folder 9/3: [peter kreindler] pmk notes on [richard nixon's] rmn’s grand jury testimony -...

8/3/2019 Folder 9/3: [Peter Kreindler] PMK notes on [Richard Nixon's] RMNs Grand Jury testimony - Deposition Matters / Krei

1/21

SCREENEDI' . .

.l"

1 -


2/21

RICHARD NIXON - DEPOSITIONATTERS I'- 1/ _______


3/21

WATERGATE SP ECIAL PROSECUTION FOIICE DEPARTMENT OF ]l'STI.CE

~ / m o T a n d u l r l TO John Barker DATE:August 20, 1975

FROM Kenneth G e l l e r ~ SUBJECT: Nixon Deposi t ion

An i tem on WTOP radio t h i s morning quoted fromp a r t o f Nixon's testimony in the depos i t ion he ld l a s tmonth in connect ion with the c i v i l s u i t . This l eadsme to be l ieve t ha t th e f u l l t r ansc r ip t of Nixon 's t e s t i -mony has been re leased o r i s about to be re leased .

There i s one area in t he depos i t ion which mightlead to your receiv ing some c a l l s . In answer to a quest ion about whether Nixon still agrees with h is s t a t e -ment of Apr i l 29, 1974 t h a t the publ ic i s e n t i t l e d tothe f u l l s tory o f h is in volvement in the Watergate cover -up, Nixon sa id t h a t he has f u l f i l l ed h is obl iga t ion bycooperat ing with the Spec ia l Prosecutor ' s requests fo rdocuments and by t e s t i f y ing before the grand ju ry .This , of course , i s decept ive/ s ince none of our recen tr eques t s fo r documents o r the grand ju r y ' s quest ioningconcerned the cover-up.I f there are any i nqu i r i e s , you might quotefrom the memorandum we f i l ed on July 16, 1975 in oppos i t ion to r e lease of the grand jury deposi t ion toJohn Mitche l l . "An examination of the [grand jury]t r ansc r ip t / " we wrote / "would show beyond peradventuretha t the re i s nothing in Mr . Nixon 's t e s t imony , whichfocused pr imar i ly on pending grand jury i nves t i ga t i ons /t ha t ' might have led the jury to en te r t a in a reason-ab le doubt about [de fendan t ' s ] g u i l t ' in the Watergatecover-l ip cas e " .

cc: Mr. RuthMr. KrcindlerMr. Davis


4/21

WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

MemorandumTO :Pe te r Kreind le r DATE: July 21, 1975

FROM : Frank Mart i

S U ~ E C T : C r i m i n a l Divis ion Request fo r Access to Nixon 's Testimony

Shor t ly a f t e r it was announced t h a t Nixon 's tes t imonyhad been taken by th i s Off ice , I received a phone ca l lfrom Edward Chris tenbury o f the Criminal Divis ion r e quest ing t h a t the Department be given access to Nixon 'stes t imony to the ex ten t t h a t it r e l a t e s to the i ssuesinvo lved in th e Halper in v. Kiss inger l i t i g a t i o n . OnJuly 17, 1975, I ca l led Chris tenbury and asked t h a the re -eva lua te h is need fo r access to Nixon 's tes t imony.I also s t a t ed t ha t t h i s Off ice f e l t t h a t there weresome se r ious problems of abuse of th e grand jury processif informat ion developed by the grand jury was to beused fo r c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n purposes .

Chris tenbury s t a t ed t h a t h is or i g i na l r eques t wa smade merely fo r th e purpose of aid ing him in p repara t ionfo r the poss ib le t ak ing o f Nixon's depos i t ion in theHalper in case . He a lso s t a t ed tha t a f t e r h is c a l l tome he h imse l f began to r ea l i ze t ha t the re might be someproblem in us ing Nixon 's grand jury tes t imony toprepare q i s . c i v i l case . Chris tenbury went on to s t a t et h a t he he would probably no t need access toNixon's tes t imony and ce r t a i n l y would no t need suchaccess if the Halper in cour t upholds Nixon 's execu t ivepr iv i l ege claim and re fuses to order h is depos i t ion .He noted t h a t th e execu t ive pr i v i l ege claim was dueto be argued in l a t e July and t h a t it wa s poss ib le th ecour t might no t ru le u n t i l September .


