Mai Tax Deal Called flea21a An Expert Testifies `Massacre' Traced By John P. MacKenzie By Jules Witcover Washington Post Staff Writer Washington Post Staff Writer The former chief prosecutor of federal The "" of last tax evaders has told the House Judiciary Oct. 20—the firing of Watergate Special Committee that if President Nixon were Prosecutor that set im- an ordinary taxpayer his case "would be peachment fever burning on Capitol referred out for presentation to a grand jury for prosecution." Hill—was the culmination of 'months of This conclusion, disclosed in the com- seething at the White House over Cox' mittee's summary of impeachment evi-. unyielding persistence. dente, was given by Fred G. Folsom, who Evidence compiled in the House Ju- served in the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations as head of the diciary Committee's impeachment inquiry criminal section of the Justice Depart- into President Nixon's dealings with Cox ment's Tax Division. and his successor, Leoh Jaworski, released Folsom, who retired last year and still today, chronicles a long test of wills and serves as a Justice Department consul- tempers between a President determined tant, gave the committee his judgment not to yield White House tapes and two last month in previously secret testi- prosecutors determined to make him mony. do so. The legal opinion concerned Mr. Nix- Cox particularly irritated Mr. Nixon, on's purported 1969 gift of pre-presiden- who. feared Cox was broadening the tial papers to the National Archives and Watergate investigation into unrelated the $576,000 deduction he claimed for aspects of the President's activities, Ju- them. diciary's 1,069-page documentation of this A proposed article of impeachment re- phase of the impeachment inquiry shows. See TAX, All, Col. 1 See COX, All, Col. 5 Excerpts of evidence and draft articles of impeachment begin on Page Al2. COX, From AL. told him that in stating three days ear- papers that I shall undoubtedly have lier that he was waiving executive occasion to make ..." The evidence is in two thick vol- privilege for White House aides giving Mines made public by the committee testimony on Watergate, "his state- On July 16, 1973, former White as part of the material in the case ment did not mean that there would be House aide Alexander Butterfield re- against Mr. Nixon.. any such waiver of executive privilege vealed that presidential conversations As early as July, 3, .1973, according as to documents. I was not aware until had been taped in the White House, to• an affidavit by Elliot L. Richardson, • then that the word 'testimony' had and two days later Cox wrote to Bu- who resigned as Attorney General on been used advisedly ..." zhardt asking for eight of them. It Oct. 20 rather than fire Cox, Mr. Nixon proved to be the beginning of the end Five days later, fresh on the job, Cox for Cox. was transmitting warnings that if Cox phoned and then wrote to J. Fred Buz- persisted he would be thrown out. On July 20 he wrote asking Buzhardt hardt, the President's counsel, and to "take all necessary steps" to safe- The Richardson affidavit recounts impressed upon him his concern that how White House chief of staff Alex- guard, the tapes. Buzhardt tersely "all files in the White House affecting replied: "The President has sole per- ander M. Haig Jr. called him on July the Watergate investigation and other 3 of last year _complaining about a, sonal control of those tapes and they matters within my jurisdiction" be se- are being adequately protected under newspaper story reporting that Cox cure. - was investigating expenditures at Mr. secure conditions?' .Nixon's San Clemente home. When "I requested you to be sure that On July 21, Buzhardt wrote to Cox Richardson checked with Cox and was steps had been taken to ensure that apologizing for the delays and citing nothing was put into or taken out of the pressures on Mr. Nixon, who told Cox merely was having press any of those files," Cox wrote in a had clippings collected on San Clemente, clearly firm vein. "I would also like to just met with Soviet Communist Party –Haig asked for a statement from Cox know, as I told you, exactly what secu- leader Leonid I. Brezhnev. But within that he was not investigating San two days, White House special counsel Clemente, , rity measures are in force ... Incident- Charles Alan Wright was writing to tally, it . would be helpful to know "Genertil Haig said that he was not Cox telling him flatly that the Presi- when these security measures were dent would not make the tapes avail- sure the President was not going to put into effect." move on this to discharge Mr. Cox, able; on grounds that the confidential- and that it could not be a matter of Buzhardt replied that . the files of ity of presidential conversations had to Cox' charter to investigate the Pres- H. R. (Bob) Haldeman, John D. Ehrlich- be preserved. This was the same day, ident of the ," Richard- man and John W. Dean III, all of the Richardson affidavit says, that son said in the affidavit. whom resigned on April 30, 1973, were Haig phoned Richardson and told him Richardson said Cox agreed to make placed first under FBI protection and the President was "up tight" about a statement, but it was considered in- then the Secret Service. Cox. adequate by Haig, and the President "The foregoing is submitted for your But Cox would not back off. On July "broke in on the conversation. The information," Buzhardt replied in the 25, when Buzhardt wrote him that Mr. President said that he wanted a state- same stiff tone. "The handling, protec= Nixon would be making a public state- ment by Mr. Cox making it clear that tion and disposition of presidential pa- ment about Dean's testimony, Cox Mr. Cox .was not investigating San Cle- pers is, of course, a matter for decision replied: "Having noted .my skepticism, mente, and he wanted it by 2 o'clock." of the President.". This last obviously I am willing to wait until the public The statement was produced. was a' reassertion of jurisdiction. statement is made—assuming that it At the time of the calls to Richard- Fonr days later, on June 4, 1973, Cox comes reasonably soon—before reach- son from Haig and Mr. Nixon, the At- was back at Buzhardt again: "Your an- ing a conclusion or renewing my previ- torney General was learning for the swer to my reqtiests seems a little too ous request" On the same day, Mr. first time from Baltimore federal pros- vague, although perhaps this results Nixon informed U.S. District