Page images
PDF
EPUB

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

WORK OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY STAFF AS OF FEBRUARY 5, 1974

I. Organization Constitutional and Legal Research. Under the general supervision of Joseph Woods, this section is providing the legal support for the office. As legal questions arise, they are referred to this section for research, analysis and report. The major project at this time is the research into the constitutional issue of defining the grounds for impeachment.

Factual Investigation. This work is under the general supervision of Richard L. Cates and Bernard W. Nussbaum, both experienced attorneys with many years of practice. The group is organized into task forces with a task force leader in charge of each. The task forces are collecting and examining all the evidence available--both exculpatory and inculpatory-in the six following categories:

1. Allegations concerning domestic surveillance activities conducted by or at the direction of the White House;

2. Allegations concerning intelligence activities conducted by or at the direction of the White House for the purposes of the Presidential election of 1972; - 3. Allegations concerning the Watergate break-in and related activities, including alleged efforts by persons in the White House and others to "cover up" such activities and others;

4. Alleged improprieties in connection with the personal finances of the President;

5. The allegations concerning efforts by the White House to ose agencies of the Executive Branch for political purposes, and alleged White House involvement with illegal campaign contributions;

6. The allegations concerning other misconduct that do not fall within one of the foregoing categories, such as the secret

bombing of Cambodia, impoundment of funds. In the paragraphs that follow on page 2, I have endeavored to offer a representative selection of events under investigation. I am listing these examples only because I want to give the Committee a rough idea of our work. I want to emphasize that the events mentioned are merely examples, that the list is by no means exhaustive and that the selection does not represent any judgment by this office concerning the relative gravity of the allegations. Furthermore, the mere fact that we are undertaking investigation into a particular subject should not be interpreted to mean that we think there was any wrongdoing there, or that any prejudgment of the evidence has been made. Charges are not proof. We consider it the duty of this office to search out all the facts—those that exonerate as well as those that may implicate-in order to reach a fair and impartial conclusion about the truth of the charges that have been made.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »