Robin Johansen Discusses the House Committee on the Judiciary Impeachent Inquiry


Uploaded by RichardNixonLibrary on 25.06.2012

Transcript:
bjbj The following is a transcript of an Oral History Interview conducted by Timothy Naftali
with Robin Johansen on October 28, 2011 in San Francisco, CA. Naftali: Hi, I'm Tim Naftali
I'm Director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California.
It's October 28, 2011 and I have the honor and privilege to be interviewing Robin Johansen
in San Francisco for the Richard Nixon Oral History Program. Robin, thank you for doing
this. Johansen: My pleasure. Naftali: Let's take you back to the early 1970s. What were
you up to in the early 1970s before you started working on the impeachment inquiry staff?
Johansen: In the early 1970s I was still a high school English teacher, and then decided
that wasn't my calling and ended up in 1972 as a press person for the McGovern campaign
in New Jersey as a statewide rep of the McGovern campaign. After that then I worked with the
Democratic Central Committee or State Committee, I guess it was called. It was through that
work that I met Peter Rodino and his staff because we were fortunate enough to get Mr.
Rodino to help us put together a program for local candidates who wanted to run for public
office. He chaired this program and I got to know him and attended events with him.
Around, well, toward the end of 1973 then Mr. Rodino's Chief of Staff asked if I might
be interested in coming down to the impeachment inquiry to help out. That was a tough decision.
My husband had moved to California and I was just finishing up my work there in New Jersey
and had then to decide whether I would be apart from him for another long period of
time. Ultimately, the two of us decided that this was just not something that I should
miss. I'm so grateful to him for his open mindedness about it, his willingness to put
up with yet another separation so that I could be there. That's how I ended up at the impeachment
inquiry. Naftali: Did you know how long you were signing up for when you said yes finally?
Johansen: Well, no, I don't think any of us did. As it was I was only there for about
six months because the separation had gotten to be too much. I ended up coming back to
California in June of 74 which was, you know, hard to do but also it was, I just had this
push pull with my family commitment. I felt that it was the time I needed to go. When
the President resigned August 9th I believe it was, then I returned within a week or so
to try to help pull things together in the Library where we had worked. So I was there
for another couple of weeks in August I think. Naftali: Tell us about what it was like, I
assume this would be January when you started, how many of you, you must have been one of
the earliest to be hired. Johansen: I may very well have been. I know that Maureen was
there. I came, I think, in early January. There were I think other Library staff members
there. But people were coming all the time and I have some memory of when Bob Sack came
and Dick Gill and some of the other lawyers so I think I must have been there a little
bit before they did, they came. I was amazed to find that one of the lawyers had actually
been a fourth grade classmate of mine. He somehow remembered me and that was quite a
surprise. But it was very much in the kind of we were in the organizing stage and trying
to, for me, figure out what it was I was going to be doing was pretty difficult. Maureen
was a superb leader for us and she was able to give us all a sense of okay this is what
our task is going to be at least for the next week or so and somehow keep all of these very
inexperienced people, at least inexperienced at impeachment inquiries, headed in the right
direction. John Doar was also, of course, a superb leader and he was extraordinarily
open to being with all of us young people. In fact I think in many ways the Library staff
was a comfortable group for him and late at night, for example, John would come in and
just kind of sit down and talk. For those of us who were young, not even lawyers at
the time, it was a superb, a wonderful opportunity to see and really get to know one of the best
lawyers in the country. Naftali: Let me ask you a bit about that because some of the lawyers
all shared tremendous respect for Mr. Doar. Some of them describe him as a little removed
but in your instance, your recollection, he gravitated more or felt more at ease with
the young Library staff. Johansen: Well, I don't know. It could have just been the time
of night, I mean, I'm talking midnight. Obviously, we didn't see him all the time during the
day, he had a lot going on and I think perhaps these late night sessions were just, you know,
a way for him to relax a little bit. In a way with a group that he didn't have to just
try to deal with meeting after meeting after meeting. This was just kind of end of the
day and he was comfortable with us. Then, of course, we were thrilled. Naftali: Do you
remember some of this, what you might talk about or what he might share with you? Johansen:
You know I can't remember specific things. I do remember, I don't know if it was one
of these late night conversations or not I don't know. John was very, very skeptical
about the use of computers and at that time the Senate Watergate Committee had a primitive
but certainly computerized data base for all of their facts. I can remember how for security
reasons primarily John just wanted nothing to do with that. I'm sure that you heard about
our five ply cards or seven ply cards that all the facts were written down on and then
distributed into different almost like shoe boxes. They weren't but for purposes of making
the physical data base that our facts were worked off of. Probably we talked about those
kinds of things, I don't know. Naftali: I find it interesting that Mr. Woods whom I
interviewed yesterday talked about John Doar's opinion of or skepticism toward computers.
