Jump to content


Spartacus

Douglas Caddy, Hunt, Liddy, Mullen, and the CIA


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 05:23 PM

I originally posted some of the questions in this message to Douglas Caddy in a different thread that had to do with Mark Felt. I realized that the questions weren't directly on-topic to that thread, and I think that the issues are deserving of their own thread, so I've amended my original message and am posting it here.

I've PMed Mr. Caddy and asked him if he would be kind enough to respond here instead of to the original message in the other thread.

In regard to the FBI memorandum of 5/23/1973 prepared by L. M. Walters for Mark Felt that mentions my name in several places, I would merely point out that my role in Watergate is explained in prior posts in the Forum that draw upon my manuscript published in The Advocate magazine of August 16, 2005.


Hi, Mr. Caddy. I read your article with a great deal of interest, and while it and your posts that I've read in this forum seem to focus mainly on those dramatic events following the fateful night of 16-17 June 1972, I wonder if you would be able to shed some light on parts of the backstory that are intriguing, but--well, "sketchy."

I'll try to be as specific as possible on some of the things I'm curious about, which the available literature doesn't seem to address in any measurable depth.
  • When CIA veteran E. Howard Hunt was hired at the Mullen Company on 1 May 1970, pursuant to a recommendation from DCI Richard Helms, the Mullen company had been cooperating with CIA, including providing overseas cover for CIA agents, for at least seven years. The Stockholm, Sweden office of Mullen was "staffed, run, and paid for by CIA." According to the available record, at least eight people in the D.C. Mullen office, where you worked, had been "cleared and made witting of Agency ties."
  • Were you cleared and witting of the Mullen company's involvement with CIA?
  • If so, what was the nature and scope of your clearances?
  • Who else at Mullen was "witting and cleared"?
  • If you know, did Hunt, or you, or anyone at the Mullen company have any contact, directly or through an intermediary, with Daniel Ellsberg?
  • From my understanding of the record, not many months after Hunt arrived at Mullen--in or around November 1970--you moved from Mullen to Gall, Lane, Powell and Kilcullen (hereinafter "Gall Lane"), and at about the same time, Hunt became a client a Gall Lane, and you were one of the attorneys working with Hunt. You've said you consulted with Hunt regarding probate and "other matters."
  • What were the "other matters"?
  • Did you have CIA clearances or other clearances from any intelligence branch or agency at any relevant time? If so, why?
  • Did the probate matters include Dorothy Hunt's probate?
  • What was Meade Emory's role?
  • Were persons employed at or by Gall Lane "cleared and witting" of Mullen ties to CIA? If so, who?
  • If you know, was Gall Lane in any sort of relationship with CIA that was similar to the relationship that the Mullen company enjoyed?
  • Please bear with me in establishing a brief history for these next questions, but still focusing on November 1970 and your move to Gall Lane:
  • Around the same time as your move to Gall Lane, Robert Mardian approached G. Gordon Liddy and asked Liddy to take an undescribed position that Liddy says was "super-confidential." Liddy had already been granted "special clearances" by CIA a year earlier, in December 1969.
  • Carrying forward to 1971: Hunt (your client) and Liddy had secure lines in Room 16 for communicating directly to Langley.
  • In July 1971, E. Howard Hunt (your client) met privately with CIA's Lucien Conein, CIA's Edward Landsdale, and Deputy Director of CIA Robert Cushman, and was supplied by CIA with phony ID and other items.
  • In August 1971, Hunt (your client) and G. Gordon Liddy met at least twice with CIA psychiatrist Bernard Malloy.
  • In August 1971 G. Gordon Liddy--working closely with your client, Hunt--was in regular communication "with State and the CIA," including direct conversations with DCI Richard Helms, and was briefed by CIA on "several additional sensitive programs in connection with his assignment to the White House staff." Liddy received similar phony ID from CIA as had been provided by CIA to your client, Hunt.
  • In October 1971, your client, Hunt, was in telephone contact with CIA Chief European Division John Hart, had several telephone conversations with CIA Executive Officer European Division John Caswell, and met with CIA Director Richard Helms.
  • Continuing into February 1972, Liddy and Hunt (your client) met with a "retired" CIA doctor to discuss indetectable means of assassination.
  • Liddy met on 22 February 1972 with undisclosed CIA officials in relation to the "special clearances" he was carrying.
  • Within only about a week of that meeting--on or around 1 March 1972--you started doing unspecified "legal tasks" for G. Gordon Liddy leading up to the Watergate activities, so were involved in a legal relationship with both "commanders" of everything Watergate: Liddy and Hunt. Therefore, in regard to the foregoing:
  • What was the nature of the "legal tasks" you were doing for Liddy?
  • Were you doing similar legal tasks for your client, Hunt?
  • Did any of the "legal tasks" you performed for either party require any kind of clearances from CIA and/or any other intelligence branch, organization, or agency?
  • Did any of your legal tasks for either Liddy or Hunt include arranging for possible overseas travel?
  • Did you have any clearances, special or otherwise, from CIA or any other intelligence branch, organization, or agency at relevant times? If so, what was the nature and scope, and why?
  • Taking you back now in time, if I may, to E. Howard Hunt's move, in May 1970, from CIA Central to the Mullen company, he hadn't been "retired" from CIA for more than a month before a special Covert Security Approval was requested through CIA for him under "Project QK/ENCHANT." You were still at the Mullen branch with him.
  • Did you have a clearance for QK/ENCHANT at any relevant time?
  • Do you know anything about why the "retired" Howard Hunt almost immediately needed this special clearance?
I'm sorry for having had to include as much establishing information as I did, but it's scattered throughout so many different sources that I thought others here may not be entirely familiar with the context given above, and I didn't want you to have to spend the time explaining it. I'd rather you just be able to focus on the questions themselves, and any light you can shed would be of inexpressible value.

