Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Rationale: President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon outraged many Americans. But President Ford argued that the pardon of
Richard Nixon was in the country’s best interest. In the event of a Watergate trial, Ford argued, “ugly passions would again be
aroused…And the credibility of our free institutions…would again be challenged at home and abroad.” Ford called the pardon
decision, “the most difficult of my life, by far.” This lesson is designed to inspire students to question how the country might have
been affected if a former United States president had gone on trial for criminal charges and, if they had been in President Ford’s
position, whether they would have pardoned Richard Nixon.
Course: United States History: G342
Grade: 11
Duration: 50 minutes, 2-3 days
Objectives:
Students will evaluate a variety of both secondary readings and primary sources.
Students will gain a deeper understanding of the controversial decision to pardon Richard Nixon.
Students will draw their own conclusion about the complex issues surrounding Watergate and the pardoning of Richard
Nixon.
Materials Used:
Schulman, Bruce J., The Seventies: The Great Shift in American Culture, Society, and Politics. Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2001.
Bailey, Beth and David Farber, eds., America in the Seventies. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004.
“President Gerald R. Ford's Proclamation 4311, Granting a Pardon to Richard Nixon.” Available from
www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/speeches/740060
“President Gerald R. Ford's Remarks on Signing a Proclamation Granting Pardon to Richard Nixon.” Available from
www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/speeches/740061
“Articles of Impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee.” Available from www.landmarkcases.org
“President Gerald Ford’s News Conference.” Available from www.whitehousehistory.org
“A President Is Impeachable If He Attempts To Subvert The Constitution,” Speech by Barbara Jordan. Available from
www.watergate.info/impeachment/74-07-25_barbara-jordan
“President Ford Receives John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award.” Available from www.jfklibrary.org
Handouts (attached)
Procedure:
Day one Students will work with a partner (think-pair-share), one student will receive a copy of The Seventies: The Great Shift in
American Culture, Society, and Politics, which outlines the Watergate scandal in relation to Gerald Ford’s pardon and the other
student will receive a copy of America in the 70s, a passage that emphasizes Gerald Ford’s background. Partners will work
collaboratively to complete an informational handout on each text. The goal is to have students attain a greater understanding
about Watergate and Gerald Ford, in order to debate the pardon further.
Days two-three 3-4 students will be placed into pre-assigned, mixed-ability groups and desks will be pushed together to create work
stations in the classroom. Each station will be supplied with several copies of the same primary source documents in order for
students to provide support for each other on the same text. Each student will be given an activity packet that will provide them
with instructions as they move throughout the activity and reading documents. The teacher will facilitate this process.
Assessment: Each student will be assessed on both the initial handout (A Greater Understanding: Watergate and President Ford)
and the activity packet (Debating the Nixon Pardon). Close attention should be paid to the written assignment located at the end of
the activity packet, which prompts students to take a position on the historical debate, provide evidence, and defend their stance.
Modifications: This lesson can be easily adapted for individual students or entire classes. The reading materials provided can be
used as indicated in the lesson plan or the amount of documents used can be modified for specific learning communities.
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Name _______________________
Partners Name ___________________
A Greater Understanding: Watergate & President Ford
You have recently learned about President Nixon, Watergate, and President Ford. However you will soon gain a deeper
understanding about each of these topics in order to prepare yourself for a great historical debate, the pardon of former President
Richard M. Nixon. You and your partner will be assigned two different readings. Answer the questions below that correspond to
your text. Afterward, you and your partner will exchange information and ideas. Be sure to explain your reading to your partner, so
you are both well prepared for the debate ahead.
TEXT 1: The Seventies: The Great Shift in American
Culture, Society, and Politics
Page 46: Who did President Nixon fire in 1973?
Who did John Dean identify as Nixon’s closest aides?
TEXT 2: America in the Seventies
Page 12: List three reasons that President Ford made
for pardoning Nixon.
According to the Gallup Poll, how did Gerald Ford’s
ratings change after the pardon?
Describe the Saturday Night Massacre.
Describe Ford’s background before becoming
president.
Page 47: Explain the events that occurred in July 1974.
Page 13: In what ways were the mass media
portraying President Ford and why do you think this
is?
Page 48: What did President Ford mean when he asserted,
“Our constitutional system works.”
Page 14: Other than the events surrounding
Watergate, for what other important reasons were
Americans increasingly feeling cynical and skeptical at
this time?
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Name _________________
Activity Packet
Debating the Nixon Pardon
President Richard M. Nixon resigned from office on August 9, 1974. He did so because he knew that if he remained,
the House of Representatives would find him guilty of impeachable offenses and the Senate would convict him of
those charges. Though he resigned to avoid this “official” fate, he was still liable and subject to indictment, trial,
judgment, and punishment in federal courts for federal crimes he committed during his tenure in office. On Sunday,
September 8, 1974 Gerald R. Ford went before a television audience and pardoned former President Richard M. Nixon
“for offenses against the United States.”
The United States Constitution provides the president the power to grant pardons:
…“he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of
impeachment (Article II, Section 2).”
Directions: During this activity, you and your group will travel to five different stations in the classroom. At each
station, your task is to first read the instructions in this activity packet specific to each station then follow the
directions.
Your task is to read the variety of readings to determine whether or not you agree with President Ford’s decision to
grant a pardon to former President Nixon. If you were Ford, what would you have done? Be sure to read the text
carefully and provide help to your group members as you move from station to station.
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Station 1: First read the document titled, President Gerald R. Ford's Proclamation 4311 and second read President
Ford's Pardon Remarks.
Reasons: Generate a list of reasons from both documents that Ford gave for the pardon.
