstanding lawyers that they are, they know that the pardoning power itself is

inherently inequitable. but for a larger purpose it grants to the chief executive of the federal government or the state in the case of state crimes to pardon individuals who may or have been indicted or convicted of crimes. so we should not expect this to apply as if there were a trial of these criminal offenses, and furthermore we also know that in our system of criminal justice, even the prosecutors themselves exercise prosecutive discretion. there is no question whatsoever, that the constitution gives to the president of the united states broad and absolute power to pardon individuals of

criminal offenses. we also know from the debates of the framers of the constitution that they specifically rejected including in the constitution the words after conviction. they also in the debate at that time indicated situations where it might be necessary or desirable to grant a pardon even before indictment as was the case in this instance. now, mr. president, i know that you followed very carefully the deliberations of this committee during the impeachment inquiry and i know you're also aware that this committee unanimously concluded that the president was guilty of an impeachable offense growing out of obstruction of justice. so in a sense, couldn't we not say that this was at least the basis for a possible criminal charge which was already spread on the record with ample evidence to justify it? so those who say you should have waited until there were formalized charges are overlooking the fact that there was a very formalized charge and indictment if you will by this committee.

>> well, the unanimous vote of the house committee on the judiciary, all 35 members certainly is very, very substantial evidence that the former president was guilty of an impeachable offense. there's no doubt in my mind that that recommendation of this full committee would have carried in the house which would have been even more formal as an indication of criminal activity or certainly to be more specific an impeachable offense. and of course, the prospects in the senate with such a formidable vote in the committee and in the house would have been even more persuasive. >> mr. president, referring to the memorandum from mr. root to mr. jaworski, enumerating the 10 possible criminal offenses, it's true that this committee addressed itself if i'm not mistaken to every single one of

these charges and assessed evidence as to each one of them? and we found them wanting, that they were not sufficient justification for an impeachable offense. and the last paragraph of that memorandum says -- and i quote, none of these matters at the moment rises to the level of our ability to prove even a probable criminal violation by there nixon. now, this memorandum does not include the obstruction of justice which i addressed myself to earlier. so i think we can logically assume that there would not have been any indictment resulting from mr. jaworski's activities other than in the area of obstruction of justice. and with further corroboration of that point, i allude to a story in "the wall street

journal" yesterday where mr. jaworski who incidentally not oonly -- not only agrees with your pardon, but the legality and the timeliness of it, and he says very specifically that there was going to be no additional disclosures resulting from his activities that the public was not already aware of relating to mr. nixon. so those who were saying we should wait till there's a formal charge i think are missing the point that there has been a former charge approved by this committee. now, mr. president, don't you feel that the very acceptance of the pardon by the former president is tantamount to an admission of guilt on his part? >> i do, sir. >> so those who say again that they would have preferred that the president admit his culpability before a pardon being issued again are overlooking that fact? >> the acceptance of a pardon according to the legal authorities, and we have checked them out very carefully, does indicate that by the acceptance,

the person who has accepted it does in effect admit guilt. >> thank you, mr. president. again, i would like to express my personal appreciation for your candor and your openness and your cooperation with the coequal branch. >> thank you very much. >> mr. president, as you can see, the peculiar strength of this subcommittee lies in the fact that the subcommittee members bring so much knowledge to it and the subcommittee chairman takes a little away. i noticed in your page 10 of your statement that when you were first hit with the possibility of this responsibility, you indicated you wanted to talk to your wife before making a decision. did you do that? >> i certainly did, mr. chairman. because the probability or possibility of my becoming president obviously would have had a significant impact on her

life as well as our life. >> that destroys my theory that if you talked to her, you would have waited until indictment or christmas eve. let me ask if any attempt was made by or your representative to contact the federal pardon authority a to his opinion, as to the customary procedures in issuing a pardon? >> i did not, sir. >> now, mr. president, guy to page 20 of the statement. and i'm addressing myself to the health question. in the first responses provided the press releases on one of these -- page three it refers to september 16th now as the date

of this press conference, after the pardon decision in which you're quoted. i have asked the doctor who is the head physician in the white house to keep me posted as to the former president's what health. i have been informed under -- on a routine day to day basis, but i'm not a at liberty to give information. my question is, had he reported prior to the pardon date or only after? >> the doctor gave me no information concerning president nixon's health prior to the time i issued the pardon. he did at my request when i heard rumors of -- about former president's health keep me posted in proper channels, but that all occurred after the pardon took place.

>> the gentleman from indiana is seeking recognition. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would just like to request that we make a part of the record the text of the opinion of the united states supreme court and exparty garland, 333 and also the opinion of the united states supreme court in verdict against the united states 236, u.s. 79 which deals with the point that a pardon must be accepted. >> without objection, it will be made part of the record. >> mr. chairman, i would like to make a part of the record if i may the article referred to by my colleague, mr. hogan which appeared in "the wall street journal" of october 16, 1974, and headed the pardon of nixon was timely. >> it is so ordered without objection. >> mr. chairman, may i add to something i said just to make it correct? >> yes, sir. >> somebody asked about when i last saw if -- last saw the president. i said that i had seen him on the 9th. i did as he departed, but i had also seen the president the morning of the 8th at the time i was asked to come and see him and at that time, we spent an hour and 20 minutes together or