That's what led to a project that he and Hillary Rodham worked on to figure out how to sort
through the information. Were you immediately assigned to Maureen when you started? Johansen:
Yes and I think the best analogy I can make to what we were doing would be a kind of paralegal
status. But we were Library staff and our job was really to work with this very fact
intensive set of documents that we had from the Senate Watergate Committee and, you know,
documents from all over. Try to get them into some kind of comprehensible order. Eventually
I was assigned to work on the dairy industry scandal or whatever you want to call it. The
contributions from the dairy industry and spent probably weeks working up exactly how
those contributions came into being and whether there was a link to then changes in the milk
price supports. That was something that I worked closely with Fred Altshuler on and
Bob Sack. Naftali: Fred mentioned the fact that at a certain point it was you determined
or he determined and Bob Sack determined that this wasn't going anywhere this particular
inquiry, and then he switched to other duties. What did you do after working on the milk
fund issue? Johansen: Oh boy, I'm just not sure. I remember spending a great deal of
time with Richard Kleindienst I think it was, with his calendars. Trying to track his movements
throughout a particular period and I remember thinking at the time how odd it was that,
you know, wondering how he would feel if he knew that someone was looking at all of his
daily calendar and trying to figure out where he had been on what day. In terms of other
topics of the inquiry the dairy one is the one that stands out and we ultimately did
present some evidence on it. But, yes, it was certainly not included among the Articles
of Impeachment. Naftali: Tell us about the Library, did you have a carrel in the Library?
I mean how was this organized and how many of you were there? Johansen: First the number
fluctuated. Some people came in around, oh, toward May or June. A couple who had been
in graduate school and then finished their class work and came, JoAnn Woods, Joe Woods'
daughter came for a while. So I think our number was between eight and ten but I'm not
sure. It was a large open room with library tables and chairs and I don't recall that
we had any specific spots. They certainly weren't carrels. But any specific spots that
was kind of claimed as a desk it was just that was where we happened to be working that
day. We did spend time then in the offices with the other lawyers with the lawyers when
they were working on a particular thing so we would be included in those meetings. In
even the drafting meetings if it was something we had been working on then we would be in
the meeting with John Doar and Bert Jenner and Bob Sack and Fred until late at night
working on getting the actual sequence down so that we had it absolutely accurately for
purposes of the Statements of Information. Naftali: What do you remember of Bert Jenner?
Johansen: Oh, wonderful man. Just a very cordial, very good lawyer, obviously, very good lawyer
and a very open kind of person. He also had a very colorful taste in clothing so that
we would come in and the word would go around you really have to see what Mr. Jenner's shirt
looks like today that kind of thing. He was a very fine person. Naftali: Tell us a bit
about the effect on staff cohesion and moral of the secrecy that you had to maintain. Johansen:
The effect was, of course, to make us very close and because we couldn't talk to anybody
except the group. We all, I think, library staff and lawyers alike tended to, if we were
going to go out to dinner the lawyers would include us or vice versa. It was, you know,
it's the old in the trenches kind of thing and it was a profoundly influential time for
me in the sense of really learning what it meant to keep things confidential. Even to
this day when you contacted me about doing the interview I checked with Maureen and some
of the others if anything still off limits. There just were things that we never did talk.
There was a definite concern obviously and it was everyone was trying to find out what
was going on. We were in the old Congressional Hotel and I remember that you come down in
the elevator and Jack Anderson had a guy there who just hung out in the lobby and tried to
get us to talk. He'd sort of accost us as we came off the elevator. It was just so completely
inbred into us through John and his example and through Bert Jenner that to this day I'm
amazed, but very proud of the way everyone, everyone just kept everything confidential
the way it should have been. Naftali: As you said you had worked for Senator McGovern's
campaign and I know that Mr. Doar sought a completely non-partisan atmosphere. How did
he reinforce that, keep the partisanship to the extent that would have been out of? Johansen:
I think a couple of things, first he made he was very careful to have people from both
parties. We were all working together, we were all a team. I think the example that
he and Bert Jenner had, of course, both of them are Republicans but, you know, they were
working very carefully together. Then I think Mr. Rodino and Mr. Hutchinson were also working
closely together. You have that kind of example. The other thing is just the culture, for example,
John would never allow anyone to refer to the President other than as the President.