5/21

WATERGATE SPEC IAL PROSECUTION FORCE DEPARTMENT OF J UST ICEMemorandumTO :Pe ter Kr e i nd l e r DATE: July 21, 1975

FROM :Frank

SUBJECT:Criminal Divis ion Request fo r Access to Nixon 's Test imony

Shor t ly a f t e r it was announced th a t Nixon 's tes t imonyhad been taken by t h i s Off ice , I received a phone c a l lfrom Edward Chris tenbury o f the Criminal Divis ion re quest ing t h a t the Department be given acces s to Nixon 'stes t imony to the ex t en t t h a t it r e l a t e s to the i s suesinvolved in the Halper in v. Kissinger l i t i g a t i o n . OnJuly 17 , 1975, I ca l l ed Chr i s tenbury and asked t h a the re -eva lua te h is need fo r acces s to Nixon 's tes t imony .I a lso s t a t ed t h a t t h i s Off ice f e l t t h a t the re weresome se r ious problems o f abuse o f th e grand jury processif informat ion developed by the grand jury was to beused fo r c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n purposes .

Chris tenbury s t a t ed t h a t h is or ig ina l reques t wasmade merely fo r th e purpose o f a id ing him in prepara t ionfo r the poss ib le t ak ing o f Nixon 's deposi t ion in th eHalper in case . He a lso s t a t ed t h a t a f t e r h is c a l l tome he himsel f began to r ea l i ze t h a t the re might be someproblem in us ing Nixon 's grand jury tes t imony toprepare h is c i v i l case . Chr i s tenbury went on to s t a t et h a t he felt he would probably no t need access toNixon ' s tes t imony and ce r t a in ly would no t need suchaccess if the Halp e r in c o u r t upholds Nixon ' s execu t ivep r i v i l e ge claim and re fuses to order h is depos i t ion .He noted t h a t the exe cu t ive p r i v i l e ge claim was dueto be argued in l a t e July and t h a t it was poss ib le thecour t might no t ru le u n t i l September.


6/21

WATERGATE SPECIAL P,ROSECUTION FORCE DEPARTME0IT OF JU STICE

MemorandumTO

FROM

SUBJECT:

Pe t e r Kre ind le r DATE : July 15, 1975

Frank M a r t i ~ Cr iminal Divis ion Request f o r Access t o NixonTestimony

Shor t ly a f te r it was announced t h a t Nixon 'stes t imony had been t aken by t h i s Off ice , I rece iveda phone c a l l from Edward Chris tenbury of the CriminalDivis ion r eques t ing t h a t the Department be given accessto Nixon ' s tes t imony to the ex t en t t h a t it r e l a t e s tothe i s sues involved in the Halper in v . Kiss inge rl i t i g a t i o n . One of the i s sues in t h a t c ase , al though '>c l ea r ly no t th e maj or i s sue , i s the reason fo r theremoval o f the wire tap re cords from the FB I . AccordinglyChr i s tenbury ' s reques t wou ld cover th a t p o r t i on o f 'Nixon 's tes t imony dea l ing with "wi re taps , " and to al imi t ed ex t en t would cover por t ions of h is t es t imonyabout "Gray." Some por t i ons o f th e "wiretap" t es t imonyinvo lve na t i ona l secur i ty matters and a re in th e possess iono f th e NS C. Th e na t i ona l secur i ty por t ions of the"Gray" tes t imony a re probab ly no t covered by Chri s t enbury ' sr eques t .

Th e fol lowing background should be noted . TheHalper in case ,vas f i l ed in Mayor June o f 1973 andt hus , th r oughout the per iod o f our i n v e s t i g a t ions ,ce r t a in i s sues have ar i sen wi th regard to t h a t l i t i g a t i o nTh e pr inc ipa l i s sue has been the appropr ia teness o f Jus t i c e Department represen ta t ion o f the f ede ra ldefendan ts in t h a t case . ~ v e have advised the Depart -ment of the na ture o f our i nves t i ga t i ons in to the re -moval of records and they have decl ined to r ep re sen tany of ,the c i v i l defendants who were viewed by t h i sOff i ce as p o ten t i a l conspi ra tors in our i nves t i ga t i on .More r e l evan t to Chr i s tenbury ' s presen t reques t i s th ee x t e n t to whioh ,ve have exchanged in format ion wi th th eCriminal Divis ion on t h i s sub j ec t . In tw o i ns t ancesour i nves t i ga t i on uncovered FBI documents .. hich ,verer e l evan t to the Halper in l i t i g a t i o n . Since th e D i s t r i c t


7/21

2 .

