IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE: PETITION OF BENJAMIN WITTES, JACK GOLDSMITH STEPHEN BATES Misc. Case No. DECLARATION OF RICHARD 1, Richard Ben-Veniste, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney with ?ve decades of experience working on, among many other things, issues of accountability of individuals privileged to hold public of?ce. I submit this declaration in support of the above-captioned petition to unseal the ?Road Map? that was transferred from the ?rst Watergate grand jury to the House Judiciary Committee in 974. 2. From 1973 to 1975, I served as chief of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force?s Watergate Task Force. 3. In addition to my role with the Watergate Special Prosecutor?s of?ce, I have held numerous positions in government and public service. From 1968 to 1973, I served as an assistant United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, where I was chief of the Of?cial Corruption and Special Prosecutions Section. From 1976 to 1977, I served as special outside counsel for the Senate Subcommittee on Governmental Operations. In 1984 I served as outside counsel to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Prison Reform for the District of Columbia. I acted as minority chief counsel of the Senate Whitewater Committee from 1995 to 1996. From 1998-2007, I served as a presidential appointee to the Nazi War Crimes Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group (IWG), the largest congressionally mandated declassi?cation effort in history. From 2003 to 2004, I served as a member of the bipartisan 9/11Commission. In 2009, I became a member of the Aspen Security Group, a task force created by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to provide analysis and advice to the Secretary. From 2015 to 2017, I served on the NSA Advisory Board legal panel, providing advice to the director of NSA and its Of?ce of General Counsel. . I have also spent many years handling complex civil and criminal litigation in private practice. In 1981, I co-founded Ben-Veniste and Shernoff, where I practiced for 10 years. From 1991 to 2002, I was as a partner at Weil, Gotshal aild Manges. Since 2002, I have been a partner at Mayer Brown, LLP. . I received my .D. from Columbia University Law School in 1967 and L.L.M. from Northwestern University School of Law in 1968 under a Ford Foundation Fellowship. . I have authored two books that examine the Watergate prosecution: Stonewall: The Real Story of the Watergate Prosecution (1977) (co-authored with George Frampton), and The Emperor New Clothes: Exposing the Truth ?om Watergate to 9/11 (2009). . I have spoken out and written extensively about Special Counsel Robert Mueller?s investigation as it relates to issues of executive power and congressional oversight, including articles in The Atlantic, CNN, and the Washington Post. I have also given 10. numerous interviews on this subject on CNN, PBS and NPR, as well as several foreign broadcast and print publications. This declaration is based primarily on my experience as chief of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force?s Watergate Task Force. I was part of the team that discussed whether we, as legal advisors to the ?rst Watergate grand jury, should inform the grand jury of its right to request permission from the chief judge of the federal district court for the District of Columbia to transmit evidence it had gathered to the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, which was then investigating whether to vote articles of impeachment against president Richard M. Nixon. In addition to grand jury testimony of various individuals, we had obtained through grand jury subpoena a number of secret tape-recorded conversations made in various locations in the White House under the ausPices of President Nixon. Up to that point, we had treated that grand jury testimony and related documents, as well as the White House tape recordings, with the utmost secrecy, as it was our obligation to do under Rule 6(6) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is signi?cant because while Congress had attempted to compel production of White House tapes, it had been rebuffed by the courts on separation of powers grounds. Special Prosecutor Leon aworski agreed that the grand jury should be apprised of its rights in this regard, and we so advised the jurors of their options. The grand jury authorized the special prosecutor to petition the court for permission to transmit a body of evidence, including tapes and transcripts of testimony, to the House Judiciary Committee, along with an index of the material to be transmitted. The index became known by the shorthand description of ?the Road Map.? 11. In the book I co-authored with George Frampton, Stonewall: The Real Story of the Watergate Prosecution, we discuss the Road Map and the events that led to its creation and transmission to the House Judiciary Committee. Attached as Exhibit A is a true copy of an excerpt of our book. We explain that the Road Map consisted of an ?index,? or a series Of short statements setting forth documented facts, each of which ?