Thanks so much for your time.

Ashton Gray

#2 Guest_John Gillespie_*

Guest_John Gillespie_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 June 2006 - 06:08 PM

"I'm sorry for having had to include as much establishing information as I did, but it's scattered throughout so many different sources that I thought others here may not be entirely familiar with the context given above, and I didn't want you to have to spend the time explaining it. I'd rather you just be able to focus on the questions themselves, and any light you can shed would be of inexpressible value.

Thanks so much for your time.

Ashton Gray"

________________________________________________
Ashton,

It's easy for me to sit here at this end and dispense platitudes; however, this most recent posting of yours is superb. It could only have been done after the most meticulous probing. Is that a rumpled, Columbo-styled raincoat you're wearing ("I just need to ask ya a couple of more questions...")? I'll jump out now and leave the vacuum waiting to be filled.

Yours Truly, John Gillespie

Edited by John Gillespie, 08 June 2006 - 06:09 PM.


#3 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 09 June 2006 - 01:23 AM

It could only have been done after the most meticulous probing.


I wish my conscience would allow me to just sit here and soak up all this approbation, John, but I'm going to have to admit that most of the work was done by the people who put together this timeline that I've mentioned several times. It is a sleek and efficient data machine, and hats off to everyone who contributed.

Is that a rumpled, Columbo-styled raincoat you're wearing ("I just need to ask ya a couple of more questions...")?


;) You're a funny guy, John. I'm afraid it's a pedestrian, threadbare favorite old tweed jacket.

I'll jump out now and leave the vacuum waiting to be filled.


Did you happen to bring a snack? I have a funny feeling we may be here a while...

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray, 09 June 2006 - 01:24 AM.


#4 Guest_John Gillespie_*

Guest_John Gillespie_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 June 2006 - 05:35 PM

It could only have been done after the most meticulous probing.


I wish my conscience would allow me to just sit here and soak up all this approbation, John, but I'm going to have to admit that most of the work was done by the people who put together this timeline that I've mentioned several times. It is a sleek and efficient data machine, and hats off to everyone who contributed.

