Space did not allow inclusion of everything.  As an aid to further inquiry, other documents referenced in the book or relevant to the topics being discussed are posted below.

Chapter 5: Staffing the Nixon Impeachment

Document 5.1: These are the earlier memos exchanged between Jaworski and his deputy that culminated in Jaworski’s draft response of January 21, 1974. The exchange is discussed at pp. 77-78 and the final Jaworski memo is at Appendix J.

  • 5.1.1 – Ruth memo to Jaworski of 1/2/74
  • 5.1.2 – Jaworski memo to Ruth of 1/8/74
  • 5.1.3 – Ruth memo to Jaworski of 1/14/74

Document 5.1

Document 5.2: While not mentioned in the text’s discussion of the Grand Jury’s Road Map or Nixon’s indictment as a co-conspirator (pp. 82-88), these are Professor Vorenberg’s notes from the 2/28/74 meeting where these matters were discussed, along with the author’s interpretation.

Reproduced from Historical & Special Collections, Harvard Law School Library.

Document 5.2

Document 5.3: These are the three letters of June 28, 1974 between Jaworski and the House Judiciary Committee discussed on p. 91, which culminated in John Doar having access to WSPF’s prosecutorial memo on President Nixon. Waiving the need for any subpoena allowed this material to be shared in secret without the possibility of White House objection.

  • 5.3.1 – Chairman Rodino’s letter to Jaworski of 6/28/74
  • 5.3.2 – Special Counsel Doar’s letter to Jaworski of 6/28/74
  • 5.3.3 – Jaworski’s letter to Chairman Rudino of 6/28/74

Document 5.3


Chapter 6: A Fair and Impartial Trial Judge

Document 6.1: While not mentioned in the text, here is John Ehrlichman’s description of his trial before Judge Sirica, along with his sketch of how the attorneys were aligned at six separate tables during the course of the trial, with the author’s added detail. [Ehrlichman, John. Sketches and Notes, Washington: 1969-1975. Santa Fe: Cerro Gordo Publishers (1987)]

Document 6.1


Chapter 7: Even Handed Non-Partisan Prosecutors

Document 7.1: This is the full speech by Attorney General Robert H. Jackson to the Second Annual Meeting of United States Attorneys on April 1, 1940, discussed at p. 142.

Document 7.1

Document 7.2: These are Peter Kreindler’s handwritten notes from the indictment meetings, discussed at pp. 158-160, that preceded the Final Decisions memo at Appendix L.

  • 7.2.1 – Kreindler’s notes from meeting of 1/11/74
  • 7.2.2 – Kreindler’s notes from meeting of 1/31/74
  • 7.2.3 – Kreindler’s notes from meeting of 2/16/74

Document 7.2

Document 7.3: Jaworski’s private characterization of his staff’s bias discussed at pp. 158-160 and shown in Appendix L stands in stark contrast with his public defense of their objectivity in this open letter of 12/4/73,to the President’s press secretary.

Document 7.3

Document 7.4: While not mentioned in the text, these are Professor Vorenberg’s notes from roughly the same time period, along with the author’s interpretations.

Reproduced from Historical & Special Collections, Harvard Law School Library.

  • 7.4.1 – Vorenberg’s notes from meeting of 1/31/74.
  • 7.4.2 – Vorenberg’s notes for the two weeks ended 2/14/74
  • 7.4.3 – Vorenberg’s notes for the two weeks ended 2/28/74
  • 7.4.4 – Vorenberg’s notes for 3/14 and 3/15/74
  • 7.4.5 – Vorenberg’s notes re: Watergate overview

Document 7.4

Document 7.5: This is a memo from members of the Watergate Task Force to Jaworski, dated May 30, 1974, concurring in Colson’s plea bargain. It notes near the end that neither case against Colson was particularly strong.

Document 7.5

Document 7.6: This is the internal guide to Jeb Magruder’s direct testimony, which identifies dozens of discrepancies in his prior sworn statements, which is discussed at p. 176.

Document 7.6

Document 7.7: This is an 18 page memo from a young prosecutor, detailing and seeking to justify what appears to be a two year effort to nail Charles Colson for violence at a counter-protest when J. Edgar Hoover lay in state.  What is so troubling is the extent to which Colson and particularly his staff were subject to targeted prosecutorial attacks.

Document 7.7

Chapter 8: An Untainted and Unbiased Jury

Document 8.1: This is Archibald Cox’s memorandum to the District Court of June 6, 1973, discussed at p. 186, where he sought to condition the Senate Watergate Committee’s immunity grant to John Dean on their hearing testimony in executive sessions, so as not to generate such adverse pre-trial publicity that it would preclude a fair trial.

Document 8.1



Document M.1: The chart at pp. 6-7 identifies over a dozen private meetings between Judge Sirica and the special prosecutors or other interested parties. The most significant meetings are discussed in the text. These are documents which confirm several others:

  • M.1 – Jaworski’s notes listing “Sirica respect call” right after taking oath of office.
  • M.2 – Lacovara and Kreindler’s 1/2/74 meeting with Judge Sirica, regarding a rumor he had heard at a New Year’s Eve cocktail party (#10 on chart)
  • M.3 – Newspaper report of Sirica attending a party in April, 1974, in Jaworski’s honor
  • M.4 – Lacovara’s 5/3/15 meeting with Sirica

See also

  • Vorenberg’s notes from weeks ending of 2/14/74 (Document 7.4.2 above)
  • Vorenberg’s notes from weeks ending 2/28/74 (Document 7.4.3 above)

Document Misc