thereabouts. when he told me that he was going to resign. so i saw him both the 8th and the 9th, just to make the record accurate. >> and i yield to the gentleman from wisconsin for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to, for the record, indicate that the statement of the gentleman from maryland, mr. hogan, to the effect that the proposal that this subcommittee will try to contact certain staff members such as general haig and others was supported by me. i thought it would have been excellent. in the past we have done very well in terms of staff work preliminary to hearings that might have helped put some of

the questions to rest. mr. president, you indicated that as far as mr. haig was concerned, that he had suggested certain options to you. but did not in fact make a recommendation to you with respect to the pardon, is that correct? >> that is correct. i answered that i think as fully as i can in my prepared statement. he discussed the options. he made no recommendations. >> which other persons to you personally made recommendations that the former president be pardoned from that time in early august to the day of september 6 when you made your decision? >> no other person to my knowledge made any recommendation to me from that time until the time that i made a decision about september 6. nobody made any recommendation to me for the pardon of the former president. >> with respect to discussions

between general haig and mr. nixon, or other matters in question two, you indicated you had no personal knowledge both in writing and i think in your statements today, i take it you would have no objection if the subcommittee sought to question mr. haig or others on the subject before us this morning to supplement this hearing and this inquiry? >> i don't think that's within my prerogative. i have come here to testify as the specific facts as i know them. but what the subcommittee does a judgment for the subcommittee and not me. >> the chair is advised that the house is in recess, waiting for the conclusion of this hearing before reconvening. so if i might, i will yield to mr. hogan for questions at this point and then ms. holeson for questions and then we'll conclude. >> mr. hogan? >> thank you. mr. president, on page 20 of your statement, you talk about

the health issue, and that you had not gotten any official reports from physicians about -- tharl controlling in your decision. you state that observations were reported to you from others. now, there have been press reports that dr. kissinger is alleged to have said to you that he feared that former president nixon would commit suicide. that appeared in several news accounts. is there any truth to that? >> there's no truth to it whatsoever. as far as i know. >> well, it appeared in "the new york times", the "washington post", on two occasions.

and is alluded to in a research paper prepared for the subcommittee. >> there was no discussion between dr. kissinger and myself that included any such comment. >> i think if i might add a gratuitous comment, mr. chairman, that much of the controversy has been generated by the press, by just such erroneous statements that have been given wide circulation. thank you, mr. president. >> yes. i'll ask for one concise question because i want to respect the time. >> thank you. what were the precise instructions given to benton becker by you when he went to negotiate -- mr. nixon's acceptance of the pardon? >> the precise instructions given to the mr. becker were actually given by my counsel, mr. buken.

in general, i knew what they were. they were instructions to negotiate the protection of those documents including the tapes for the benefit of the special prosecutor in whatever use he felt was essential. and at the same time, to keep them in vie lat during a period of time which we felt was a proper one. >> but not to offer the pardon unless that agreement had been negotiated? >> mr. edwards, those negotiations as to the custody or ownership of the documents including tapes were under -- were undertaken prior to august 27 because we were more or less besieged -- when i say see -- when i say we, i mean the white house, as to what to do with the documents and the tapes. that negotiation had no relevance whosoever to the

decision on my part to pardon the president. >> thank you. >> the chair would remind all of the constraints of time and call on ms. holeson for one final question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you stated that the theory on which you pardoned richard nixon was that he had suffered enough. and i am interested in that theory, because the logical consequence of that is that somebody who resigns in the face of virtually certain impeachment or somebody who is impeached should not be punished because the resignation in the face of impeachment is enough. i wonder if anybody had brought to your attention that the constitution specifically states that even though somebody is impeached, that person shall nonetheless be liable to punishment according to law. >> i was fully cognizant of the

fact that the president on resignation was accountable for any criminal charges. but i would like to say that the reason i gave the pardon was not as to mr. nixon himself. i repeat and i repeat? with emphasis, the purpose of the pardon was to try and get the united states, the congress, the president and the american people focusing on the serious problems we have both at home and abroad. i was absolutely convinced then as i am now that if we had had this series in indictment, a trial, a conviction, and

anything else that transpired after this that the attention of the president, the congress and the american people would have been diverted from the problems that we have to solve. and that was the principle reason for my granting of the pardon. >> mr. smith? >> mr. chairman, just before we adjourn this hearing, i again would like to commend the president and thank him for coming. i think, mr. president, that you have probably opened a new era between the executive and the legislative departments and i am very happy for it. >> mr. chairman, i want to express to you and to the other members of the committee or subcommittee my appreciation for the fine manner and i think the fair way in which this meeting was held this morning. i felt that it was absolutely essential because i'm the only one who could explain the background and the decision making process. and i hope as i said in my opening statement, mr. chairman,

that i have at least cleared the air so that most americans will understand what was done and why it was done and i -- and again, i trust that all of us can get back to the job of trying to solve our problems, both at home and abroad. i thank you very, very much. >> mr. president, on behalf of the subcommittee, we express appreciation at the appearance here today and recognize the responsibility we all have to complete this work and get on with the business. the transcripts will be furnished as quickly as possible to the members of the subcommittee and the subcommittee will adjourn, subject called chair. >> up next on american history

tv, we hear from former president ford and said we're -- senator edward kennedy. gerald ford received a profiles in courage award at the ceremony for his local courage in pardoning former president next and after his august 9 1974 resignation. >> i am honored to be here today with president ford, the winner of this year's profile in courage