He wasn't Nixon, he wasn't any of the other names that were bandied around at that time.
He was the President. Again, to this day, I can't refer to Richard Nixon as anything
other than President Nixon. That kind of mind set really, really affects how you do what
you're doing. Then, of course, it was so important that it be viewed as above partisanship and
we all felt the importance of that as a historic moment. This was something that hadn't been
done before and it had to be done right and I think it was. Naftali: Let's take some,
let's try to see if we can evoke some of the historical moments. Do you remember the big
push for finishing the Statements of Information? Maureen talked about just the amount of work
to put all those binders together. You worked hours didn't you? Johansen: Yes, yes. Naftali:
Tell us a little bit about what you remember about sort of the feverish activity. Johansen:
Well I remember the lack of sleep, we were going on three, four, five hours of sleep
a night at best. I remember people became aware that on less sleep I become quite clumsy.
We had papers stacked all over the room and after about eleven or twelve at night people
would say, Robin you stay over there I'll bring it to you, because nobody wanted me
knocking over all these stacks of paper. I can remember going over to use the Xerox machines
late at night in probably the Canon Office Building trying to get everything copied.
Because everybody did everything, it wasn't that there may have been lawyers that came
with us but it wasn't that you gave it to somebody else to go copy this. If it needed
to be copied and there wasn't anybody then we went and did it. I can remember in there
with these huge copy machines trying to get these things done at one or two in the morning.
It was exhausting but again it was something that everyone was part of it wasn't that we
in the Library staff felt their leaving us with the grunt work. Everybody was there late
at night just trying to get everything done. Naftali: Your work exists as this huge really
sort of library of Statements of Information. What do you remember of the process and your
role in it in determining what made it into the book and what didn't make it into the
book? Johansen: My role in it was very small obviously because that wasn't my call. To
the degree that I was sitting in on meetings where they were trying to decide what made
it into the book and what didn't. I remember those as very much a group dynamic kind of
thing where perhaps the lawyer who had been working on that particular set of facts would
present or have a draft. Then John and Bert Jenner and whoever else, Bernie or Bob Sack
or somebody, would be working just to try to distill it to the essence of that. My only
role as far as drafting was to do a first draft of the facts on the dairy scandals.
Then Fred and Bob took that with me I mean we were all part of and kind of worked it
into okay lets, we had to completely check our facts over and over and over again. But
then also distill it into just the facts there couldn't be anything in there that was the
least bit judgmental or speculative. It was just alright this is the fact and here's the
support for it. Naftali: Did Mr. Doar, again I know it's hard to remember, but perhaps
this will evoke it, when he would come and talk to you did he talk to you about, did
he tell you any war stories from his time in working with Civil Rights cases because
it seems to have been very influential in his thinking about how to handle at least
the information. Johansen: I think he did, you know, I these things get mixed up because
after I went to law school my first job was with the predecessor law firm working for
Thelton Henderson who is now a retired District Court Judge. But who was with John at the
Civil Rights Division in those days. It gets a little confusing as to where I first heard
something. Then Bob Owen who, I think you've probably heard about, and Owen I'm trying
to remember if Owen Fiss was at Civil Rights Division, I'm not sure he was but Bob Owen
for certain were also there. Yes, that whole period was something we were all, I found
fascinating and wanted to hear as much as I possibly could about. Naftali: Please tell
us a little bit about Bob Owen. Johansen: Oh, another wonderful man; Bob would come
in, he wasn't on staff the way the other lawyers were, but what did they call him, the icebreaker,
the log jam, or something like that. He would come down for days at a time from New York
and work with the lawyers and it seemed as though when maybe when something had kind
of hit a snag that was when Bob would parachute in and help out. He was just a great human
being. Naftali: What role did Dorothy Landsberg play? Johansen: Well you know I didn't have
that much contact with Dorothy and so it's a little hard for me to talk about that other
than to note how she and Bob Shelton I think were both working very carefully to keep the
office running in a functional way. When you think about, you know, put together a law
firm in effect or the equivalent of it in a few weeks and just get it staffed and get
it running and get it functional. That's a remarkable achievement. All of that was happening
kind of outside of my little world. But all I knew was if we needed paper it was there,
if we needed phones they were there. Somebody and I assume Dorothy and Bob were instrumental
in making sure that happened. Naftali: When you left in June what did you think, I mean
it's a long time ago, but what did you think was going to happen? Because you knew you
had to go back but where did you think this was going to go? Johansen: I was convinced
that something was going to have to happen as far as Articles of Impeachment being voted
upon and approved. I felt that the President was going to be impeached. As we watched with
the tapes case and, of course, then the smoking gun and the whole bit that became pretty obvious
to everyone including the President which is the reason why he resigned. But I really
did feel that there would be the Articles passed, which they were. Then, of course,
for me the question of wow gee there's going to be a trial in the Senate can I miss that.