Is that a rumpled, Columbo-styled raincoat you're wearing ("I just need to ask ya a couple of more questions...")?


:D You're a funny guy, John. I'm afraid it's a pedestrian, threadbare favorite old tweed jacket.

I'll jump out now and leave the vacuum waiting to be filled.


Did you happen to bring a snack? I have a funny feeling we may be here a while...

Ashton Gray


______________________________________
Ashton,

In the words of the great Adlai Stevenson, "I'm prepared to wait until hell freezes over"; or at least 'til Monday.

For me, the question that nearly jumped off the screen was the one concerening "probate matters." What's the over/under on Dorothy having been included in that discussion?

Regards,
JG

#5 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 11 June 2006 - 11:00 PM

For me, the question that nearly jumped off the screen was the one concerening "probate matters." What's the over/under on Dorothy having been included in that discussion?


I'm going to just answer frankly—and considerably more broadly than the Dorothy Hunt question—and hope that Douglas Caddy will come back and lay some of these concerns and appearances to rest.

It appears to me that Hunt was insinuated into Mullen generally because of its overseas, European cover operations for CIA (an important factor for later on), and more specifically to hook him up with Caddy, who was already set up at Mullen with CIA clearances. Caddy's planned and briefed destiny was to become the almost completely camouflaged conduit between CIA and both Hunt and Liddy by moving over to Gall Lane, and having, there, the protection not only of CIA clearances, but of the privilege arising out of the attorney/client relationship as well. (Of course there are some things that can pierce that veil, as I believe Mr. Caddy well knows.)

I think that the coy Mr. Caddy has been far, far too modest about his role in what we think of as "Watergate." Of course the role he's played, as the sort of slightly dizzy innocent caught up in a swirling torrent of events that were a mystery to him and over which he had no control, was tailor made for him by CIA as "plausible deniability," and I think he reasonably could be nominated for an Oscar as Best Actor in a Supporting Role. He's sold his cover very well. He practically has made himself a martyr, given his harsh, awful, unfair treatment at the hands of that mean old bullying court.

And all that would evoke a sympathetic tear even from somebody as hard-hearted as me--except for this unresolved little CIA thing, and the curiously precision timing of Caddy suddenly being the only attorney in D.C. who could possibly have been picked to do some "legal tasks" for G. Gordon Liddy, who was still warm from his most recent meeting with CIA officials regarding his CIA "special clearances." All this while Caddy was already in an attorney-client relationship with CIA's golden boy, Hunt, and right at the beginning of the 90-day runway to the purported "first break-in" (which never happened) on Memorial Day weekend.

It's a cozy little threesome, isn't it? Hunt, Liddy, and the almost invisible Caddy.

Then Caddy just happened to be the same Blessed Soul the gods picked to be there and ride herd on the CIA's "Cuban Contingent" in the crucial first hours after the "arrest," and make sure that it all went just the way the CIA had planned--even though Caddy himself says that he was completely unqualified to be there.

As for the Dorothy Hunt probate question, I don't think there's a chance in hell that I'll get an answer. I think there's a decent chance that somebody else might soon be asking the same question, though, who might have all the tools required to get an answer. Meanwhile, it's on the table.

And on the subject of Dorothy Hunt, E. Howard Hunt, and Douglas Caddy, I'll just point out the following:

Right at the end of February 1972, at almost the exact same time that Caddy started doing "legal tasks" for Liddy, who had just come from a CIA briefing, E. Howard Hunt left D.C. on a trip to Nicaragua for absolutely no known reason and for an undisclosed period of time. (Where?) Nicaragua. (Huh?) Right.

Just days later, on 3 March 1972--eight months before Dorothy Hunt died in a plane crash--the psychiatrist of Dorothy Hunt disappeared forever while on a pleasure boat trip from the Caribbean island of St. Lucia. No trace of the psychiatrist, his wife, or the captain of the pleasure boat, or of the boat they were on, was ever found. You can use internet maps to see the relationship of Nicaragua to St. Lucia if you think it might be of any interest or relevance. I wouldn't know.