Judge in the Halper in case had ordered the Departmentto produce a l l such FBI documents we accordingly for warded copies o f these documents to the Departmentwhich then submit ted them to the Cour t . In oneins tance , the so-ca l l ed "Clark Cl i f ford l e t t e r , " th eFBI document in ques t ion , wa s at tached to a number o fr e l a t ed White House documents r ece ived from Jeb Magruderand copies o f t hese White House documents were al soforwarded to the Department . Almost a l l th e documentsinvolved to date in th e Halper in l i t i g a t i o n a re FB Idocuments and, accordingly , t h i s Off ice has had accessto those documents d i r ec t ly through the Bureau . InMay, 1975, we requested acces s to th e sealed deposi t ionin the Halper in case . Approximately a month l a t e r th eDepartment agreed to provide us with acces s to th e sea l eddepos i t ions . It should be noted t h a t most of thedepos i t ions are not sea led and t h a t the reason fo r sea l ingpor t ions o f t hese deposi t ions i s t h a t they d i s c u s s FBIdocuments which are under sea l . We, of cour se , haveindependent access to a l l of t hese FB I documents .

It should be noted t h a t p r i o r to the reques t fo rNixon 's tes t imony, th e Department had never requestedacces s to any of our grand jury tes t imony, or WhiteHouse t apes and documents , o r the r e su l t s o f FBI in ves t i ga t i ons performed a t our d i r ec t ion . In o t he r words ,it i s c l e a r t h a t th i s reques t i s no t " in the normalcourse" and, in f a c t , comes c lose to being based in p a r ton cu r ios i ty . To be su re , the re i s a l eg i t i ma t e i n t e r e s ton the p a r t of the Department in ge t t i ng Nixon ' ss to ry , espec i a l l y s ince he H i l l c i t e execu t ive pr iv i l egein r e s i s t i n g any e f f o r t s to take h is depos i t ion . Asecond f ac t o r should be noted . Turning over Nixon 'stes t imony would prov ide a preceden t fo r opening up a l lo f our f i l e s , inc luding W'hi te House t apes and documents ,fo r use by th e Department in i t s defense of the Halper incase . This tends to make it even c l e a r e r t h a t such d i s c losu re ",ould be an abuse of the grand jury process and ,if th e Department r e f l e c t s a t a l l upon th i s p o s s i b i l i t y ,they might wel l r ea l i ze t ha t it would be a t a c t i c a l m i s take to i n j ec t th e r e su l t s o f our i nves t i ga t i ons i n toth e Halper in l i t i g a t i o n .

As a l ega l mat te r , it appears t h a t t echn i ca l l yNixon 's tes t imony can be d isc losed to th e Department s i nceRule 6(e) provides fo r d i sc losu re to "a t to rneys fo rthe Government fo r use in the performance o f t h e i r du t i e s "I have found no cases , and doubt t h a t any e x i s t , where .


8/21

3.