1)___________________________________________________________________________________
2)___________________________________________________________________________________
3)___________________________________________________________________________________
4)___________________________________________________________________________________
5)___________________________________________________________________________________
6)___________________________________________________________________________________
7)___________________________________________________________________________________
8)___________________________________________________________________________________
9)___________________________________________________________________________________
10)__________________________________________________________________________________
11)__________________________________________________________________________________
12)__________________________________________________________________________________
13)__________________________________________________________________________________
14)__________________________________________________________________________________
15)__________________________________________________________________________________
Response: Write a brief paragraph responding, whether or not you agree or disagree with Ford’s rationale.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Station 2: Read the Articles of Impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee then follow the prompts below.
Under “Article 1: Obstruction of Justice,” select three obstructions and summarize them into your own words.
1)________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
2)________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
3)________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Under “Article 2: Abuses of Power,” select three abuses and summarize them into your own words.
1)________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
2)________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
3)________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
After carefully reading, do you think the Articles of Impeachment represent democracy at work or a break down in
the American system of government?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Station 3: After reading the transcripts from President Gerald Ford’s News Conference (September 13, 1974) follow the
prompts below.
1) Did President Ford say anything during the press conference that gave you a better understanding for why he
pardoned Nixon? If so, write down notes from the transcript.
2) Identify any new reasons for the pardon that President Ford did not mention on September 8, 1974 in his remarks.
3) During the press conference, the president discovered what was troubling many Americans through the issues raised
by the press. Explain two of the greatest concerns the reporters revealed about Ford’s pardon.
4) Ford provided responses for some of the concerns the reporters expressed. Summarize the president’s responses to
the two concerns you outlined above.
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Station 4: This is the speech given by Representative Barbara Jordan (Democrat-Texas) reminding her colleagues on the
House Judiciary Committee of the Constitutional basis for impeachment. The Committee met in Washington, D.C. July
25, 1974.
1) How does Jordan interpret the Constitution, particularly in the second paragraph?
2) What does Jordan say about the United States system of checks and balances and what does it mean for this
decision?
3) Representative Barbara Jordan, along with the other committee members considered whether to recommend that
President Nixon be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” What did the House Judiciary Committee
ultimately decide?
Station 5: President Ford Receives John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award.
1) What is the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award?
2) What year was Gerald Ford award this honor, and for what reasons?
3) In Ford’s autobiography, he explains his reasons for the pardon. Identify one personal reason and one economic
reason that he shares.
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
If you were President Ford…
You now have evidence that reveals the various viewpoints surrounding Gerald Ford’s decision to grant a pardon to
former President Richard Nixon. If you were President Ford in the aftermath of what is now known as Watergate, would
you have pardoned Nixon as well? Imagine you had just taken over the presidency after Nixon’s resignation and the
American public is waiting to hear whether or not you will grant Nixon a pardon. Write a speech that you would address
to the nation indicating your decision to either pardon Nixon or not. How might the country have been affected if a
former United States president had gone on trial for criminal charges? Include reasons and evidence to support your
case.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Gerald R. Ford's Remarks on Signing a Proclamation Granting Pardon to Richard Nixon
September 8, 1974
Ladies and gentlemen:
I have come to a decision which I felt I should tell you and all of my fellow American citizens, as soon as I was certain
in my own mind and in my own conscience that it is the right thing to do.
I have learned already in this office that the difficult decisions always come to this desk. I must admit that many of
them do not look at all the same as the hypothetical questions that I have answered freely and perhaps too fast on
previous occasions.
My customary policy is to try and get all the facts and to consider the opinions of my countrymen and to take counsel
with my most valued friends. But these seldom agree, and in the end, the decision is mine. To procrastinate, to
agonize, and to wait for a more favorable turn of events that may never come or more compelling external pressures
that may as well be wrong as right, is itself a decision of sorts and a weak and potentially dangerous course for a
President to follow.
I have promised to uphold the Constitution, to do what is right as God gives me to see the right, and to do the very
best that I can for America.
I have asked your help and your prayers, not only when I became President but many times since. The Constitution is
the supreme law of our land and it governs our actions as citizens. Only the laws of God, which govern our
consciences, are superior to it.
As we are a nation under God, so I am sworn to uphold our laws with the help of God. And I have sought such
guidance and searched my own conscience with special diligence to determine the right thing for me to do with
respect to my predecessor in this place, Richard Nixon, and his loyal wife and family.
Theirs is an American tragedy in which we all have played a part. It could go on and on and on, or someone must
write the end to it. I have concluded that only I can do that, and if I can, I must.
There are no historic or legal precedents to which I can turn in this matter, none that precisely fit the circumstances of
a private citizen who has resigned the Presidency of the United States. But it is common knowledge that serious
allegations and accusations hang like a sword over our former President's head, threatening his health as he tries to
reshape his life, a great part of which was spent in the service of this country and by the mandate of its people.
After years of bitter controversy and divisive national debate, I have been advised, and I am compelled to conclude
that many months and perhaps more years will have to pass before Richard Nixon could obtain a fair trial by jury in
any jurisdiction of the United States under governing decisions of the Supreme Court.
I deeply believe in equal justice for all Americans, whatever their station or former station. The law, whether human
or divine, is no respecter of persons; but the law is a respecter of reality.
The facts, as I see them, are that a former President of the United States, instead of enjoying equal treatment with
any other citizen accused of violating the law, would be cruelly and excessively penalized either in preserving the
presumption of his innocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of his guilt in order to repay a legal debt to
society.
During this long period of delay and potential litigation, ugly passions would again be aroused. And our people would
again be polarized in their opinions. And the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be
challenged at home and abroad.
In the end, the courts might well hold that Richard Nixon had been denied due process, and the verdict of history
would even more be inconclusive with respect to those charges arising out of the period of his Presidency, of which I
am presently aware.