What I know is that eight months later Dorothy Hunt also was dead. What I know is that Douglas Caddy was handling probate matters for E. Howard Hunt. Caddy said so himself. It's not at all unusual for an attorney handling "probate matters" for one spouse to do the same for the other.

Want more details? Ask Caddy. If you can locate him.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray, 11 June 2006 - 11:11 PM.


#6 Douglas Caddy

Douglas Caddy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,049 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 15 June 2006 - 01:45 AM

I originally posted some of the questions in this message to Douglas Caddy in a different thread that had to do with Mark Felt. I realized that the questions weren't directly on-topic to that thread, and I think that the issues are deserving of their own thread, so I've amended my original message and am posting it here.

I've PMed Mr. Caddy and asked him if he would be kind enough to respond here instead of to the original message in the other thread.

In regard to the FBI memorandum of 5/23/1973 prepared by L. M. Walters for Mark Felt that mentions my name in several places, I would merely point out that my role in Watergate is explained in prior posts in the Forum that draw upon my manuscript published in The Advocate magazine of August 16, 2005.


Hi, Mr. Caddy. I read your article with a great deal of interest, and while it and your posts that I've read in this forum seem to focus mainly on those dramatic events following the fateful night of 16-17 June 1972, I wonder if you would be able to shed some light on parts of the backstory that are intriguing, but--well, "sketchy."

I'll try to be as specific as possible on some of the things I'm curious about, which the available literature doesn't seem to address in any measurable depth.
  • When CIA veteran E. Howard Hunt was hired at the Mullen Company on 1 May 1970, pursuant to a recommendation from DCI Richard Helms, the Mullen company had been cooperating with CIA, including providing overseas cover for CIA agents, for at least seven years. The Stockholm, Sweden office of Mullen was "staffed, run, and paid for by CIA." According to the available record, at least eight people in the D.C. Mullen office, where you worked, had been "cleared and made witting of Agency ties."
  • Were you cleared and witting of the Mullen company's involvement with CIA?
  • If so, what was the nature and scope of your clearances?
  • Who else at Mullen was "witting and cleared"?
  • If you know, did Hunt, or you, or anyone at the Mullen company have any contact, directly or through an intermediary, with Daniel Ellsberg?
  • From my understanding of the record, not many months after Hunt arrived at Mullen--in or around November 1970--you moved from Mullen to Gall, Lane, Powell and Kilcullen (hereinafter "Gall Lane"), and at about the same time, Hunt became a client a Gall Lane, and you were one of the attorneys working with Hunt. You've said you consulted with Hunt regarding probate and "other matters."
  • What were the "other matters"?
  • Did you have CIA clearances or other clearances from any intelligence branch or agency at any relevant time? If so, why?
  • Did the probate matters include Dorothy Hunt's probate?
  • What was Meade Emory's role?
  • Were persons employed at or by Gall Lane "cleared and witting" of Mullen ties to CIA? If so, who?
  • If you know, was Gall Lane in any sort of relationship with CIA that was similar to the relationship that the Mullen company enjoyed?
  • Please bear with me in establishing a brief history for these next questions, but still focusing on November 1970 and your move to Gall Lane:
  • Around the same time as your move to Gall Lane, Robert Mardian approached G. Gordon Liddy and asked Liddy to take an undescribed position that Liddy says was "super-confidential." Liddy had already been granted "special clearances" by CIA a year earlier, in December 1969.
  • Carrying forward to 1971: Hunt (your client) and Liddy had secure lines in Room 16 for communicating directly to Langley.
  • In July 1971, E. Howard Hunt (your client) met privately with CIA's Lucien Conein, CIA's Edward Landsdale, and Deputy Director of CIA Robert Cushman, and was supplied by CIA with phony ID and other items.
  • In August 1971, Hunt (your client) and G. Gordon Liddy met at least twice with CIA psychiatrist Bernard Malloy.
  • In August 1971 G. Gordon Liddy--working closely with your client, Hunt--was in regular communication "with State and the CIA," including direct conversations with DCI Richard Helms, and was briefed by CIA on "several additional sensitive programs in connection with his assignment to the White House staff." Liddy received similar phony ID from CIA as had been provided by CIA to your client, Hunt.
  • In October 1971, your client, Hunt, was in telephone contact with CIA Chief European Division John Hart, had several telephone conversations with CIA Executive Officer European Division John Caswell, and met with CIA Director Richard Helms.
  • Continuing into February 1972, Liddy and Hunt (your client) met with a "retired" CIA doctor to discuss indetectable means of assassination.
  • Liddy met on 22 February 1972 with undisclosed CIA officials in relation to the "special clearances" he was carrying.
  • Within only about a week of that meeting--on or around 1 March 1972--you started doing unspecified "legal tasks" for G. Gordon Liddy leading up to the Watergate activities, so were involved in a legal relationship with both "commanders" of everything Watergate: Liddy and Hunt. Therefore, in regard to the foregoing:
  • What was the nature of the "legal tasks" you were doing for Liddy?
  • Were you doing similar legal tasks for your client, Hunt?
  • Did any of the "legal tasks" you performed for either party require any kind of clearances from CIA and/or any other intelligence branch, organization, or agency?
  • Did any of your legal tasks for either Liddy or Hunt include arranging for possible overseas travel?
  • Did you have any clearances, special or otherwise, from CIA or any other intelligence branch, organization, or agency at relevant times? If so, what was the nature and scope, and why?
  • Taking you back now in time, if I may, to E. Howard Hunt's move, in May 1970, from CIA Central to the Mullen company, he hadn't been "retired" from CIA for more than a month before a special Covert Security Approval was requested through CIA for him under "Project QK/ENCHANT." You were still at the Mullen branch with him.
  • Did you have a clearance for QK/ENCHANT at any relevant time?
  • Do you know anything about why the "retired" Howard Hunt almost immediately needed this special clearance?
I'm sorry for having had to include as much establishing information as I did, but it's scattered throughout so many different sources that I thought others here may not be entirely familiar with the context given above, and I didn't want you to have to spend the time explaining it. I'd rather you just be able to focus on the questions themselves, and any light you can shed would be of inexpressible value.