[was] followed by a list Of tapes or other evidence supporting the statement.?1 It was intended to assist the Judiciary Committee, helping it assemble the individual pieces Of grand-jury testimony and other evidence into a coherent narrative as we and the jury saw it.2 The grand jury believed Richard Nixon had participated in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct the investigation into Watergate, and voted to authorize the Special Prosecutor to name him as an unindicted co?conspirator at an appropriate later date. 12. As described in our book, the Watergate Special Prosecution Force deliberated at length over the nature and format of the Road Map.3 Recognizing that ?a report about the President would raise a unique legal question, especially if it accused the President of a crime,? aworski sought to frame the evidence in the Road Map in a way that would not infringe on the individual rights of the President but would still be a useful guide to the House Judiciary Committee.4 13. I believe the Road Map played a signi?cant role in facilitating the House Judiciary Committee investigation. Furthermore, the transmission of accompanying tapes in possession of the grand jury prevented President Nixon from keeping them from Congress, forcing him to produce his own transcripts of those tapes. 1 RICHARD BEN-VENISTE AND GEORGE FRAMPTON, R., STONEWALL: THE REAL STORY OF THE WATERGATE PROSECUTION 244 (Simon Schuster, ed. 1977). 2 Id at 242-43. 3 Id. at 241-244. 4 Id. at 242. 14. I am familiar with the public record of Watergate. It includes, but is not limited to, the articles of impeachment, the Watergate Special Prosecution Force?s report, the House Judiciary Committee?s report, transcripts and materials relating to the House Judiciary Committee?s impeachment hearings, the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities? report, published transcripts of compendiums of the White House tapes, and the records of the public trials of President Nixon?s co-conspirators. It is, of course, normal and commonplace that the content of grand jury material becomes public information by reason of its use in subsequent public trials and related proceedings. All of these documents revealed material that we, at one point, treated as grand jury material subject to Rule Based on my ?rst-hand recollection of the structure and content of the Road Map, I can con?rm that those publications viewed in their totality contained most, if not all, of the information that was referenced in the Road Map. 15. In light of the publications described in the previous paragraph, I believe that any privacy concerns relating to the release of the Road Map are minimal, and are far outweighed by Widespread public interest in the document. 16. As a Watergate prosecutor bound by Rule I believe that the Road Map has lost its Rule 6(e) character given the public disclosures of the grand jury material contained therein. 17. The historical precedent of the transmittal of the Road Map and accompanying grand jury materials under the auspices of then-Chief Judge John Sirica, pursuant to a proper exception to Rule 6(e) as set forth in the well-reasoned opinion of Judge Sirica and af?rmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the DC. Circuit, is particularly timely. Independent Counsel Robert Mueller will in due course conclude his investigation and will be faced with a variety of decisions, including whether and how to share the evidence he has uncovered. The public will bene?t from understanding the history and context of the Watergate Road Map. PurSuaIit' to 28 U.S.VC. 1746., Iidecflare?: under thenalty of :?erj ury that: is true and correCt'. EXeeuted on:3Septernber ,:20318. Zaw?mzk Richard Ben-Veniste EXHIBIT A THE REAL STORY OF THE WATERCATE PROSECUTION BY Richard Ben-Ileniste George Hampton, Jr. ?g Ill? New York Copyright 19?? by Richard Ben-Venirte and George T. Framptaa, Ir. A11 ?ghts reseraed including the right of reproduction in whoa? or in part in any form Published by Simon and Sebaster A Division of Gulf vb Western Corporation Simon Sebaster Emitting Rockefeller Center 1230 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 19020 Designed by Irving Perkins Manufactured in the United States of Amenba 12345678910 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data BeapVea?te, Richard. Stonewall. 1. Watergate A?ar'r, 19?2? I . Frampton, George, joint author. 364.1?32?09?3 76?58340 ISBN 0-871-22463-8 . Title. 2: CHAPTER 3: wreak m5: (HAPTERB: m7: m9: mar-malt}: mu: Introduction The First Special Prosecutor The Script and the Players The Case Against Richard Nixon: ?If you shoot at a king . . The Linchpin?John W. Dean The Bugging of Richard Nixon Saturday Night Massacre or Saturday Night Suicide? The Tapes Hearings: No More Mr. Nice Guy Archie?s Orphans Meet the Silver Fox: jaworski Arrives Cancer on the Presidency Le Grand Fromage The Indictment??By deceit, craft, trickery . . The Unindicted Co?conspirator Resignation and Pardon: President Ford Adopts the Monkey The Trial Begins: A Jury Is Selected ?Truth . . T?r-u-t-h . . . Truth? Epilogue Index 11 13 45 95 111 123 158 187 199 211 291 316 388 397 PeaChInent i to reCOmmEn NIXON tapes Le Grand romage 2.41 nquir . . toyt eherspecial Prosecutor apparently had decided to the and lury that it send the most damaging ing, the grand jury 112356 Indiciary Committee. In Jaworski?s think- tors not. If the the authority to do this, while the prosecu- end pecial 50 1d 10 the House committProsecutor cpuld get the grand ]ury to eapfrOg th ee a report containing the tapes, he . 18 a1 - the committee Ourselg barriers to our sending the tapes directly to Beyond that We Ves. needed to get the Hbmught that more than new tapes would be . use . ev1dence. The almos committee to SPeed 0? the available ere SuI?I?Ounding the impeachment inquiry at that time was still rels about Staf?ng :EOWedly Partisan and political. There were quar- Out procedures and about scheduling. The com- ittee had ven been engaged in a running battle among its mem? bers and with the White as 01156 over a. able Offense. What constituted an impeach- John D0313 the House Judiciary Committee?s chief counsel had 1311110th an BXhauStive staff effort to gather and cross-index every fact, however insigni?cant, that related to the committee?s inquiry. In an ideal world and with in?nite time this endeavor could have proved useful. Under the circumstances, however, it precluded im? mediate action to what was most urgently needed: an attempt to summarize the most important evidence against the President in a meaningful way, so that it could be readily understood and assessed by Congress and the public. In the meantime the President, seeing the Judiciary Committee?s slow start and realizing he could win easily if the issue were brought to a head soon, was calling for a quick vote on impeachment. If the President succeeded in forcmg a vote before Doar?s ?information-gathering? machine shifted gears and began summarizing the case, or if the committee split hopilrelssl); over preliminary procedural issues, the momentum for unpeac en might be shattered no matter how strong the ev1dence. that mem- The Judiciary Committee?s plight convmced some 0 us to have to bers of Congress from both sides of the aisle werefgont?}? in neon have the signi?cance of the evidence SPelled wt or 6 letters before they would act. The Watergate ngcirlseigevtii that the grand jury should be told it could 13a 6.361101; but sum- ]udiCiaI'y Committee that not only transmitte EVI ht could artic- marized and commented on it. The summary, wet oug 242 STONEWALL inst the President. It could Show ulate the ?theory of the case? aga how the tapes and other evidence ?t together and demonstrate that the President had been trying to hold the cover-up together in March ld also juxtapose the President?s and April of 1973. The report cou public statements denying knowledge of the cover-up with eVidence from the tapes showing he really knew far more. But the Special Prosecutor already had ruled out any analysis 0r summarization of evidence by the grand jury. Raw evidence, Jawor? ski argued to us, spoke for itself. Summarization meant the grand jury was ?interpreting? the evidence. That was just as dangerous as draw- ing conclusions from evidence, Jaworski said. The grand jury, he claimed, could be drawn into a position vulnerable to criticism. Something else worried Jaworski. He professed to uncertainty eaction to an attempt by the grand jury to about Judge Sirica?s then Chief Judge