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
But it is not the ultimate fate of Richard Nixon that most concerns me, though surely it deeply troubles every
decent:and every compassionate person. My concern is the immediate future of this great country.
In this, I dare not depend upon my personal sympathy as a long-time friend of the former President, nor my
professional judgment as a lawyer, and I do not.
As President, my primary concern must always be the greatest good of all the people of the United States whose
servant I am. As a man, my first consideration is to be true to my own convictions and my own conscience.
My conscience tells me clearly and certainly that I cannot prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter
that is closed. My conscience tells me that only I, as President, have the constitutional power to firmly shut and seal
this book. My conscience tells me it is my duty, not merely to proclaim domestic tranquillity but to use every means
that I have to insure it. I do believe that the buck stops here, that I cannot rely upon public opinion polls to tell me
what is right. I do believe that right makes might and that if I am wrong, 10 angels swearing I was right would make
no difference. I do believe, with all my heart and mind and spirit, that I, not as President but as a humble servant of
God, will receive justice without mercy if I fail to show mercy.
Finally, I feel that Richard Nixon and his loved ones have suffered enough and will continue to suffer, no matter what I
do, no matter what we, as a great and good nation, can do together to make his goal of peace come true.
Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon
unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have
committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen
hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninetyninth.
Nixon's Response
I have been informed that President Ford has granted me a full and absolute pardon for any charges which might be
brought against me for actions taken during the time I was president of the United States.
In accepting this pardon, I hope that his compassionate act will contribute to lifting the burden of Watergate from our
country.
Here in California, my perspective on Watergate is quite different than it was while I was embattled in the midst of the
controversy, and while I was still subject to the unrelenting daily demands of the presidency itself.
Looking back on what is still in my mind a complex and confusing maze of events, decisions, pressures and
personalities, one thing I can see clearly now is that I was wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthrightly
in dealing with Watergate, particularly when it reached the stage of judicial proceedings and grew from a political
scandal into a national tragedy.
No words can describe the depths of my regret and pain at the anguish my mistakes over Watergate have caused the
nation and the presidency -- a nation I so deeply love and an institution I so greatly respect.
I know many fair-minded people believe that my motivations and action in the Watergate affair were intentionally
self-serving and illegal. I now understand how my own mistakes and misjudgments have contributed to that belief and
seemed to support it. This burden is the heaviest one of all to bear.
That the way I tried to deal with Watergate was the wrong way is a burden I shall bear for every day of the life that is
left to me.
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Articles of Impeachment, by the House Judiciary Committee (1974)
Articles of Impeachment:
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and
misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM
FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.
Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.
In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath
faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend
the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: On June 17, 1972, and prior
thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the
Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence.
Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his
subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such
unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other
unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the
following:
(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and
employes of the United States.
(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes
of the United States.
(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading
statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading
testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.
(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United
States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional
committees.
(5) Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payments of substantial sums of money for the purpose of
obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such
unlawful entry and other illegal activities.
(6) Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.
(7) Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of
investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States for the purpose of
aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.
(8) Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into
believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct on the
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the
President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or
(9) Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment
and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional
government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
(Approved by a vote of 27-11 by the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday, July 27, 1974.)
Article 2: Abuse of Power.
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath
faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend
the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper
administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive
branch and the purposes of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue
Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for
purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other
income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or
disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or
continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of
laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby
for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did
direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights
of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President,
financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the
Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right
of an accused to a fair trial.
(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know
that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and
legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the
cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard
Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the
office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.
(5) In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive
branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special
Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional
government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States.
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
(Approved 28-10 by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, July 29, 1974.)
Article 3: Contempt of Congress.
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute
the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, had failed
without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June
24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the
Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction,
knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the
President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what
materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the
House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole
power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.
In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional
government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States.
Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.
(Approved 21-17 by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 30, 1974.)
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
President Gerald Ford’s News Conference of September 16, 1974
The President: Ladies and gentlemen, this press conference is being held at a time when many Americans are observing the Jewish
religious New Year. It begins a period of self-examination and reconciliation. In opening this press conference, I am mindful that the
spirit of this holiday has a meaning for all Americans.
In examining one’s deeds of the last year and in assuming responsibility for past actions and personal decisions, one can reach a point
of growth and change. The purpose of looking back is to go forward with a new and enlightened dedication to our highest values.
The record of the past year does not have to be endlessly relived, but can be transformed by commitment to new insights and new
actions in the year to come.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am ready to answer your questions.
Mr. Cormier. {Frank Cormier, Associated Press}
Questions
[1] Q. Mr. President, some Congressional Republicans who have talked to you have hinted that you may have had a secret reason for
granting President Nixon a pardon sooner than you indicated you would at the last news conference, and I wonder if you could tell us
what that reason was?
The President: At the outset, let me say I had no secret reason, and I don’t recall telling any Republican that I had such a reason.
Let me review, quickly, if I might, the things that transpired following the last news conference.
As many of you know, I answered two, maybe three, questions concerning a pardon at that time. On return to the office, I felt that I
had to have my counsel undertake a thorough examination as to what my right of pardon was under the Constitution. I also felt that it
was very important that I find out what legal actions, if any, were contemplated by the Special Prosecutor.
That information was found out, and it was indicated to me that the possibility existed, the very real possibility, that the {former}
President would be charged with obstructing justice and 10 other possible criminal actions.
In addition, I asked my general counsel to find out, if he could, how long such criminal proceedings would take, from the indictment,
the carrying on of the trial, et cetera. And I was informed that this would take a year, maybe somewhat longer, for the whole process
to go through.
I also asked my counsel to find out whether or not, under decisions of the judicial system, a fair trial could be given to the former
President.