Thanks so much for your time.

Ashton Gray


Thank you for your inquiries into Watergate that are concerned with the back history before the arrests of the five burglars on June 17, 1972. Here are my responses to the questions posed by you in four sections:

First section: (1) No, I was not cleared and witting of the Mullen Company’s involvement with the CIA. I only learned for certain of such involvement when I read Senator Howard Baker’s supplemental lengthy statement that was released about the same time that the final Senate Watergate Committee report was promulgated. Senator Baker, as you know, was a member of that Committee.

(2) Thus, at no time did I possess any clearance of any type as part of the Mullen Company’s involvement with the CIA.

Second section: (1) As part of the grand jury investigation into Watergate and in my capacity as a subpoenaed witness before that jury, I was forced to disclose the legal work that I performed for Howard Hunt when I was employed as an associate with the Washington, D.C. law firm of Gall, Lane, Powell and Kilcullen. This work was performed in conjunction with a partner of that law firm, Robert Scott, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, who later became a judge. At Hunt’s request, we prepared a will for him, analyzed his proposed business relationship with the Mullen Company after Robert Bennett assumed its ownership (no mention was made then by Hunt of the CIA’s involvement with the Company), and contacted various book publishers to ascertain whether they would be interested in publishing a novel that Hunt, a prolific writer, had completed. None of this legal work involved probate matters.

(2) I have at no time received a clearance from any branch of the U.S. government.

(3) At no time was I involved in any probate matters dealing with Dorothy Hunt. After I was subpoenaed in late June 1972 to appear before the Watergate grand jury, under the law I could no longer legally represent Hunt or his wife. My role was transformed from being Hunt’s attorney to being an involuntary witness in the criminal case against him. Thus, in the Watergate case I was both an attorney for the defense and a witness for the prosecution. Dorothy Hunt died in late 1972, subsequently to the date that I was forced to withdraw from legal representation of the Hunts due to my grand jury subpoena. I do not know who handled the probate of Dorothy Hunt’s estate.