of the United States Dig- make a report. Sirica, trict Court, ?presided over? all grand juries in the District, including the Watergate grand jury. All indictments were ?returned? in his courtroom. Technically the Watergate grand jury would make any report on President Nixon directly to Judge Sirica. The grand ju would have to request the judge to pass the report along to the Houls: Judiciary Committee. There were plenty of legal precedents for a But a report about the President of the United th . present'a unique legal question, especially if it accused resrdent of a crime. Jaworski seemed convinced Sirica wouldn?t accept a report that was accusatory of the President. agrge with the Special Prosecutor?s argument that sum- did gh evi ence was tantamount to accusing the President, nor . we 5 are his concern that Judge Sirica might not honor a grand- jj?gy?gequis; to transmit such a summary to Congress. But Jaworski middle 33m 6 availed. The task force then suggested there was a never?wlesSse. 1 the evidence, the grand jury could as possible Earrange 1t in a format that made its signi?cance as clear Committee. et?t?er, the jury could supply the House Judiciary pieces ?tted to 3111 1ndex to the evidence showing how various road map Wege er. The phrase we coined for this index was ?the not only 6f raw to the Special Prosecutor that transmission avoid the drawin :nce but of a road map to the evidence could we hoped that agr: dormal conclusions by the jury. In truth, though, a map COuld serve as a do?it-yourself kit for the . mmittee, he] in it Plait-far; 'Ctistimony andpotlaler Lifllerinble the in IFromage d-nl .. . CC int 03561;: 3: End the Jury Saw it 0 a Wherem ?We oi a 3n cbmaryth a du-r yOung th? . 9 1' 111' ret . ?Titl? at JailOl'Skilfs anitgf'n 3' Presenh?nent earlier 111' and But ad ma Ion. The 311 I met Wi I?ch Special ?0560?? was noncommittal bu: ind ?185m? di utOrs who it? of idea' -V . not the :5 later, en emste met with 3 kin randorlzation now to ??53 on him idea 0 - . Surat as at some later tim the Press}. 6 . . downplay the mora a1nd of thee N??-VimlSte Instead he appeal 6 t0 Leon JaWOI'ski the tri 1 11X0n prob awyen-?to lem- ., 5mm desu?e to mount an a' - 5332:; Ehrligchman and tlagg?int' rofessionala who ?in? E3PP Ire01ate the i?5111ati0n that gr thorization would give him If he later decided to name in the MI 0f Particuiars' JaworSkl seemed receptive to the idea i grand'jury authongzatmn. He asked Ben-Veniste to prepare a mitt; memorandum the procedure. Later that same afternoon the task force met with Jaworski to re- View the cases against several potential defendants. jaworski brought up the subject of grand?jury authorization. He intimated that it made and sense, and said he was mulling it over. But time was getting short. We wanted to return our indictment no later than the end of February, a week and a half away, and we still had no ?rm decisions on Nixon. At about noon the next day the Special Prosecutor called Ben- Veniste to his of?ce. He had made up his mind, he said, to suggest *0 the grand jury that it transmit evidence about the President to the House Judiciary Committee. However, he said he had ruled out the evidence, making any accusations or drawing any He said nothing at the meeting about naming the Pren- I I ?t as an co-conspirator. concept of a he task it . the .. orce now concentrated 1ts efforts on . .. I l, 111 hijaiismap' laWorski did not seem to have ruled out 633335;: til); ecis' ort evr Ho 10n that the grand lury Could relplZe or summarize the U83 . . Judmlary Committee but must not ana 244 STONEWALL . 'd Frampton began to assemble all the pertment evidence ev1 enc . before the grand jury that we tzozznig; :6 130:3}; To. 39th? With Od?ers? he began to a d: ftifthe Sgec' IF the 'dence. We wanted to be prepared W1. a ra . 1a 108% Editor gave us the go?ahead. Perhaps if 53}? 1n black and white what we were contemplatmg he wou glve lS consent. The task force was scheduled to meet Jaworskl Saturday morn ing for ?nal consideration of the perjury charges that we. Would ask the grand jury to include in the comprehenswe cover-up When discussion of the perjury counts concluded we turned to the road map. Well, said the Special Prosecutor, he could go along With such a thing, but it must be scrupulously neutral?no inferences, no characterization of evidence. rampton explained what we had in mind: a series of short statements setting forth indisputable facts, each of which would be followed by a list of tapes or other evidence supporting the statement. In using tapes, we