After I got that information, which took 2 or 3 days, I then began to evaluate, in my own mind, whether or not I should take the action
which I subsequently did.
Miss Thomas. {Helen Thomas, United Press International}
Q. Throughout your Vice Presidency, you said that you didn’t believe that former President Nixon had ever committed an
impeachable offense. Is that still your belief, or do you believe that his acceptance of a pardon implies his guilt or is an admission of
guilt?
The President: The fact that 38 members of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Democrat and Republican, have unanimously
agreed in the report that was filed that the former President was guilty of an impeachable office, I think, is very persuasive evidence.
And the second question, I don’t---Q. Was it an admission of guilt?
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
The President: Was the acceptance of the pardon by the President an admission of guilt? The acceptance of a pardon, I think, can be
construed by many, if not all, as an admission of guilt.
Yes, Mr. Nessen. {Ron Nessen, NBC News}
Q. What reports have you received on Mr. Nixon’s health, and what effect, if any, did this have on your decision to pardon him now?
The President: I have asked Dr. Lukash, who is the head physician in the White House, to keep me posted in proper channels as to the
former President’s health. I have been informed on a routine day-to-day basis, but I don’t think I am at liberty to give any information
as to those reports that I have received.
You also asked what impact did the President’s health have on my decision. I think it is well known that just before I gave my
statement, at the time that I gave the pardon, I personally wrote in a phrase "the threat to the President’s health."
The main concern that I had at the time I made the decision was to heal the wounds throughout the United States. For a period of 18
months or longer, we had had turmoil and divisiveness in the American society. At the same time, the United States had major
problems, both at home and abroad, that needed the maximum personal attention of the President and many others in the Government.
It seemed to me that as long as this divisiveness continued, this turmoil existed, caused by the charges and countercharges, the
responsible people in the Government could not give their total attention to the problems that we had to solve at home and abroad.
And the net result was I was more anxious to heal the Nation–that was the top priority. And I felt then, and I feel now, that the action I
took will do that. I couldn’t be oblivious, however, to news accounts that I had concerning the President’s health, but the major reason
for the action I took related to the effort to reconcile divisions in our country and to heal the wounds that had festered for so long.
Q. Mr. President, after you had told us that you were going to allow the legal process to go on before you decided whether to pardon
him, why did you decide on Sunday morning, abruptly, to pardon President Nixon?
The President: I didn’t decide abruptly. I explained a moment ago the process that I went through subsequent to the last press
conference. And when I had assembled all of that information that came to me through my counsel, I then most carefully analyzed the
situation in the country, and I decided that we could not afford in America an extended period of continued turmoil. And the fact that
the trial and all of the parts thereof would have lasted a year, perhaps more, with the continuation of the divisions in America, I felt
that I should take the action that I did promptly and effectively.
[2] Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask you a question about the decision relating to custody of the Nixon tapes and documents.
Considering the enormous interest that the Special Prosecutor’s office had in those documents for further investigation, I am
wondering why the negotiations with Mr. Nixon’s representatives were conducted strictly between the counsel in your office without
bringing in discussions with either Mr. Jaworski’s representatives or those from the Justice Department?
The President: In the first place, I did receive a memorandum, or legal opinion, from the Department of Justice which indicated that in
the opinion of the Department of Justice, the documents, tapes–the ownership of them–were in the hands of the former President. And
historically, that has been the case for all Presidents.
Now, the negotiations for the handling of the tapes and documents were undertaken and consummated by my staff and the staff of the
former President. I believe that they have been properly preserved, and they will be available under subpoena for any criminal
proceeding. Now, the Special Prosecutor’s staff has indicated some concern. I am saying tonight that my staff is working with the
Special Prosecutor’s staff to try and alleviate any concerns that they have. I hope a satisfactory arrangement can be worked out.
Previous Statements on Pardon
{3.} Q. Mr. President, during your confirmation hearings as Vice President, you said that you did not think that the country would
stand for a President to pardon his predecessor. Has your mind changed about such public opinion?
The President: In those hearings before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, I was asked a hypothetical question. And
in answer to that hypothetical question, I responded by saying that I did not think the American people would stand for such an action.
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Now that I am in the White House and don’t have to answer hypothetical questions but have to deal with reality, it was my judgment,
after analyzing all of the facts, that it was in the best interest of the United States for me to take the action that I did.
I think if you will reread what I said in answer to that hypothetical question, I did not say I wouldn’t. I simply said that under the way
the question was phrased, the American people would object.
But I am absolutely convinced, when dealing with reality in this very, very difficult situation, that I made the right decision in an
effort–an honest, conscientious effort–to end the divisions and turmoil in the United States.
Mr. Lisagor. {Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News}
Safeguarding of Tapes and Documents
{4} Q. Mr. President, is there any safeguard in the tapes agreement that was made with Mr. Nixon, first, with their destruction in the
event anything happens to him, because under the agreement they will be destroyed, and secondly, should not the tapes be kept in the
White House until the Special Prosecutor has finished dealing with them?
The President: The tapes and the documents are still in our possession, and we are, as I said a moment ago, working with the special
Prosecutor’s office to alleviate any concerns they have as to their disposition and their availability.
The agreement as to destruction is quite clear-cut. As long as Mr. Nixon is alive and during the period of time that is set forth, they are
available for subpoena by a court involving any criminal proceedings. I think this is a necessary requirement for the protection of
evidence for any such action.
The CIA and Chile
{5} Q. Mr. President, recent Congressional testimony has indicated that the CIA, under the direction of a committee headed by Dr.
Kissinger, attempted to destabilize the Government of Chile under former President Allende.
Is it the policy of your Administration to attempt to destabilize the governments of other democracies?
The President: Let me answer in general. I think this is a very important question.
