(10 of 13)
The Defence View
The most likely defense tactics apparently will be to seek a change of venue from Washington, where the Watergate controversy is the hottest, and try to have the defendants' cases split off into separate trials. A mass trial affords prosecutors greater opportunity to introduce more evidence affecting each defendant. But the main strategy may be to try to discredit the accusing witnesses, many of whom have admitted their own criminal roles. The defense attorneys may ask: How can anyone believe convicted felons who are making charges against others so that they can get away with the lightest sentences themselves?
President Nixon issued only a statement through his press office: "The President has always maintained that the judicial system is the proper forum for the resolution to the questions concerning Watergate. The indictment indicates that the judicial process is finally moving toward the resolution of the matter. The President is confident that all Americans will join him in recognizing that all those indicted are innocent unless proof of guilt is established in the courts."
That reminder was proper and essential. But the notion that Watergate can only be resolved in the courts is not entirely accurate. While the judicial role is still vital in determining the innocence and guilt of former high officials, the resolution of Nixon's own Watergate fate rests with the Congress.
The grand jury's difficulty in dealing with the President was clearly demonstrated last week when Nixon, in his first press conference since November, revealed that the Watergate jury had sent him a request asking that he appear before it to answer questions. He said he had "respectfully declined" on constitutional grounds. Nixon said that he had offered to answer written questions from Jaworski or to talk with the prosecutor personally, but "he indicated that he did not want to proceed in that way." That would seem to represent a sound legal judgment on Jaworski's part, since such unsworn informal contacts would have no standing in court and would probably only serve to complicate the situation.
The briefcase handed to Judge Sirica by Jaworski's staff attorneys may well contain evidence that could render irrelevant the continuing controversy over whether a President can only be impeached if found guilty of criminal conduct. House Democratic Leader Tip O'Neill said as much last week at a seminar with students at Harvard. "I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Jaworski could have indicted the President of the U.S.," O'Neill said. "But he didn't try and I'm glad he didn't, because I'd hate to see the President of the U.S. indicted." The evidence that Jaworski has, O'Neill declared, apparently indicating he has some knowledge of it, "is extremely damaging. Rather than see the evidence made public, I think the President will resign."
At his press conference, Nixon appeared more relaxed, subdued and conciliatory than he has in a long time. For the most part, he fielded reporters' questions in an assured and forthright manner. He gave not the slightest hint that he either feared that any such fatal revelation might be imminent or that he would ever quit under any circumstances. Even if his continuance in office