one branch o f the Jus t i ce Department has sought tocompel another branch to disc lose grand jury t e s t imony .There i s , however, some usefu l language in a few of th emain cases . Th e l ead ing case i s United St a t e s v .Proc to r and Gamble Company, 356 U.S. 677 (1958) . Thatcase d e a l t with a c i v i l an t i - t r u s t act ion whereinthe defendants sought discovery o f grand ju ry tes t imonydeveloped during a pr io r c r imina l a n t i - t r u s t i nves t iga -t ion o f the defendants . The Supreme Cour t held t h a t suchdiscovery was not warranted , espec ia l ly s ince no "compel l ingnecess i ty" o r "par t icu lar ized need" was shown by thedefendants . In reve rs ing the lower Cour t ' s order toproduce the grand ju ry t r ansc r ip t s the Court s t a t e d , " I t( the D i s t r i c t Court) also seemed to have been in f luencedby the fac t t h a t the prosecut ion was using c r imina l pr o cedures to e l i c i t evidence in a c i v i l case . I f th eprosecut ion were us ing t h a t device , it would be f l ou t ingthe po l icy of the law." Th e Court , however, concludedt h a t , "'rhere i s no f inding t h a t the grand ju ry proceedingwas used as a shor t cu t to goals o therwise barred o r mored i f f i c u l t to reach ." (A t p. 683) It seems c l e a r t h a t ..th i s i s prec i se ly what the Department i s seeking toaccompl ish , i . e . to g e t Nixon 's tes t imony before thegrand jury because it knows t h a t , due to Nixon ' s execu t ivepr iv i l ege cla im, it may be barred from get t ing t h a ttes t imony in the c i v i l s u i t . Jus t i ce Whi t t aker , in h isconcurr ing opinion in Proctor and Gamble, would havegone fu r the r and barred use o f the grand jury tes t imony ina c i v i l case by e i t h e r the Government o r the defendan t sexcep t where there has been a showing of "except ionaland pa r t i cu l a r i zed need." In h is view, grand ju ry sec recy"may be as fu l ly vio la ted by disc losure to and use bythe Government counse l , agents and i nves t iga to r s as bythe d e f e n d a n t ~ s c o u n s e l in such a c iv i l s u i t . " (A t p. 685)

The s i tua t ion in the Halper in case i s fu r the r comp l i ca t ed by the f ac t th i s Off ice and the Jus t i ce Department a re on opposi te s i des with regard to the main f a c t u a li s sue in our i nves t i ga t i on - - i . e . the legi t imacy ofthe removal of records . This i s no t l ike the a n t i - t r u s to r tax s i t ua t ions where the Government i s the p l a i n t i f fin both the c r imina l and c i v i l l i t i ga t i on . Here, theGovernment, in the form o f the Spec ia l Prosecu to r , i sthe p o t e n t i a l p l a i n t i f f in the c r imina l act ion while th eJus t i ce Department i s the defendant in the c i v i l ac t ion .One-sided disc losure to the Department in a case such asth i s would lend f u r t he r weight to the argument t h a tsuch disc losure would cons t i t u t e an abuse of th e grandju ry process . It should be noted t h a t if the Halper in


9/21

, 4 .

c o u r t l a t e r ru led t h a t d isc losu re o f Nixon 's tes t imon yto the Department was in f ac t an abuse o f the grandju ry process , the l i ke ly r emedy would be to o r d e rt h a t the tes t imony a lso be d is c lo sed to th e pr iva t el i t i g an t . In a l l l ike l ihood th i s would al so l eadthe Cour t to order pub l ic d i sc losu re o f Ni xon ' stes t imony.In severa l c i v i l a n t i - t r u s t case s involving the

Nat ional Deposi t ion Program d isc losu re o f grand ju rytes t imony to pr iva t e l i t i g an t s has b ee n ordered wherethere has been a showing o f a "pa r t i cu l a r i zed need."In these cases the deposi t ion judge has been allowedto examine the grand jury tes t imony in camera in o r d e rto determine whether o r no t "mat e r i a l d i sc r epenc i es"between the witness ' grand jury tes t imony and h isdepos i t ion give r i se to a "pa r t i cu l a r i zed need" fo rd i sc l osu r e . (See, e . g . Consol idated Edison Co. v .All is -Chalmers Manufactur ing Co. , 217 F. Supp. 36(S.D.N.Y. 1963) . ) In the Ha l pe r i n case such " p a r t i c u l a r -ized need" w i l l no t a r i s e u n t i l such time as Nixon has '>in f a c t been deposed. (The cases are c l ea r t h a t suchd isc losu re to a pr i va t e l i t i g a n t i s n o t warran ted merelyfo r discovery purposes , which i s the p r e s e n t pos tu reo f th e Depar tment ' s reques t fo r Nixon 's tes t imony.)In th e even t t h a t Nixon 's execu t ive pr iv i l ege claimi s no t sus ta ined and if he i s in f a c t deposed , itmay become necessary to cons ider the use o f such an incamera proceed ing . I f such a proceeding does become-necessa ry , it i s considered sound po l icy to no t i fy th ewi tness vlhose tes t imony i s to be d isc losed and to al lowhim a hear ing if he ob jec t s to such d i sc l osu r e . (See,Corona Const ruct ion Co. v . Ampress Br ick Co. , 376 F. SuPp.59 8 (D.C. Ill. 1924) . ) I