Our Government, like other governments, does take certain actions in the intelligence field to help implement foreign policy and
protect national security. I am informed reliably that Communist nations spend vastly more money than we do for the same kind of
purposes.
Now, in this particular case, as I understand it–and there is no doubt in my mind–our Government had no involvement whatsoever in
the Allende coup. To my knowledge, nobody has charged that. The facts are we had no involvement in any way in the coup itself.
In a period of time, 3 or 4 years ago, there was an effort being made by the Allende government to destroy opposition news media,
both the writing press as well as the electronic press, and to destroy opposition political parties.
The effort that was made in this case was to help and assist the preservation of opposition newspapers and electronic media and to
preserve opposition political parties.
I think this is in the best interest of the people in Chile, and, certainly, in our best interest.
Now, may I add one further comment?
The 40 Committee was established in 1948. It has been in existence under Presidents since that time. That Committee reviews every
covert operation undertaken by our Government, and that information is relayed to the responsible Congressional committees where it
is reviewed by House and Senate committees.
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
It seems to me that the 40 Committee should continue in existence, and I am going to meet with the responsible Congressional
committees to see whether or not they want any changes in the review process so that the Congress, as well as the President, are fully
informed and are fully included in the operations for any such action.
Mr. Sperling. {Godfrey Sperling, Jr., Christian Science Monitor}
Further Questions on Pardon Decision
{6} Q. In view of public reaction, do you think that the Nixon pardon really served to bind up the Nation’s wounds? I wonder if you
would assess public reaction to that move?
The President: I must say that the decision has created more antagonism than I anticipated. But as I look over the long haul with a
trial, or several trials, a former President, criminal trials, the possibility of a former President being in the dock, so to speak, and the
divisions that would have existed not just for a limited period of time but for a long period of time, it seems to me that when I had the
choice between that possibility and the possibility of taking direct action hoping to conclude it, I am still convinced, despite the public
reaction so far, that the decision I made was the right one.
Q. Mr. President, in regard to the pardon, you talk about the realities of the situation. Now those realities, rightly or wrongly, include a
good many people who speculate about whether or not there is some sort of arrangement–they even, some of them call it a deal–
between you and the former President, or between your staff and his staff–resignation in exchange for a full pardon.
The question is: Is there or was there, to your knowledge, any kind of understanding about this.
The President: There was no understanding, no deal between me and the former President, nor between my staff and the staff of the
former President, none whatsoever.
Access to Income Tax Returns
{7.} Q. Mr. President, sir, there is a bill that the Treasury Department has put forward, I think it is about 38 pages. Under this bill,
which deals with getting hold of the returns, Internal Revenue returns, of citizens of the country, you could take action to get those
returns whenever you wanted to.
I wonder if you are aware of this and if you feel that you need to get those returns of citizens?
The President: It is my understanding that a President has, by tradion and practice, and by law, the right to have access to income tax
returns. I personally think that is something that should be kept very closely held. A person’s income tax return is a very precious
thing to that individual, and therefore, I am about to issue an Executive order {11805} that makes it even more restrictive as to how
those returns can be handled. And I do think that a proposed piece of legislation that is coming to me and subsequently will be
submitted, as I recollect, to the Congress would also greatly tighten up the availability or accessibility of income tax returns. I think
they should be closely held, and I can assure you that they will be most judiciously handled as far as I am concerned.
Ownership of Presidential Papers
{8.} Q. Mr. President, looking beyond the Nixon papers and in view of some criticism in Congress, do you believe we may have now
reached the point where Presidential White House papers should remain in the Government’s hands as the property of the
Government?
The President: As far as I am personally concerned, I can see a legitimate reason for Presidential papers remaining the property of the
Government. In my own case, I made a decision some years ago to turn over all of my Congressional papers, all of my Vice
Presidential papers, to the University of Michigan archives.
As far as I am concerned, whether they go to the archives for use or whether they stay in the possession of the Government, I don’t
think it makes too much difference. I have no desire, personally, to retain whatever papers come out of my Administration.
Mr. Mollenhoff. {Clark R. Mollenhoff, Des Moines Register and Tribune}
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
The Pardon Decision
{9.} Q. Mr. President, at the last press conference you said, "The code of ethics that will be followed will be the example that I set."
Do you find any conflicts of interest in the decision to grant a sweeping pardon to your life-long friend and your financial benefactor
with no consultation for advice and judgment for the legal fallout?
The President: The decision to grant a pardon to Mr. Nixon was made primarily, as I have expressed, for the purpose of trying to heal
the wounds throughout the country between Americans on one side of the issue or the other. Mr. Nixon nominated me for the office of
Vice President. I was confirmed overwhelmingly in the House as well as in the Senate. Every action I have taken, Mr.Mollenhoff, is
predicated on my conscience without any concern or consideration as to favor as far as I am concerned.
Conditional Amnesty and the Pardon Decision
{10.} Q. If your intention was to heal the wounds of the Nation, sir, why did you grant only a conditional amnesty to the Vietnam war
draft evaders while granting a full pardon to President Nixon?
The President: The only connection between those two cases is the effort that I made in the one to heal the wounds involving the
charges against Mr. Nixon and my honest and conscientious effort to heal the wounds for those who had deserted military service or
dodged the draft. That is the only connection between the two.
In one case, you have a President who was forced to resign because of circumstances involving his Administration, and he has been
shamed and disgraced by that resignation. In the case of the draft dodgers and Army and military deserters, we trying to heal the
wounds by that action that I took with the signing of the proclamation this morning.