Court ecutors that then ViCe President Spiro only from a casual difference in choice Chief Judge John J. Sirica he would T. Agnew was under criminal investi of words. In any event, we must pin not obey Cox' subpoena for the tapes. . gation in a Maryland contract kick- the question down much more pre- Through August and September the back scandal. Richardson told an aide. cisely." impasse continued, and the tempers later that the President's badgering Bushardt had written that files of mounted as Cox made his requests for about Cox nearly persuaded him to re the departed staff members could be information and the White House re- sign that day. examined by them, but only "in the buffed or ignored him. But when Sir- The Richardson affidavit reports an- presence of a Secret _Service agent." ica on Aug. 29 ordered the President Cox wrote back that such presence other Haig phone call three weeks to sumbit the subpoenaed tapes for his later, on July 23, 1973, informing him "does not guarantee that nothing Will review in chambers and the White "that the boss' was very 'up tight' be taken out or put into the files, or fn House sought a vacating order, the any, other way altered." matter approached a climax. about Cox and complaining about As early as Arne 27, 1973, Cox zeroed some of his activities, including letters in on the President personally, writing On Oct. 12 the U.S. Court of Appeals to the IRS and the Secret Service from to Buzhardt after John Dean had testi- ordered Mr. Nixon.to comply; on Oct. the special prosecutor's office seeking 15, after considering a plan to produce Information on guidelines for elec- fied before the Senate Watergate com- mittee and asking Mr. Nixon to furnish a version of the tapes and then fire tronic surveillance. ' Cox — rejected by Richardson under "a detailed narrative statement' cover- "General Haig told me that 'if we ing the conversations and threat of resigning — a compromise have to have a confrontation we will , incidents was offered whereby Sen. John C. have it.' mentioned in John Dean's testimony." General Haig said that the ("The fact that a crucial witness in Stennis, (D-Miss.) would listen' to the President wanted 'a tight line drawn this investigation is the President does tapes and verify their accuracy. Rich- with no further mistakes,' and that `if not make his testimony any less impor- ardson agreed, but Cox would not; Mr. Cox does not agree, we will get rid of tant to the administration of justice," Nixon ordered first Richardson and Cox.' " Conderning letters sent to then Ruckelshaus to fire Cox, and all Cox wrote. "Nor can I assumelhat the Treasury Department agencies, Rich- President is unwilling to contribute all three went out in the "Saturday Night ardson said, Cox agreed they "had Massacre." been over the information he has to the ascer- Stated." tainment of the Truth." In the ensuing uproar, the President I Finally, Richardson's affidavit says, By July 10, Cox was really preSsing agreed to turn over the tapes three "in late September or early October, days later, and• Cox' successor, Jawor- ,A973,. I hard, threatening to complain publicly met with the ,President..in re- that-the White House was inhibiting ski, was appointed with stronger assur- gard to the Agnew matter. After we his efforts by failing to cooperate. - ances of independence demanded by had finished our discussion about Mr. "I am much 'disturbed by the lack of 'the Senate , in his confirmation hear- Agnew, and as we were walking to- progress in Obtaining answers to my ings. war& the door, the President said in /several requests with respect to access But Jaworski's experience was substance, 'Now that we have disposed to papers in the White House files," he of that matter, we can go ahead and more of the same, He found it neces- eget rid of Cox?" wrote Buzhardt "... Review of our sary on May 20 of this year to write to correspondence shows that I have been Chairman James 0. Eastland of the Richardson told aides• later he very patient--merlianq tnn Senate rAmrnif+.. TAX, From Al taxes by a President would gence penalty, and has leas. -1 Friday by the com- be conduct incompatible billed Mr. Nixon for $432,787 mittee staff accuses Presi- with his duties of office, plus interest. dent Nixon of having coin- which obligate him faith- At issue in the commit- mited "a fraud upon the fully to execute the laws." It United States" by "claiming tee's analysis of tax fraud added: was whether Mr. Nixon the deductions by means of "A violation of law in the a deed that was tack-dated" knew, when he signed his context of the tax system, 1969 tax return, that the re- to avoid the effect of a 1969 which relies so heavily on law disallowing such tax turn incorrectly reported a the basic honesty of citizens valid gift of papers as of benefits. in dealing with the govern- March 27, 1969. The committee's summary ment, would be particularly of 'evidence on 'willful tax The 1969 Tax Reform Act, serious also if it entailed an which Mr. Nixon signed into evasion" appeared to sup- abuse of the power and port' the accusation, which law on Dec. 30 of that year, prestige of his office. As eliminated tax deductions will be debated when the chief executive, he might as- committee takes up the im- for gifts of papers made af- sume that his tax returns ter July 25, 1969. The sum- peachment articles starting were not subject to the Wednesday. mary said there could be no same scrutiny as those of doubt that Mr. Nixon, an at- A volume of evidence on other taxpayers." Which. the summary was torney who had practiced Both the Internal Reve- tax law, knew what the law based will be published in nue Service and the con- a 'few. days, together with was and what claims he was gressional Joint Committee making. the response of presidential on Internal , Revenue Taxa- lawyer James D. .St.Clair. Folsom's conclusion, the tion ultimately rejected the summary said, was based on According to the sum- deductions. The IRS has as- mary, "willful evasion of "all the circumstances sur- sessed a 5 per cent negli- rounding the alleged gift," including its use in the 1969 return and "including the lack of a satisfactory re- sponse by the taxpayer" to polite inquiries from the joint committee. The summary said several witnesses "began revising stories which they had been telling for months" during recent inquiries. Among the witnesses were tax attorney Frank DeMarco Jr., former deputy White House counsel Edward L. Morgan and Chi- cago appraiser Ralph New• man.