(4) I do not recognize the name of Meade Emory, and for that reason am unaware of any role that he played in whatever matter you apparently have in mind.

Third section: Your preface to the inquiries posed in this section contains information about which, on the whole, I was unaware. For example, I never heard of Room 16. Also, I had no knowledge that Liddy possessed a relationship with the CIA or that Hunt apparently had a continuing working relationship with the CIA after his retirement from that organization in 1970.

(1) In March, 1972, George Webster, chairman of Lawyers for the Re-Election of Nixon-Agnew,
contacted John Kilcullen, a partner of the law firm that employed me, and asked for a lawyer to do voluntary campaign work in John Dean’s office. I was “volunteered” by John Kilcullen. I did several legal research assignments given to me by Dean and one of his associates. Some weeks later Webster asked that I contact Gordon Liddy at the Finance Committee of the Nixon-Agnew campaign to do a legal research on campaign finance laws then in effect. At Liddy’s request, I undertook such research and subsequently presented Liddy with a written legal memorandum on the subject. This was the sole work that I performed for Liddy.

(2) As stated above, I have at no time received a clearance from any branch of the U.S. government, which includes the CIA.

Fourth section: (1) This is the first time that I have heard of Project QK/ENCHANT. As such, I obviously never received a clearance to work on this project.

(2) I have no knowledge of Howard Hunt’s work on this project or why he needed a special clearance from the CIA to do so.

I believe that above responses cover the inquiries posed by you.

I wish to add the following observations. Had I ever applied for a clearance with the CIA or any branch of government in 1972 or in the years preceding, I most likely would have been denied such clearance. This is because of my sexual orientation, being a gay male. As Robert “Butch” Merritt disclosed publicly in 1977, within one day after the arrests of the burglars at Watergate on June 17, 1972 the FBI and the Washington, D.C. Police Department recruited him in his on-going undercover capacity to strike up a relationship with me because we both were gay males. The FBI and Police Department wanted to gather as much personal information about me that they could, even what food I ate. Merritt failed in this assignment.

In 1972 and the years preceding, gay males were deemed potential security risks. The privilege/dishonor of betraying the United States was reserved exclusively for certified heterosexuals, some of whom managed to do great harm to the country in their treasonous endeavors in the cases that were publicly disclosed. Undoubtedly some treasonous heterosexuals were never discovered and probably have lived quite comfortably in their retirement on government pensions, courtesy of the unwitting American taxpayers, which include gays and lesbians.

Even today, discrimination against gays and lesbians persists. For some unknown reason many gays and lesbians excel in linguistics and quickly master foreign languages, both oral and written.
(Unfortunately, I am not among them.) Although there is a dearth of persons who can read and speak arabic languages, gays and lesbians who possess this rare ability continue to be drummed out of the U.S. military language school at Monterey, California.

Some progress has been made since the days of Alan Turing, but much still remains to be done.

Edited by Douglas Caddy, 15 June 2006 - 01:54 AM.


#7 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 15 June 2006 - 10:09 AM

Thank you for your inquiries into Watergate that are concerned with the back history before the arrests of the five burglars on June 17, 1972. Here are my responses...


It's I who must thank you, now, for your extraordinarily gracious and comprehensive reply, and also must beg your indulgence, in turn, while I give it all due and thorough consideration.

Pending a more responsive response to your response, I'll say that on its face it clears up quite a lot in broad strokes.

One thing it specifically did pique my curiosity about, though, is the circumstances under which you had met Bernard Barker about a year before you ended up representing him. Was that through association with Mr. Hunt, or just one of those "happy accidents" that make life endlessly entertaining? I know you're busy with your book, but if you get a chance.