would cite to page num- bers of tape transcripts wherever possible. ?Try your hand at it and let me see what you come up with,? Jaworski replied. That was all the go-ahead we needed. As the meeting broke up, Jaworski gave Ben-Veniste a typed draft of what he proposed to say to the grand jury about President Nixon. The Special Prosecutor had informed us the day before that he in- tended to accompany us to the courthouse and address the jurors personally ?rst thing Monday morning. The draft advised the jurors that it would ?not be responsible conduct? to indict the President, because of the uncertainty of the law, the ?trauma the nation would suffer? while the legal issue was resolved, and the appropriateness of Congress 1? ather than the grand jury dealing with the evidence against Mr. Nixon. However, Jaworski proposed to tell the jurors, they could grafted and redrafted an addition for Jaworski?s proposed statement 0 the grand jury WhiCh included a request to the jurors to authorize ame President Nixon as an us to The insertion amounted to senten Submit 1t t0 the Spemal Pros Ces (Inestio was onths earli 11 Or as St MO er: W811 before 1 as P08 Almo k' 1?6 atrons 1)th Slble. an Leon Jawors 1 a soured, we had decided efin the task fare for the speclal l?rosecutor and his wife. At the :0 give a d. Partgow our hospitality to JaworskiJust the thmg? wod not feel isolated 0r uncomfortable wi Feinces in age and style. Long ago, the din er three Iawo k' th us 0 rs 1 that he account of f- . Her Party Was set for th home 0f Jill and Ian VOlner 011 thlsovery Saturday night, February While our rapport With Jaworskl was ow on the till W?mess and reserve on both sides. And all of the Special Prosecutor, were exhausted by the an . of the decisions we faced. Jaworski more so than anyone, tenslon 0 the prodigious pace he maintained for a man of sixty-eight 3:311:15: strain of haVing the Nixon Pmble constantly staring him in the face. Moreover, Jaworski was always his most chipper and at his for business ?rst thing in the morning. By late afternoon__ es . lon week?he was often too tired or especla?y Elli) 3102:3112; aim problems. He preferred to relax, ?[011?un in a few yarns. Given the events of the past month magi: ng?ce, a Saturday?evening dinner party atiindeirlgy til: :hl?re task force and the Special Prosecutpr ?56811de ?nzlvihne 51th sible setting in which to approach Jawors 1 or I had to deal with. the most iInPOrtant bit of business our of?ce ex?e te the schedule we But we had little choice. In order to accomka; :t the party. would have to present Our redraft {0 Jan/9175 De artmel?lt driver got That night, the Special Prosecutor J'usticethe garty well past the Opelessly lost, delivering the tod Charming selhas usual, aPPOinted hour. Jaworski was his courtly antin all of us showed 0:1 ?t the tension and fatigue that were affec uiosphere was 00311 1 face, Durin pre-dinner cocktails, thih: air??if not the 'laWOI'Ski appeared to aslmne to the wall at all um th casually as P05511313: Ben'venlste loo a few lines in Pr lled stittewe had tried our hand at redrafitngmoming. Ben-Veins . the {Or the grand jury for them to Papers Ont of his pocket and han mend, there was 115, the task force workload and the . ?h?t Ema? if?? 321-. 6. .2. at ul a, 355%!8? l, 41%? 351-"- he?d think the matter Over. The inner ?nishe and the rest of ds to try for a little sleep. . the Special Prosecutor Came force of?ces. His secretary had not yet one of to type something fer . . 'sed to see the 813801211 I rampton was . ardly ever came down to the task force for jaworski cruised to get the material typed as soon as some- t. ?It?s what I?m going to tell the jury,? jaworski for his own of?ce. Frampton whipped through 1 tor had bought Our approach! The statement be named ?at a later date? and that President? would be discussed With tion? sought to name them in the -Venist tely as him. Only Prosecutor, o?ices. ramptOn pr one came in t0 0 1 said, and he departe 056011 irators woul ns ?including the (1 their ?authorize it. The Special Pr a list of perso the grand jury an ?bill of particulars.? At ten o?clock that morning, Febr the grand jurors on the subject 0 jurors besieged him with questions. Most were tough and intelligent ones. Some jurors expressed views much like those we on the task tors who had started the whole force?and the four young prosecu ur of?ce. Sitting with jaworski in the dispute?had voiced within 0 grand?jury room, some of us could hardly suppress wry smiles. The ive-and-take between the jurors and the Special Prosecutor seemed a