I was not aware of any of this, and so considering our impending predicament with Mueller/Russia/Trump, thought it prudent to share.
First, a little history lesson: Nixon argues against resignation. Seven months before, ultimately………. resigning.
In notes jotted down in the early morning hours of Jan. 1, 1974, Nixon emphasized his determination to "fight. Fight because if I am forced to resign, the press will become too much of a dominant force in the nation, not only in this administration but for years to come. Fight because resignation would set a precedent and result in a permanent and very destructive change in our whole constitutional system. Fight because resignation could lead to a collapse of our foreign policy initiatives."
His opponents, the president wrote, "are savage destroyers, haters."
He saw no end to the demands of investigators.
Don’t be surprised if we hear the same arguments coming from President Trump in the coming months.
Meanwhile, in Office of the Watergate Special Prosecutor……..
In his office a few blocks from the White House, Jaworski had concluded by mid-December, little more than a month after taking the job from which Nixon ordered Archibald Cox fired, that Nixon was "criminally involved" in the Watergate coverup. By Jan. 7, the prosecutors he inherited from Cox had drafted a 128-page prosecution memo, which said there was enough evidence, even at that early date, to charge the president with conspiring to obstruct justice, to commit bribery, and to obstruct a criminal investigation through the payment of hush money to Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt.
Around the same time, another of Jaworski's men,
Richard Weinberg, concluded in a 44-page memo that nothing in the Constitution or legal precedents precluded indictment of an incumbent president.
Although there were strong policy reasons for not taking such a step and "curtailing his ability to govern," the memo suggested that the key question was whether the president, if not indicted, might avoid impeachment as well, thereby avoiding any adjudication of guilt or innocence.
Then the Watergate Grand Jury wanted to indict Nixon.
NEW YORK -- The Watergate grand jury tried relentlessly to indict Richard Nixon but their efforts were prevented by special prosecutor Leon Jaworski, members of the panel said in an interview broadcast Thursday night.
[...]
'There were 19 people in the grand-jury room that particular day, and we all raised our hands about wanting an indictment -- all of us. And some of us raised both hands.'
The prosecution team agreed with the grand jury, ABC said, and out of its Watergate Task Force Report came a six-page indictment detailing specific criminal allegations for which Nixon could have been named. Those allegations included 'bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and obstruction of a criminal investigation,' ABC said.
[...]
However, ABC said Jaworski and his staff convinced the jury to forward their evidence against Nixon to the House Impeachment Committee and
led the panel members to believe that if the president tried to escape impeachment by resignation, they would be given another chance to hand down an indictment.
When Nixon did resign on Aug. 9, 1974, Jaworski asked his staff for advice and his own counsel, Phillip Lacovara, recommended indictment, ABC said.
'But Jaworski never took the issue back to the grand jury,' ABC said.
How Jaworski handled Nixon and Watergate, is called the Watergate Road Map. Recently, three journalists (and others, including one John Dean) decided to petition for this ”Road Map” to be released to the public.
At the end of October, 2018, they got their wish.
Be forewarned. You are looking at documents which have been under-seal since 1973. They had to be petitioned to be released. Let’s hope we don’t have to wait so long………..
Here is a link to the Criminal indictment against Richard Nixon:
www.docdroid.net/…
And here is the “Watergate Road Map” :
www.docdroid.net/...
And more documents, should you be interested:
www.archives.gov/...
The Road Map is officially titled “Grand Jury Report and Recommendation Concerning Transmission of Evidence to the House of Representatives” and was delivered to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under seal on March 1, 1974. Chief Judge John Sirica then provided it to the House Judiciary Committee.
___________________________________________________
The Jaworski “Road Map,” the last great still-secret Watergate document, became public Wednesday when the National Archives released it under Judge Howell’s ruling from earlier this month. It sees the light of day for the first time in four and a half decades at a remarkable moment, one in which a different special prosecutor is considering the conduct of a different president and reportedly contemplating—as Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski once did—writing a report on the subject.
In short, this is what Leon Jaworski and the Watergate Grand Jury actually released to the U.S. House on March 1st, 1974.
Pertinent to current events, Robert Mueller has only two such “maps” with which to refer, while he contemplates how exactly to present his findings.
Leon Jaworski’s report in 1974
And Kenneth Starr’s report in 1998
Do yourself a BIG favor, and read this entire article at lawfareblog.comwww.lawfareblog.com/…
I will now attempt an abbreviated report
Now, how does this relate to the Russia investigation?
Robert Mueller is expected to deliver some type of report to Congress. Will that report follow the Watergate Road Map? Regardless of Jaworski’s apparent misleading of the Grand Jury, his report appears to be highly regarded, especially for its efficacy.
But why is that?
- First, less really is more. The document is powerful because it is so spare; because it is trying to inform, not to persuade; because it utterly lacks rhetorical excess. Starr took a different path. The merits of his decision are complicated. The results are less so. His approach worked less well, partly because it sought to do more.
- Second and relatedly, the Road Map is extremely careful not to do—or seem to do—Congress’s job for it.
- Finally, the Road Map teaches an important lesson about restraint. Leon Jaworski wrote a meticulous 55-page document that contains not a word of excess. He transmitted it to Congress, where it did not leak. It is powerful partly because it is so by-the-book.
Will Mueller be following this map?
In another article at lawfareblog.com, it is argued that he might not. And for good reason.
Thursday, November 8, 2018, 8:36 AM
[...]
What, then, are the implications of Jaworski’s impeachment report for the Mueller investigation?
Mueller probably can issue his findings in the form of a grand jury report, like Jaworski, but other features of 1974 seem less likely to recur. So far, the House isn’t clamoring for Mueller’s evidence, and impeachment proceedings aren’t under way—though this may change when a new, Democratic-controlled Congress is sworn in this coming January. If Mueller ends up jump-starting impeachment proceedings, rather than aiding proceedings already in progress, he may be more vulnerable than Jaworski to charges of partisanship. Because impeachment proceedings haven’t yet begun, in addition, the public might respond unfavorably to an impeachment report that, like the road map, stays secret.
This president, further, might fight to prevent an impeachment report from reaching Congress
and in the process assail Mueller for partisan motivations and actions.
As for the prose, the road map omits j’accuse, as Goldsmith and Wittes point out. It doesn’t argue that President Nixon violated any statute, or that he committed any high crimes and misdemeanors.
[...]
The road map, at least the portions that have been made public, never mentions evidentiary conflicts. One fact inexorably follows another, and none of the facts seems to be disputed.
[...]
Far more than Jaworski’s road map, what sets Watergate apart from other presidential scandals is the White House recording system. Thanks to the tapes, as James Fallows wrote in The Washington Monthly in 1979, “contrary to the whole human history of high-level scheming, the smoking gun actually appeared.” In summarizing the evidence against President Nixon, Jaworski’s road map shows a single path, start to finish, with no options, no alternative routes. Mueller’s summary of the evidence against President Trump, by contrast, almost surely will show forks in the road
What I am heartened by, particularly, is that Jaworski and the Grand Jury included in their report PUBLIC STATEMENTS MADE BY THE PRESIDENT.
Nixon lied to the public. His Press Secretary lied to the public.
Trump is lying to the public. His Press Secretary is lying to the public.
FURTHER READING
“The Right and the Power: The Prosecution of Watergate” by Leon Jaworski
Read for free, here: archive.org/...