Meanwhile, I hope you'll also find an opportunity to visit an article I just posted here, There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate, which you may find of some interest in relation to your representation of the co-conspirators in the early going.

Ashton Gray

#8 Dawn Meredith

Dawn Meredith

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,496 posts
  • Location:Austin, Tx.
  • Interests:political justice, conspiracy/truth, music, law, Bible prophecy

Posted 15 June 2006 - 02:13 PM

[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jun 15 2006, 11:09 AM' post='65481']
[quote name='Douglas Caddy' post='65454' date='Jun 15 2006, 01:45 AM']Thank you for your inquiries into Watergate that are concerned with the back history before the arrests of the five burglars on June 17, 1972. Here are my responses... [/quote]

It's I who must thank you, now, for your extraordinarily gracious and comprehensive reply, and also must beg your indulgence, in turn, while I give it all due and thorough consideration.

Pending a more responsive response to your response, I'll say that on its face it clears up quite a lot in broad strokes.

One thing it specifically did pique my curiosity about, though, is the circumstances under which you had met Bernard Barker about a year before you ended up representing him. Was that through association with Mr. Hunt, or just one of those "happy accidents" that make life endlessly entertaining? I know you're busy with your book, but if you get a chance.

Meanwhile, I hope you'll also find an opportunity to visit an article I just posted here, There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate, which you may find of some interest in relation to your representation of the co-conspirators in the early going.

Ashton Gray
[/quote]


I too thank you Doug for your response here, as well as to the other questions I had (privately). I will get my answer to those question thru other means and it may be quite soon...(I will PM you: new source last nite!!).

I hope to read all the new Watergate stuff this Sat and Sunday...have read in bits and pieces and it is FASCINATING.

Great that someone is adding so much to this oh SO interesting case.

Dawn

#9 Douglas Caddy

Douglas Caddy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,049 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 15 June 2006 - 03:08 PM

Thank you for your inquiries into Watergate that are concerned with the back history before the arrests of the five burglars on June 17, 1972. Here are my responses...


It's I who must thank you, now, for your extraordinarily gracious and comprehensive reply, and also must beg your indulgence, in turn, while I give it all due and thorough consideration.

Pending a more responsive response to your response, I'll say that on its face it clears up quite a lot in broad strokes.

One thing it specifically did pique my curiosity about, though, is the circumstances under which you had met Bernard Barker about a year before you ended up representing him. Was that through association with Mr. Hunt, or just one of those "happy accidents" that make life endlessly entertaining? I know you're busy with your book, but if you get a chance.

Meanwhile, I hope you'll also find an opportunity to visit an article I just posted here, There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate, which you may find of some interest in relation to your representation of the co-conspirators in the early going.



Ashton Gray


As to my meeting Bernard Barker on one occasion some months prior to June 17, 1972, this was the subject of a question posed to me when I testified before the Watergate grand jury. As I related at that time, Howard Hunt asked me to join him and an undisclosed guest at the Army-Navy Club in downtown Washington, D.C. for lunch.

When I arrived Hunt was already there with his guest, Bernard Barker. Hunt made the introductions. The luncheon conversation was almost entirely consumed with Hunt and Barker recounting their involvement in the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

Of the five arrested individuals at Watergate on June 17, the only one that I knew was Bernard Barker, based on the above described meeting.

I look forward to reading the article that you have just posted.

#10 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 15 June 2006 - 06:45 PM

Hi Doug. You wrote:

As to my meeting Bernard Barker on one occasion some months prior to June 17, 1972...


Ouch. I hate to interrupt you, but can we stop right there for just a moment? I had asked you about "the circumstances under which you had met Bernard Barker about a year before you ended up representing him." You've responded about an incident you characterize as being "some months prior to June 17, 1972."

Sung: "You say 'to-may-to' and I say 'to-mah-to'..."

(Wait; that's the wrong song. Gimme a sec. I'm getting it... I know!)

Sung: "What a difference a day makes... ."