I had already been accepted to law school and was ready to go and, of course, my husband
was in California. That was going to be another, you know, hard decision. Luckily I didn't
have to face that one. Naftali: Let's talk about your decision to go to law school. You
had decided to go to law school before joining the staff? Johansen: I had and had taken all
the LSATs and things like that. For a very different reason and I think what really changed
for me was the work with these really fine lawyers. I had been in New Jersey politics
and felt that and I thought I wanted to stay in politics and campaigns and that as a woman
in those days it was going to be important for me to have a credential. I saw the law
school degree as just really a credential for a different career. Then I saw what these
really good lawyers are like and what they do and I said I want to be like that. I got
my law school acceptance as well. I was there and it was very clear to me that law school
was going to be a different kind of avenue for something different. I've been lucky enough
to stay in the public policy realm as a lawyer and in the political realm. We do a lot of
election law and things like that. I was able to marry those two concepts but in a way that
is much better than being a campaign consultant. Naftali: Tell us a little bit about what you
remember of Chairman Rodino since you knew him from before. Johansen: Again, another
wonderful, wonderful man he was so down to earth there was no sense of hierarchy for
him and no sense of what can you do for me. He was just a wonderful warm human being who
coming out of a state, where there had been a lot of problems shall we say, had a very
fine reputation. That spoke volumes about him and he was kind enough to write a recommendation
letter for me for law school and he was just the kind of person who would do things for
people. I think that's why he was so well loved. He was the perfect person for this
job in my view. Naftali: What do you remember of Francis O'Brien, did you know Francis at
all? Johansen: I did and it was really through Francis I think that the invitation came and
Francis was kind of the opposite in personality from Mr. Rodino and still is. He's a very
intense energy field and exactly what the Chairman needed in terms of Chief of Staff
and that kind of thing. I to this day think Francis is great, I really enjoy him. Naftali:
Because people who will watch this now and in the future may not be aware of the 60s
and 70s as a turning point for women in government and the law tell us a bit about the role of
women on the staff? How many were there, I mean not the exact number but where were they.
Of course, people have talked about Hillary Rodham, later on Hillary Rodham Clinton, we've
interviewed Maureen. Tell us about the role of women on the staff. Johansen: Well, I have
to say that there more women non-lawyers than there were women lawyers. There's no doubt
about that. Again I don't think that's a function of any kind of discriminatory animus on the
part of John Doar or Bert Jenner. I think the fact is there just weren't that many lawyers
at the time, particularly women who could give up what they were doing and hop on a
plane and go live in Washington for nine months. But again, there was hardly I imagine because
we were so isolated we were all just very close. I don't have any memory of any kind
of gender bias one way or another. Out in the world yes, when I began practicing certainly
there was some of that and probably still is. But not there. Naftali: What percentage
of your law school class roughly was female? Johansen: I think we were about 30%. You know
there was a generation of women ahead of us who really paved the way. I want to Stanford,
Sandra Day O'Connor had been there. When you read about her graduating at the top of her
class and the only thing she was offered was a secretary's position. You know what she
had to deal with. I didn't have to deal with that kind of stuff because of her and because
of others like her. We were kind of at the vanguard but not the cutting edge not the
people who really had to put up with the worst of it. Naftali: What was the mood like in
the Library and the staff when you came back in August to help them clean up? Johansen:
Now that's an interesting question because I remember just how happy I was to see all
of my friends. I remember just being, you know, really happy to be there and I don't
recall, you know, I really don't know. I think it was probably a real mixture of emotion
that this thing that we had all been part of was now going to come to end. A great deal
of pride for having done it the right way. Probably a great sense of relief for the country
that we hadn't had to go through this terrible time with a trial and all that might mean.
There were times in the middle before the tapes case and things like that was resolved
where people were really wondering whether there would be a constitutional crisis. Whether
the Presidency was out of control to the point where the Executive Branch might not listen
to the courts. We had the Legislative Branch knocking heads daily with the Executive Branch
on disclosure and things like that of evidence. I think for all of us to have come though
that and be able to say whew, that one, it worked and we were part of helping make it
work. That was a real sense of pride and relief. Naftali: Did you work with Michael Conway?