I would sugges t t h a t I con tac t Chris tenbury and askt h a t he reassess th e Depar tment ' s need fo r access toNixon 's t e s t imony . I f he still f ee l s such a neede x i s t s , I \'lOuld suggest t h a t th e mat te r be taken d i r e c t l yto th e Assi s t an t Attorney General and/or Deputy AttorneyGene ra l. Even if Chris tenbury decides t h a t the tes t imonyi s no t necessa ry , th e i s sues o f Departmental use of ou rgrand jury and o t he r i nves t i ga t i ve f i l e s fo r c i v i ll i t i g a t i o n purposes should be r eso lve d p r i o r to themerger of th i s Of f i ce ' s func t ions i n to the Cr imina lDiv i s ion .


10/21

WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE

Memorandum ~ ; : r a r : : ~ ~ TOFROM

SUBJECT:

~ ~ A T E : July 15, 1975J ; ; ~ rank M a r t i ~

Criminal Divis ion Request fo r Access to NixonTestimony

Shor t ly a f t e r it was announced t ha t Nixon 'stes t imony had been taken by th i s Off ice , I receiveda phone c a l l from Edward Chris tenbury o f the CriminalDivis ion request ing t ha t th e Department be given accessto Nixon 's tes t imony to th e e x t e n t t h a t it r e l a t e s tothe i s sues involved in the Halper in v . Kissingerl i t i g a t i o n . One o f the i s sues in t h a t c a se , a l thoughclear ly no t the major i s sue , i s the reason for theremoval o f th e wire tap r ecords from th e FBI. Accord ing ly ,Chr i s t enbury ' s r eques t would cover t ha t por t ion o fNixon's test imony deal ing with "wi re t aps , " and to al imi ted ex ten t would cover por t ions o f h is tes t imonyabout "Gray." Some por t ions o f the "wire tap" tes t imonyinvolve na t iona l secu r i ty matters and are in the possess ionof the NSC. The na t iona l secur i ty por t ions o f the"Gray" tes t imony are probably n o t covered by Chr i s t enbury ' sreques t .

Th e fo l lowing background should be noted. Th eHalper in case was f i l ed in M a y o r June o f 1973 andthus , th roughout th e per iod of our i nves t i ga t i ons ,ce r t a i n i s sues have a r i sen with regard to t h a t l i t i g a t i o n .The pr i nc i pa l i s sue has been the appropr ia teness ofJus t i ce Department rep resen ta t ion o f the fede ra ldefendants in t h a t case . We have advised th e Depar t -ment of the na tu re o f our inves t iga t ions in to the re -moval of records and they have decl ined to rep resen tan y of th e c i v i l defendants who were viewed by th i sOffice as po t en t i a l consp i ra to rs in our i nves t i ga t i on .More re levan t to Chr i s t enbury ' s presen t r eques t i s th eex ten t to whioh we have exchanged informat ion with th eCriminal Divis ion on t h i s sub jec t . In tw o i n s t ancesour inves t iga t ion uncovered FB I documents which werere levan t to th e Halper in l i t i g a t i o n . Since th e D i s t r i c t


11/21

2.

Judge in the Halper in case had ordered th e Departmentto produce a l l such FBI documents we accord ing ly for warded copies o f t hese documents t o the Departmentwhich then submit ted them to the Court . In onein s tance , the so -ca l led "Clark Cl i f f o r d l e t t e r , " theFBI document in ques t ion , wa s at tached to a number o fr e l a t ed White House documents received from Jeb Magruderand copies o f these White House documents were a lsoforwarded to the Department. Almost a l l th e documentsinvolved to date in the Halper in l i t i ga t ion are FB Idocuments and , accordingly , th i s Off ice has had acces sto those documents d i r ec t ly through the Bureau. InMay, 1975, we reques ted access to the sealed depos i t ionin the Halper in case . Approximately a month l a t e r theDepartment agreed to provide us with access to the sea leddepos i t ions . It should be noted t h a t most of thedepos i t ions a r e not sealed and t h a t the reason fo r s e a l i n gpor t ions o f these depos i t ions i s t h a t they d i scuss FBIdocuments which are under sea l . We, of course , haveindependent access to a l l o f these FB I documents.