Reports on Watergate Investigation
{11.} Q. Mr. President, another concern that has been voiced around the country since the pardon is that the judicial process as it
finally unwinds may not write the definitive chapter on Watergate and perhaps with particular regard to Mr. Nixon’s particular
involvement, however total, however it may have been the truth. My question is, would you consider appointing a special commission
with extraordinary powers to look into all of the evidentiary material and to write that chapter and not leave it to later history?
The President: Well, it seems to me as I look at what has been done, I think you find a mass of evidence that has been accumulated. In
the first instance, you have the very intensive investigation conducted by the House Committee on the Judiciary. It was a very wellconducted investigation. It came up with volumes of information.
In addition, the Special Prosecutor’s office under Mr. Jaworski has conducted an intensive investigation and the Special Prosecutor’s
office will issue a report at the conclusion of their responsibility that I think will probably make additional information available to the
American people
And thirdly, as the various criminal trials proceed in the months ahead, there obviously will be additional information made available
to the American people. So, when you see what has been done and what undoubtedly will be one, I think the full story will be made
available to the American people
Successors to General Haig and Press Secretary ter Horst
{12.} Q. Mr. President, could you give us an idea who will succeed General Haig, * and how are you coming on your search for a
Press Secretary? **
{*General Alexander M. Haig, Jr. was the President’s nominee to be Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. He had been White House
chief of staff.}
{* *Mr. ter Horst resigned as Press Secretary in protest of the Presidential pardon.}
The President: Do I have a lot of candidates here? {Laughter} No shows? {Laughter}
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
I have several people in mind to replace General Haig, but I have made no deciosn on that. It was just announced today that the NATO
countries have accepted him as the officer handling those responsibilities.
I think he is to take office succeeding General Goodpaster on December 15. He assumes his responsibilities as the head of U.S.
military forces November 1. In the next few days undoubtedly I will make the decision as to the individual to succeed him.
As far as the Press Secretary is concerned, we are actively working on that, and we hope to have an announcement in a relatively short
period of time.
The Former President’s Health
{13.} Q. Mr. President, prior to your deciding to pardon Mr. Nixon, did you have, apart from those reports, any information either
from associates of the President or from his family or from any other source about his health, about his medical condition?
The President: Prior to the decision that I made granting a pardon to Mr. Nixon, I had no other specific information concerning his
health other than what I had read in the news media or heard in the news media. I had not gotten any information from any of the
Nixon family.
The sole source was what I had read in the news media plus one other fact. On Saturday, before the Sunday, a member of my staff was
working with me on the several decisions I had to make. He was, from my staff, the one who had been in negotiations on Friday with
the President and his staff. At the conclusion of some decisions that were made, I asked him, how did the President look, and he
reported to me his observations.
But other than what I had read or heard about this particular incident, I had no precise information concerning the President’s health.
Yes, Mr. Joyce. {Thomas H. Joyce, Newsweek Magazine}
Possibility of a Depression
{14.} Q. Mr. president, your own economic advisers are suggesting–say the economy is very bad and they’re very pessimistic–we are
hearing the word "depression" used now. I wonder how you feel about whether we are heading for a depression?
The President: Let me say very strongly the United States is not going to have a depression. The overall economy of the United States
is strong. Employment is still high. We do have the problem of inflation. We do have related problems, and we are going to come up
with some answers that I hope will solve those problems.
We are not going to have a depression. We are going to work to make sure that our economy improves in the months ahead.
Food Aid Policy
{15.} Q. Mr. President, in the face of massive food shortages and the prospects of significant starvation, will the United States be able
to significantly increase its food aid to foreign countries, and what is our position going to be at the Rome conference on participation
in the world grain reserves?
The President: Within the next few days a very major decision in this area will be made. I am not at liberty to tell you what the answer
will be because it has not been decided.
But it is my hope that the united States for humanitarian purposes will be able to increase its contribution to those nations that have
suffered because of drought or any of the other problems related to human needs.
Intelligence Activities and International Law
{16.} Q. Back to the CIA. Under what international law do we have a right to attempt to destabilize the constitutionally elected
government of another country, and does the Soviet Union have a similar right to try to destabilize the Government of Canada, for
example, or the United States?
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
The President: I am not going to pass judgment on whether it is permitted or authorized under international law. It is a recognized fact
that historically, as well as presently, such actions are taken in the best interest of the countries involved.
Administration Openness and Candor
{17.} Q. Mr. President, last month when you assumed the presidency, you pledged openness and candor. Last week you decided on
the ex-President’s pardon in virtually total secrecy. Despite all you have said tonight, there would still seem to be some confusion,
some contradiction.
My question is this: Are your watchwords of your Administration still openness and candor?
The President: Without any question, without any reservation. And I think in the one instance that you cite, it was a sole decision, and,
believe me, it wasn’t easy. And since I was the only one who could make that decision, I thought I had to search my own soul after
consulting with a limited number of people. And I did it. And I think in the long run it was the right decision.
Mr. Cormier: Thank you, Mr. President.
Note: This was President Ford’s second news conference. It began at 8:00 p.m. in the East Room at the White House. It was broadcast
live on radio and television.
SOURCE: Gerald R. Ford Library
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
A President Is Impeachable If He Attempts To Subvert The Constitution
July 25, 1974
This is the speech given by Representative Barbara Jordan (Democrat-Texas) reminding her colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee of the
Constitutional basis for impeachment. The Committee met in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman:
I join in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong
man and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.
Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, "We, the people." It is a very eloquent beginning. But when the
document was completed on the seventeenth of September 1787 I was not included in that "We, the people." I felt somehow for many years that George
Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision I have finally been
included in "We, the people."
Today, I am an inquisitor; I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is
whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.
...The subject of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men. That is what we are talking about. In other words, the
jurisdiction comes from the abuse or violation of some public trust. It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution, for any member here to assert that
for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office.