brief but thorough reprise of the discussions within the Special Prosecutor?s of?ce that had raged over the past month. jaworski ably defended his recommendation. It was obvious to us that the logic of 1118 position was winning the jurors? approva . When the Special Prosecutor had ?elded the grand jury?s ques- tlons, he departed. The task force remained to show the grand jurors list of conspirators we a draft of our proposed indictment and th proposed to name, arranged in alphabetical order. Then we left the jurors to digest and our recommendations among themselves. mint?: uiutiatietl?be-ratmn? grand-jury foreman Vladimir Pregelj in- Of the recomme 313?] had voted 19-0 to authorize us to name eac Twenty of the The vote was not unanimous. remained active 0:113:- -ree 1111?01'5 were present that day (all who juror was reco d' Jury), but one abstained. Whether the one I mg a PmteSt against our refusal to seek the Presi- uary 25, Leon jaworski addressed President Richard Nixon. The .Grand romage tune? or whether, on the contrary, he Wanted no {If Nixon we were not entitled to know. One of th {.15 ?n?graphers who had taken down testimonv for the m: it 21113; sieghout the investigation was summoned. Beh-Veniste %d it? throrecord? the grand Jury suauthoriza?on vote and the list of co. inf? Ham?s- when he reached Richard M. Nixon? in the alphabeti- .- N?spocession, the stenographer 5 eyes bulged. When she ?nished she i ?3le I guess You want the Wed up right awav. huh?? . said ton and other members of the task force were now 'workin .rishlv to ?niSh the road map and collection of evidence to be Mean?; ed so that we could show a draft to the jurv. The form . Already chosen for the report was a series of ?statements of fact,? . ost of which were one or a few sentences long. Each ?statement of as numbered. Each was followed by a list of evidence that fact? orted the numbered statement: a tape, a few pages of recorded $55.1-qu testimony, a document. (Later, we were ?attered by the fact that the House Judiciary Committee staff copied our format for presenting all its impeachment evidence to the com~ mittee members and the public.) We wanted to be sure that every- thing we had gathered that contributed to the case against President Nixon was sent over to the Judiciary Committee. More important, we wanted the road map to make ?perfectly clear? how each piece of evidence ?t together in the overall scheme. Jaworski himself had drafted the preamble to the report, requeSt- ing Judge Sirica to transmit the enclosed ev1dence to tltile House1 Judiciary Committee. As drafted, the?preamble stated that e. graph1t jury had ?heard evidence relating to the mdguugouse had concluded it should ?defer Hlliethei: eviedtenc: When decide what action was warm'nteitself wzrje presented to the grand the preamble and the road 1113113113 were generally pleased. There jurors for their Consideratlon: on which the jury insisted. The pre_ was only one major change up hanged to say that they would amble, as appro the jurors, was . . - defe:e:l) the Judiciary Committee and allow the commit resen tee to decide what 5 This language was done at time . .hguttd th: Congress that the Jurywould still be a none-too-subtle hm. st the President if the pohtmrans faltered. around to move digiiamble eventually was made public, none of 1 when thea?lgeediya commentators rem 247 Part of :5 if) ind arked on these highly pregnant phrases. at." 5-5, ?u ?3 .. . .I LL 248 STONE A . From a constitutional standPomt they were perhaps the most i111. . the re ortl fhle last ?geek of February the task force was Preoccu, . . dictment and report to the grand 'u a Pifild1 W1: IE against the defendants. (Therycagfs wl n55: the Big Three had been reviewed with the jury the PreViOus z:veialk. Only the more dif?cult decisions were left for presentation the ?nal week Prior to indictment.) By Thursday afternoon we were ready to return the indictment and report. That night, rampton and Volner packaged together the road map and the ev1dence??tape boxes, retyped tape transcripts and other material, all neatly num- bered to coincide with the references in the road map. We had in- tended to put all of the evidence into two briefcases to give to the judge, but we decided to see if it would all ?t in one big government. issue case. It did, barely. The last tape box had to be pounded to ?t it in. For good reason, the press would call this the ?bulging brief- case. Some weeks before, rampton had received from a friend a scream- ing orange anti-Nixon automobile bumper sticker that proclaimed in