Johansen: Sure. Naftali: At that point, because he was working on finishing the final report.
Johansen: Yes, although I don't think I was working with Michael on the final report I
think we were trying more to deal with what are we going to do with all this stuff and
where does it go and how do we preserve what needs to be preserved. I think Michael and
the other lawyers were off doing that part of it while we were doing the more archival
tasks. Naftali: Just so that people who go to our Legislative Branch that this material
actually is not at the Nixon Library, it's at our facilities in Washington DC. Tell us
about how we should use the cards? Johansen: Are they still legible? Alright I'm going
to have to try to remember what the various categories were that each card went into.
I frankly cannot remember Naftali: Well that's okay. Johansen: what they were, but what,
if I have it correctly, the idea was to be able to figure on any particular date at any
particular time who was where. Therefore, and who was doing what so that you could say
alright John Ehrlichman was meeting with Charles Colson and but Haldeman was off doing something
else. I think they are given how accustomed we have become to working with search able
data bases. I think the cards will appear as a real anachronism almost like an abacus
or something in comparison to what we can do now. But how you should use them it's really
more of an artifact I think because they then became the basis for the Statements of Information
and the Statements of Information then are now scanned, I assume, and search able. Naftali:
Did you listen to any of the tapes? Was that part of your job? Johansen: Just one, it was
a meeting in the Oval Office with members of the dairy industry. We really worked on
a need to know basis particularly with the tapes. I needed to listen to that one because
it was the only one that concerned the dairy contributions. My memory of that tape is mostly
of coffee cups and spoons clinking because it was pretty clear that the microphone was
under the coffee table. It was very difficult to hear the conversation, the quality was
poor enough to begin with but then with all this background noise which of course grabbed
the mic and took it over I couldn't get too much of it. Naftali: Did you, when you worked
late did you all bring food in or did you, because I've heard you talking about living
on very little sleep, did you have a lot of pizza, I mean, how did you guys survive? Johansen:
Well I remember that we would go out I can remember going at lunch time to the cafeterias
in the House Office Buildings and getting lunch. So we did see the light of day occasionally.
Occasionally we would go out to dinner because I can remember at one restaurant in particular
it's probably no longer there and I don't remember the name of it. But a very crowded
restaurant on the Hill and it was not uncommon to see some of the people there that we were
actually writing about. We had to be very careful what we said so we would talk about
anything, of course, other than what we were doing which meant that the conversations were
rather limited since we weren't doing anything other than impeachment work. Yes we must have
brought pizza in. If I recall, you know the offices were in the old, oh what was the name
of that, Naftali: Congressional Johansen: Congressional office building and they had
been apartments so I think we had refrigerators and things like that and we probably kept
food there as best we could. Naftali: Did you help prepare for the interview of Herbert
Kalmbach since he was involved to some extent in the milk issue? Johansen: You know I'm
not sure, I'm pretty sure I never met him and I don't know whether at the time he was
interviewed whether I had been assigned to this or not. I never participated in any of
the interviews with any of the figures in the events. We would see them occasionally
coming through. I can still remember when Gordon Liddy came through and Secretary Shultz
came through. Naftali: Tell us about, since you remember it, tell us why you remember
when G. Gordon Liddy came through. Johansen: His whole demeanor was very challenging and
he just was kind of surveying the group of us just walking through. I remember thinking
he's got an attitude. I never spoke with him so I don't know what he's like. Naftali: And
when Secretary Shultz came through? Johansen: I just remember that a much different presence
obviously and then afterwards I can remember the people and I couldn't tell you who it
was that interviewed him. But people saying you know how decent he seemed and just seemed
like a very good man. Naftali: What was it like to work for Maureen? Johansen: Oh, wonderful;
as you know Maureen had worked with John before and so she had experience in doing an investigation
which was great. She was, she is a leader who makes very clear what her goal is and
then really trusts staff to get there. If we were squabbling over something she would
very much break the tie and she was our leader there was no doubt about it. But she was also
one of us who worked at least as hard if not harder than the rest of us. The only time
when you knew that Maureen was upset was when occasionally you would hear this Jesus, Mary
& Joseph and that was about the worst that you got. Naftali: There was squabbling? Johansen:
Oh no actually we had I'm sure just the usual disagreements among a group that had to spend
eighteen hours a day together. Just questions about who was going to do what, that kind
of stuff. I don't mean squabbling in the sense of people not getting along because I do remember
us being a remarkably compatible group there in the Library. Naftali: Have I not have I
evoked your, I know what I'd like, let me ask you about the pardon. What do you remember
by this point I believe you had gone home again because you were there only until the
middle or end of August. What was your reaction to when you heard about the pardon? Johansen:
It was mixed. I really felt that the President had a lot that he had to answer for and that
it was necessary, it was important for us as a society to know that no one was above
the law. I had a strong sense that of regret that he was not going to have to answer. However,
very pragmatically, I understood the need to move on. Whether there was a deal or not
as people have conjectured I wasn't particularly interested in that, it was just really more
interested in making and as a society having us learn a collective lesson about the dangers
of a strong executive and how the checks and balances really are extremely important. In
that sense I felt that the impeachment process had in itself brought about the resignation.