It should be noted t h a t p r i o r to th e r eques t fo rNixon 's tes t imony, the Department had never r eques tedaccess to any of our grand jury tes t imony, o r WhiteHouse tapes and documents, or the r e su l t s o f FB I in ves t iga t ions performed a t our d i r ec t i on . In o the r words,it i s c l e a r t ha t t h i s r eques t i s no t " in the normalcourse" and, in f a c t , comes c lose to being based in p a r ton cur i os i t y . To be su re , the re i s a l eg i t ima te i n t e r e s ton the p a r t of the Department in get t ing Nixon 'ss tory , e s p e c i a l l y s ince he w i l l c i t e execu t ive pr i v i l egein r e s i s t i n g any e f f o r t s to take h is depos i t ion . Asecond fac to r should be noted . Turning over Nixon ' stest imony would provide a preceden t fo r opening up a l lo f our f i l e s , i nc lud ing White House t apes and documents,fo r use by the Department in its defense of the Halper incase . This tends to make it even c l ea r e r t h a t such d i s closure would be an abuse of th e grand jury proces s and ,if th e Department r e f l ec t s a t a l l upon t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y ,they might wel l r ea l i ze t ha t it would be a t a c t i c a l mistake to i n j e c t the r e su l t s of our inves t iga t ions in tothe Halper in l i t i g a t i o n .

As a l ega l ma t te r , it appears t h a t t echn ica l lyNixon 's tes t imony can be d i sc losed to the Department s inceRule 6(e) provides fo r d isc losu re to "at torneys forthe Government fo r use in th e performance o f t h e i r du t i e s . "I have found no cases , and doubt t h a t any e x i s t , where


12/21

- - ~ - - ~ - - - - - - -3.

one branch of the Jus t i ce Department has sought tocompel ano ther branch t o d i s c l o se grand ju ry t es t imony .There i s , however, some usefu l language in a fe w o f th emain cases . Th e l ead ing case i s United Sta t e s v .P roc to r and Gamble Company, 35 6 u.s. 67 7 (1958) . Thatcase d e a l t wi th a c i v i l a n t i - t r u s t ac t ion whereinthe defendants sought discovery o f grand jury t es t imonydeve loped dur ing a p r i o r cr imina l a n t i - t r u s t i n v e s t i g a -t ion of the defendan ts . Th e Supreme Court held t h a t suchdiscovery was n o t war r an ted , e s p e c i a l l y s ince no "compel l ingnecess i ty" o r " p a r t i c u l a r i z e d need" was shown by th edefendan ts . In r ever s ing the lower Cour t ' s o r d e r toproduce the grand jury t r ansc r i p t s th e Court s t a t e d , " I t( the D i s t r i c t Court) a l so seemed to have been in f luencedby th e f a c t t h a t th e prosecu t ion was us ing cr imina l p ro cedures to elicit evidence in a c i v i l case . I f th eprosecu t ion were using t h a t dev ice , it would be f lou t ingthe po l i cy o f the l aw." The Cour t , however, conc ludedt h a t , "There i s no f ind ing t h a t the grand j u ry proceedingwas used as a shor tcu t to goa ls o therwise bar red o r mored i f f i c u l t to r each ." (A t p . 683) It seems c l e a r t h a tt h i s i s prec ise ly what th e Department i s seeking toaccompl i sh , i . e . t o g e t Nixon ' s tes t imony before thegrand jury because it knows t h a t , due to Nixon ' s execu t ivep r iv i l e g e c la im, it may be bar red from g e t t i n g t h a tt es t imony in th e c i v i l s u i t . Jus t i ce Whit taker , in h isconcur r ing op in ion in Proc to r and Gamble, would havegone f u r th e r and bar red use of the grand jury t es t imony ina c i v i l case by e i t h e r th e Government o r th e de f endan t sexcep t where t he re has been a showing o f "excep t iona land par t i cu l a r i zed need . " In h is view, grand jury secrecy"may be as fu l ly v io la ted by d i sc losu re to and use byth e Government counse l , agents and i n v e s t i g a to r s as byth e defendan t ' s counse l in such a c i v i l s u i t . " (A t p . 685)