bold letters, COODBY, a play on the traditional ending of the Laugh In television series. On Friday morning, as we were departing our o?ices for court and the return of our indictment, we af?xed the sticker to the outside of the briefcase containing the report. Nervous but exhilarated by the imminent conclusion of our long investigation, we thought the sticker would make a good prac- tical joke on the Special Prosecutor. With a ?ne irony it bespoke the months of professional restraint we believed we had exercised under siege from the Nixon forces?people who were seldom restrained by legal or ethical niceties in the way they exercised their power. And the sticker was perfect counterpoint to the scrupulous objectivity we had labored to bring to the grand jury?s report itself. Frampton into Frampton?s suit pocket instead. The grand jury had already reviewed the indictment and report in ?nal form by Friday morning. That day, the task force and the 1. L8 Grand lPrOsemltor met with the jurors fer a brief {0 ge 249 'a room' we then proceeded tOgether 110' elevator Our {5 to JUdgengil' 8918mm had announ 10as court. ?your,? roceeding? in court that morning, there W0uld be a iving the Short Warnin g. tit?e of worski had earher announced that 5u1t?lt0 the grand jury by the end of February (this action. ce there had been press Speculation that act? an Serk there was a huge croWd of TV newsmen 10:11 would come this wet the COurthOuse. an 1T?3P01't61's on with; Judge Sirica entered, Leon Jaworski ros that the grand juryhad material to be deliver . foreman, Vladunlf1 Pregleil], then came fo [on of Spectator. benc es, elie the entire grand jury Was seated, dhanded the Judge two. enve opes. One contained our indictment alleging seven Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson :{ardim Strachan and Parkinson?with conspiracy in the Water: ate Com--111); the other contained what Pregelj told the judge was ?a sealed report.? In fact the second envelope contained the pre- amble to the report and road map, asking the judge to forward the evidence in the separate, bulging briefcase on to the House Judi- Committee. ml? dead silence, the rasp of his letter-opener cutting clearly through the hushed room, Judge Sirica slit open the two envelopes. He glanced at the indictment, then brie?y read the preamble to himself. As he appeared to ?nish it, Ben-Veniste arose and brought forward from under our counsel table the chocolate-brown bulging bnefcas: contElining the tapes and other evidence and our road ?I?naP- HZ 331:3 lo?hand it up? to the court. ?If it please Your Honor, he sent ad 15 the material made reference to in the (10011111611t you (linstheit3 the Ben'veniSte explained that the briefcase was IOCked 1311 iven to ey to it Was contained in a sealed letter-sized enve ope the judge aIOng with the preamble to the rePolt" since the judge 0 far, Spectators and press had learned (reveal- .ad not Te?d out loud either the ?caption? 0f To the rePort. The bid Harries of those indicted) 01' the preamb that they had ge thanked the grand jurors, reminding them 6 to inform the - ind ed to the court. Tlgle rward from the front . th ould not discuss 8 Case that they Sh then a brief exchange anyone siness There was . . emeen th? (Edi-bis? emigre about setting the a or analgnment an Ben-Vgid fendants are required to surrender to th (the he an . 00 mdin rmal Pleas 0f or .nOt gum? Ben?Venigi: and enter euth ofollowing Saturday mormn should be 001w at 911 11 since Mitchell was then permanently 000115;: ?Calla dantMitlfhi: New York being prosecuted murmur in the courtroom at Mi 6 . tChell?s VescO case-as n0 5 rise, of course, but his was the ?rst one men. It I. 33321. The fonnall'tles completed, we left the courthouse by the . 't as the press ran for the court c1 arkln -gar age ex1 . erk Secgnd Hoar of the courthouse to get the1r copies of the indictment. WOULD ms WATERGATE grand jurors have indicted Pr esident Nixon if ?had been left up to them? The events of March 1 suggest they would have. On the afternoon our indictment was retumed, the task force gathered with Hank Ruth and a few of the other younger prosecu- Jaworski had already left for a week- . ut the rosecution ewdence against the - PEned now . gorge Ingmar), COInInit reSIdent seemingly was ?71' tee. No matter what ha - be Pmud 0f impeachm ent aren one and how it. COHdUcted . had don lien ??30 . Nixon cam a' ance chair- an SEC ind Peril?? . 1n connection 'th lle 3d 0r Vest! . an a RObert gahon Into the affairs of international '5 endants were eventually Egg-33,03 Haammr?FOD?