The Constitution doesn't say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the
encroachment of the Executive. In establishing the division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right
to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same person.
We know the nature of impeachment. We have been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be
called into account. It is designed to "bridle" the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public
men. The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with
power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive. The nature of impeachment is a narrowly channeled exception to the
separation of powers maxim; the federal convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the
term, "maladministration." "It is to be used only for great misdemeanors," so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia
ratification convention: "We need one branch to check the others."
The North Carolina ratification convention: "No one need to be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity.
"Prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community," said Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, number 65. "And to divide
it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused." I do not mean political parties in that sense.
The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term, "high
crime and misdemeanors."
Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that "nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them
speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can."
Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, tax reform, health insurance,
campaign finance reform, housing, environmental protection, energy sufficiency, mass transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such
overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one.
This morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by the President is
thin. We are told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the President did know on June 23, 1972.
The President did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the Committee for the Re-election of the President, which was found in the
possession of one of the burglars arrested on June 17.
What the President did know on June 23 was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist,
which included Howard Hunt's participation in the Dita Beard ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt's fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy
Administration.
We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the
President of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the President.
The committee subpoena is outstanding and if the President wants to supply that material, the committee sits here. The fact is that on yesterday, the American
people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States.
At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the President's actions.
Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and
there is grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
We have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects payment to the defendants of money. The President had knowledge that these funds were being
paid and that these were funds collected for the 1972 presidential campaign. We know that the President met with Mr. Henry Petersen twenty-seven times to
discuss matters related to Watergate, and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information Mr. Petersen was receiving and
transmitting to the President. The words are, "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will
shelter that person, he may be impeached."
Justice Story: "Impeachment is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect
their rights and rescue their liberties from violations."
We know about the Houston plan. We know about the break-in of the psychiatrist's office. We know that there was absolute, complete direction in August 1971
when the President instructed Ehrilichman to "do whatever is necessary." This instruction led to a surreptitious entry into Dr. Fielding's office. "Protect their
rights." "Rescue their liberties from violation."
The South Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: Those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust."
Beginning shortly after the Watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the President has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed
to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the Watergate
case which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions; impeachable, those who misbehave. Those who "behave amiss or
betray their public trust."
James Madison, again at the constitutional convention: "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."
The Constitution charges the President with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the President has counseled his aides to commit
perjury, willfully disregarded the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, concealed surreptitious entry, attempted to compromise a federal judge while publicly
displaying his cooperation with the process of criminal justice. "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."
If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that eighteenth century Constitution
should be abandoned to a twentieth century paper shredder.
Has the President committed offenses and planned and directed and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? This is the
question. We know that. We know the question.
We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question.
It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
NEWS RELEASE
MONDAY, MAY 21, 2001
PRESIDENT FORD RECEIVES JOHN F. KENNEDY PROFILE IN COURAGE AWARD
CONGRESSMAN JOHN LEWIS CITED FOR LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT
Boston - Former U.S. President Gerald Ford, who presided over the country's recovery from what he called "our long national
nightmare" and who made a controversial decision of conscience to pardon former President Richard M. Nixon, was today honored
as the recipient of the 2001 John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award at a ceremony at the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum on
Columbia Point in Boston.
Legendary civil rights leader and U.S. Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) received a special Profile in Courage Award for Lifetime
Achievement. The award presentation to Lewis marks the 40th anniversary of the 1961 Freedom Rides for which he risked his life
and was beaten severely by mobs for challenging segregation at interstate bus terminals across the South. Lewis, who at age 23 was
also one of the principal organizers of the March on Washington in 1963, was recognized for a lifetime career marked by
extraordinary courage, leadership, and commitment to universal human rights. The presentation of a Profile in Courage Award for
Lifetime Achievement is unprecedented.
A distinguished bipartisan committee of national political and community leaders selected Ford and Lewis for the prestigious
awards for political courage. The John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award is presented annually to an elected official who has
withstood strong opposition from constituents, powerful interest groups or adversaries to follow what she or he believes is the right
course of action. The award is named for President Kennedy's 1957 Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Profiles in Courage, which recounts
the stories of eight U.S. Senators who risked their careers to fight for what they believed in.
"For more than a quarter century, Gerald Ford proved to the people of Michigan, the Congress, and our nation that politics can be
a noble profession," said Caroline Kennedy in presenting the Profile in Courage Award to the former president. "As President, he
made a controversial decision of conscience to pardon former president Nixon and end the national trauma of Watergate. In doing
so, he placed his love of country ahead of his own political future."
Kennedy then presented the first John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award for Lifetime Achievement to Congressman Lewis.
"Today we honor Congressman John Lewis, not for a simple act, but for a lifetime of courage, not for a moment of bravery, but a
career of conscience," she said. "He has walked with the wind, each act of courage a footstep in our long journey towards a 'Beloved
Community.' He has been steadfast in his dedication to the dream of an integrated society, and worked for 40 years to make sure
that every vote counts, and every voice is heard. There is no one more deserving of the first John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage
Award for Lifetime Achievement."
The Profile in Courage Award was created by the Kennedy Library Foundation in 1989 to honor President Kennedy's commitment
and contribution to public service. It is presented on or near May 29, in celebration of President Kennedy's birthday. Described by
one recipient as the "Nobel in Government", the Profile in Courage Award is accompanied by a $25,000 stipend and a sterling silver
lantern representing a beacon of hope. The lantern was designed by Edwin Schlossberg, Inc., and crafted by Tiffany & Co.
In selecting a recipient, the Profile in Courage Award Committee considers elected officials who have demonstrated the kind of
political courage described by John F. Kennedy in Profiles in Courage. In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Kennedy wrote:
"The true democracy, living and growing and inspiring, puts its faith in the people - faith that the people will not simply elect men
who will represent their views ably and faithfully, but also elect men who will exercise their conscientious judgment - faith that the
people will not condemn those whose devotion to principle leads them to unpopular courses, but will reward courage, respect
honor and ultimately recognize right."