The s i t u a t i o n in th e Halper in case i s f u r th e r comp l i c a t e d by th e f ac t t h i s Off ice and the Jus t i ce Depar t ment a re on oppos i te s i d e s with regard to th e main f a c tu a li s sue in ou r inves t iga t ion - - i . e . the l eg i t imacy o fthe removal o f r ecords . This i s n o t l i k e th e a n t i - t r u s to r ta x s i t ua t i ons where the Government i s th e p l a i n t i f fin both th e cr imina l and c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n . Here , th eGovernment, in th e form o f the Spec ia l P rosecu to r , i sth e p o t e n t i a l p l a i n t i f f in t he c r imina l ac t ion whi le th eJ u s t i c e Department i s th e defendant in th e c i v i l a c t i o n .One-sided d i sc l o su r e to th e Department in a case such ast h i s would l end f u r th e r weight to th e argument t h a tsuch d i sc losu re would cons t i t u t e an abuse of the grandj u ry process . It should be noted t h a t if the Halper in


13/21

4 .

cour t l a t e r ru led t h a t d isc losu re o f Nixon 's tes t imonyto the Department wa s in f a c t an abuse of the grandj u ry p rocess , t he l i ke l y remedy would be to ordert h a t the tes t imony also be d i sc losed to the pr i va t el i t i g an t . In a l l l ike l ihood t h i s would a lso leadthe Court to order publ ic d isc losu re o f Nixon 'stes t imony .

In se v e r a l c i v i l an t i - t r u s t cases invo lv ing th eNational Deposi t ion Program d isc losu re o f grand jurytest imony to pr i va t e l i t i g a n t s has been ordered wherethere has been a showing o f a "par t i cu lar i zed need."In t hese cases t he depos i t ion judge has been al lowedto examine th e grand jury tes t imony in camera in orderto determine whether or no t "mat e r i a l d i sc r epenc i es"between the witness ' grand jury tes t imony and h isdepos i t ion give r i s e to a "par t i cu lar i zed need" fo rd isc losu re . (See, e .g . Consol ida ted Edison Co . v .All is-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. , 217 F. Supp. 36lS .D.N.Y. 1 9 6 3 ) ~ ) In the Halper in case such "pa r t i cu l a r i zed need" w i l l no t a r i s e u n t i l such t ime as Nixon hasin f ac t been deposed. (The cases are c l ea r t h a t suchd isc losu re to a p r iv a t e l i t i g a n t i s no t warran ted merelyfo r discovery purposes , which i s the presen t pos tu reof the Depar tment ' s r eques t fo r Nixon 's tes t imony.)In th e even t t h a t Nixon 's execu t ive pr iv i l ege claimi s no t sus t a ined and if he i s in f a c t deposed , itmay become necessary to cons ider the use of such an incamera proceed ing . I f such a proceeding does become-necessary , it i s cons idered sound pol icy to no t i fy th ewitness whose tes t imony i s to be d i sc losed and to al lowhim a hear ing if he ob jec t s to such d i s c lo s u r e . (See,Corona Cons t ruc t ion Co . v . Ampress Brick Co . , 376 F. Supp.59 8 (D.C. Ill. 1924) . )

I would sugges t t h a t I con tac t Chris tenbury and askt h a t he reassess the Depar tment ' s need fo r access toNixon 's tes t imony. I f he still fee l s such a needex i s t s , I would sugges t t h a t t he mat t e r be taken d i r ec t lyto the A s s i s t a n t Attorney General and /o r Deputy AttorneyGeneral . Even if Chris tenbury decides t h a t the tes t imonyi s no t necessary , the i s sues o f Departmental use o f ourgrand jury and o th e r inves t iga t ive f i l e s fo r c i v i ll i t i g a t i o n purposes should be resolved p r i o r to themerger o f t h i s Of f i ce ' s funct ions into the CriminalDiv is ion .


14/21

I r;;;:;;: i ~ ~ ' r.23f- ,.It .. 1. _.4W .i..t H t . v ~ ~ - , , - - 0- -

jp. 73 .1/ ~ ~ ) J ~ 1 ! ' - t f / ~ ~ ~ r +

, { { ~ ciLl - - J e , . 4 ~ #WH ~ ~ 1 ~ .