I don't think it would have happened without it. That was a very strong part of the lesson
that we all learned as a society. That the Legislative Branch does have a role and must
keep track of the Executive Branch or else we are going to have an Imperial Presidency.
Whether, did I want to see Richard Nixon go to jail, no. I didn't think that was necessary
or important, but I wished that there could have been more of an accounting. Naftali:
Are there any stories anecdotes that I haven't listened to that you'd like to preserve? Johansen:
Small thing, contextually one of the things I remember about those late nights there,
was that the Washington subway was being built. In addition to trying to get our work done
there would be the pile drivers that usually started up around six or so and went all night
it seemed. That added, of course, to the stress level. I think the main thing that needs to
be preserved is what we talked about at the beginning. That is the sense of the culture
that John Doar and Bert Jenner, Peter Rodino and Edward Hutchinson instilled in their respective
staffs and/or committee was unique and necessary to have the legitimacy behind this kind of
procedure. Of course, I couldn't help but compare that to what happened with the Clinton
impeachment which I feel was very poorly done, very badly handled, very bitterly partisan.
If we are going to take on this, to me profound task, of bringing in a President we owe it
to the institution to do it in the way that it was done in 1974. We owe it to the country
to do it that way because if we don't then we're going to be left with the sense of that
we've cheapened all of the institutions. That's not something I think that any of us want.
Naftali: Did you ever interact with Sam Garrison? Johansen: Yes, yes, and you know I always
remember him as being civil. You know we weren't close by any means, but I don't have any specific
memories of him. Naftali: What did this period in your life teach you? Johansen: It taught
me what really good lawyers can do. It gave me a sense of the profession as a really fine
thing to be part of. As I said I think that was very important in terms of my career as
a lawyer but it also it really taught me as I just said the dangers of one branch of our
government of the balance getting out of whack. Much of my work as a lawyer since has been
working with the legislature here in California. I've really I think come to view that branch,
as dysfunctional as it often is both here and in Washington, as an extremely important
part of what keeps us together. What keeps us from having, what keeps our faith and that's
why it's so, to me, very disheartening that legislatures in general ours in California,
the Congress have such low opinion ratings because in many ways they are the branch that
need to keep things under control. Because they have this process of impeachment and
share with the courts then the ability to make the other branch comply with the Constitution.
I think it's just terribly, terribly important. As a lawyer and as a person who has worked
with the legislature all these years I think that the first impeachment really taught me
the importance of the Legislative Branch. Naftali: Robin, thank you for your time today.
Thank you, gentlemen. Johansen: Well, thank you. PAGE PAGE Robin Johansen Oral History
Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum PAGE Filename Speakers Names _____________________________________________________________________________________
www.gmrtranscription.com hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! gdGA! gdGA! gdGA! gdGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
gdGA! gdGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! gdGA! gdGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! gdGA! gdGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! gdGA! gdGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA!
hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hGA! hOyB hOyB hOyB hOyB hc\h hGA! hGA! hGA! &`#$ gdGA!
smsbsm hc\h hOyB hOyB hOyB hOyB hOyB hOyB hOyB hOyB hOyB hOyB hOyB hGA! hOyB hOyB :pOyB
[Content_Types].xml Iw}, $yi} _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml
w toc'v )I`n 3Vq%'#q :\TZaG L+M2 e\O* $*c? )6-r IqbJ#x ,AGm T[XF64 E)`# R>QD =(K& =al-
4vfa 0%M0 theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK
theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK
bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4"
accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> ^&xm mkoncewicz Normal
mkoncewicz Microsoft Office Word NARA Title Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc
Word.Document.8