President Gerald R. Ford
2001 Profile in Courage Award Recipient
On August 9, 1974, Vice President Gerald Rudolph Ford became the 38th President of the United States. Ford's elevation to the
nation's highest political office followed a long, distinguished career in the U.S. House of Representatives where he represented the
Fifth District of Michigan for 25 years, and served as House Minority Leader for eight years. He served as Vice President of the United
States following the forced resignation of Vice President Spiro T. Agnew who had pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of income tax
evasion. He became President of the United States following President Richard Nixon's resignation during impeachment proceedings
as a result of his involvement in the Watergate affair and other abuses of power and violations of the civil liberties of Americans.
When Ford became president, his record of decency and integrity went far toward healing the wounds of Watergate.
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
On Sept. 8, 1974, President Ford granted a "full, free and absolute pardon" to former President Nixon "for all offenses against the
United States which he ... has committed or may have committed or taken part in" while he was president. Nixon accepted the
pardon.
In his autobiography, Ford wrote of the pardon, "I simply was not convinced that the country wanted to see an ex-president
behind bars. We are not a vengeful people; forgiveness is one of the roots of the American tradition. And Nixon, in my opinion, had
already suffered enormously. His resignation was an implicit admission of guilt, and he would have to carry forever the burden of his
disgrace. But I wasn't motivated primarily by sympathy for his plight or by concern over the state of his health. It was the state of the
country's health at home and around the world that worried me."
The response from the press, members of Congress, and the general public was overwhelmingly negative. The critics contended that
the pardon was premature because it precluded possible indictment that might have led to answers to some of the remaining
Watergate questions. Appearing before the U. S. House Committee on the Judiciary, President Ford explained under oath, in the
only sworn congressional testimony ever given by a sitting president, that there were no deals connected with the pardon. He said
he hoped his action would begin the process of healing the presidency and a deeply wounded nation.
In November 1976, President Ford lost the White House to Jimmy Carter in one of the closest elections in American history. Many
historians believe Ford's pardon of Nixon contributed to his defeat. Many have also come to believe that President Ford was the
right man at the right time who played a leadership role in helping to restore the American people's trust in their government.
Congressman John Lewis
Profile in Courage Award for Lifetime Achievement Recipient
Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) was born the son of sharecroppers on February 21, 1940 outside of Troy, Alabama. At an early age,
Lewis developed an unwavering commitment to the Civil Rights Movement. As a student, he organized sit-in demonstrations at
segregated lunch counters in Nashville Tennessee. In 1961, Lewis volunteered to participate in the Freedom Rides, which were
organized to challenge segregation at interstate bus terminals across the South. Lewis risked his life and was beaten severely by
mobs for participating in the Freedom Rides.
At age 23, John Lewis became chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), a position he held from 1963 to
1966. SNCC had been formed three years earlier with the support of Ella Baker and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference, among others. Its youthful members, impatient with the slower pace of more established civil
rights activists and organizations, concentrated on grass roots organizing in the South. SNCC was largely responsible for the sit-ins
and other activities of students in the struggle for civil rights.
Despite his youth, John Lewis became a recognized leader in the Movement. At the March on Washington in August 1963, John
Lewis' intended remarks had to be revised at the last minute because some of the other leaders thought them too inflammatory and
critical of President Kennedy and Congress. Nonetheless, his speech drew a tremendous response from the marchers.
In 1964, John Lewis coordinated SNCC efforts to organize voter registration drives and community action programs during the
"Mississippi Freedom Summer." The following year, Lewis led one of the most dramatic nonviolent protests of the Movement. Along
with fellow activist Hosea Williams, Lewis led over 600 marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on March 7,
1965. In a confrontation that became known as "Bloody Sunday," Alabama state troopers attacked the civil-rights marchers whose
only offense was to protest barriers to black voter registration. That fateful march and a subsequent march between Selma and
Montgomery, Alabama led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
John Lewis' first electoral success came in 1981 when he was elected to the Atlanta City Council. He resigned from the Council in
1986 to run for Congress. Elected to Congress in November 1986, Lewis represents Georgia's Fifth Congressional District.
Despite more than 40 arrests, physical attacks and brutal beatings, John Lewis remains devoted to the philosophy of non-violence.
He describes himself as "a coalition builder" who will never compromise his belief in an integrated society. Despite widespread
criticisms and potential political implications for his reelection bid in 1996, Lewis opposed Louis Farrakhan's Million-Man March in
1995 because he saw it as an effort to "resegregate America."
As a Member of the U.S. Congress, John Lewis continues to dedicate his life to protecting human rights, securing personal dignity,
and building what he calls the "Beloved Community." A skillful practitioner of conciliation and bringing people together, Lewis has
been unwavering resisting pressure to compromise his lifetime commitment to racial justice, equality, and integration.
Ford and Lewis were chosen as the recipients of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation's prestigious award for political courage by
a committee of national political and community leaders, including presidential historian David McCullough; U.S. Senator Thad
Cochran (R-Mississippi); U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine); U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA); John Seigenthaler,
Chairman of the Committee, and Founder of the First Amendment Center; David Burke, former president of CBS News; Paul G. Kirk,
Julie Stanyk
Debating the Nixon Pardon
United States History/Grade 11
Historical Debate
Jr., Chairman of the Board of Directors of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation; Marian Wright Edelman, President of the
Children's Defense Fund; Antonia Hernandez, President of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Elaine Jones,
Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund; and Caroline Kennedy, president of the John F. Kennedy Library
Foundation.