,

- I I ~ AHlL )4,41.~ - ~ . ~ , I I Z l' "'-8 !-litH

t V ~ " , H ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ U x . -.noll ~ - M . . -----d~ ' # ~ , . , .r ""' r - } - - / ' 1 ~ .

'It I ) ~ ~ A - e ~ M r . J q ~ , : ; / d J,kI" ' h l ~ ' ; ~ .'fIt..M'J{;h, ~ - I M I I ChI"

~ d ; U , . , -huI -:tJ tl. W ; ~ ~ .


15/21

Iii

1/'\

~ ~ : ; : : : : ~ ~ ~ ~ . t .

~ C d ~ t 1 I # ~ . ( . H I ~ ~ / J ; /".3~ ~ ~ " ' - At., IfAL -., ; V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . , ~ . , , 4 1 ~ ) ' / ~ . ~ / j ) ~ t l H . /11 / f ~ ~ ~ h I . 4 ; u J l r ~ ~ -

I a...L ~ i A ~ 4 f ' t A ~ ~ ; ~ 4 ~ ~ ; ~ H a k , ~ ,al , . v ' ~ w / ~ ~ ( I ~ ' I - ~ Pa.t ; 4 ~ ~ I ~ . . . u . U l ~ ~ ~ . I ~ { , ( / ~ ~ t J ~ " , ; ~ 2/ . .*~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "

" .ISo-..!I . rAJ w / J u . v f V / ~ I : t J / ~ 7 .fa. t / ~ ~ ~ ~ f ' d H , " " , ~ ~ .


16/21

I-

fI1

..J


17/21

23 /r,7S'

/ I ~ ~ " " ~ . t . 5" r / U4rg [5"-(,-:]!RI1N $ t ~ k _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - y ~ ( ) , t . CrJ //1)-//7(fJG " ' ~ 7 ~ r 2:3 Lu4 ~ / e . )

[ / " f ]

IKHIII a...z: t,/.J..c w/ I6eN wH. 11,,l"..,z id/ / r I ~ -.:ZVc-c. "-",/I,. [7S"-U,,].t/>1N A.IJZ wr.&.d 4r:u.;t. ,,1.2 ~ ~ .

bID]IIiMA) -tA..V"._'1. t.fl/ #1i!.N - . . t:UZ ~ - w . ..-..."" I,~ ~ ~ . ~ t a . U ~ ~ c M ~ c ~ . ' " - ' i ) - A ~ 4 . . " ~ ~ [77J

liKe) ~ ~ ~ o.f ~ ~ . [ 7 f J lNo I ' ~ L A ~ ~ 4 ' ~ ' - . , 4Ii ~ ~ . ~ . c . . 1 7 9 J IIRMI'i I\LAHN ~ 1 U 4 l 16 f e / ~ . [1O-nJ~ H t J .e..:.t. I ' ~ g 01

~ , L . b/-I'2..]I . t

III


18/21

./ ,ilhf,() w. . 4 F 'ra" a../U;'-f i ] I " , tAIl ..

/


19/21

'Pvc- 4.. Zi 4 .L wagIp""-- t Y ; t . N ~ L/os-J.I .~ 4 . ' " ' ' ' l 4 ' ' ' ' ' Of dt.,uacu."""" -. _c.... t . tL

(J/,.w.. ~ 4 . . 4L [107-01'Jt lfN ..t-.v ;Z .. I lo9]IIl.I1H -tA-1.14"(j Dr Ji..4 r ~ c ; ; - ; , " " 61 I ' / ~ ,..;t; filD]IRHW , . ~ , / / ! H I I I Ilk t.VCW A " ; - C " ~ "-


20/21

....... . , ...

R d ~ 4(//7 t : ; ; ~ ( ~ : ~ O z. 7.1"""")J ~ H N "C1.I-b..tk , . C . " ' ' ' 4 ~ 7 ,..., ... q . . .t...., ......,.t...64 Zi A / ~ r I - . . . . ( . ivz> ~ - t U [IIIJ d ~ . ~ t ) O , . t 1 O " O ~ " J lIN ~ 1 t , , 1 1 riDe, 4-H' " 1 ' . c . I ~ a - .


21/21

.......

Pu-c.. ........ 61 ..e.. - -.. AI/;

folder 9/3: [peter kreindler] pmk notes on [richard nixon's] rmn’s grand jury testimony -...

Documents