Dinah Washington just tore that up, didn't she? And what a fitting name. And if a day can make such a big difference, just imagine what "some months" can mean. I realize that a year is made up of "some months," but I'm trying to verify what I understand to be your own testimony. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The cite I'm using for the "year" time period, in this exchange, is your own article: "Gay Bashing and Watergate."

In it, you quote U.S. Attorney Earl Silbert in his closing argument, to wit:"Mr. Caddy told you, oh yes, he was going to be in the case. He was going to be in the case of those five. He never met them before except for Barker a year before. He was going to represent those five."
I realize that lawyers feel and exercise a certain sense of latitude in their practice, but closing arguments, after all, are crafted with considerable care—I'm sure you'll agree—and are not a very strategic place to be attempting to make material alterations to the trial evidence.

Mr. Silbert, in authoring his closing arguments in this world-watched case, represented that you had met Bernard Barker "a year before" you announced that you were going to represent him (Barker) and the others—which, as you point out, was on June 17, 1972.

That would put the date of your Army-Navy Club lunchtime rendezvous with Mr. Hunt and Mr. Barker sometime in June 1971.

Did Mr. Silbert misrepresent the facts in evidence during his closing argument? I ask that with the full understanding that you, at the time—as you characterized in your article—felt that your hands were "tied" by your attorney-client relationships. But surely no significant distortion of material fact regarding your attorney-client relationship with Mr. Barker, or the time and conditions of your first having met him in the company of Mr. Hunt, would have been allowed into the record without objection—especially with Hunt's own attorney, William O. Bittman, there during your role as a witness for the prosecution.

And your hands certainly were not "tied" at the time you authored your article—electing, in doing so, to quote Mr. Silbert's representation that you had met Bernard Barker "a year before" your taking Barker on as a client.

Therefore, I'm relying entirely on your own record to conclude and state that you in fact met Bernard Barker, in the company of E. Howard Hunt, at the Army-Navy Club in Washington, D.C. in or about the month of June, 1971.

If that's not the case, if your own record is wrong, if Mr. Silbert misrepresented an important material fact without objection during his closing argument—which you repeated in your own article without objection or correction—right now would be a very timely time to emphatically and specifically correct the record as to date. And I don't mean with a vague, airy "some months before." Trust me on this one.

Now I'm going to go find my Dinah Washington collection; my singing is scaring the cat.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray, 15 June 2006 - 10:58 PM.


#11 Douglas Caddy

Douglas Caddy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,049 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 16 June 2006 - 01:16 AM

Hi Doug. You wrote:

As to my meeting Bernard Barker on one occasion some months prior to June 17, 1972...


Ouch. I hate to interrupt you, but can we stop right there for just a moment? I had asked you about "the circumstances under which you had met Bernard Barker about a year before you ended up representing him." You've responded about an incident you characterize as being "some months prior to June 17, 1972."

Sung: "You say 'to-may-to' and I say 'to-mah-to'..."

(Wait; that's the wrong song. Gimme a sec. I'm getting it... I know!)

Sung: "What a difference a day makes... ."

Dinah Washington just tore that up, didn't she? And what a fitting name. And if a day can make such a big difference, just imagine what "some months" can mean. I realize that a year is made up of "some months," but I'm trying to verify what I understand to be your own testimony. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The cite I'm using for the "year" time period, in this exchange, is your own article: "Gay Bashing and Watergate."

In it, you quote U.S. Attorney Earl Silbert in his closing argument, to wit:"Mr. Caddy told you, oh yes, he was going to be in the case. He was going to be in the case of those five. He never met them before except for Barker a year before. He was going to represent those five."
I realize that lawyers feel and exercise a certain sense of latitude in their practice, but closing arguments, after all, are crafted with considerable care—I'm sure you'll agree—and are not a very strategic place to be attempting to make material alterations to the trial evidence.

Mr. Silbert, in authoring his closing arguments in this world-watched case, represented that you had met Bernard Barker "a year before" you announced that you were going to represent him (Barker) and the others—which, as you point out, was on June 17, 1972.

That would put the date of your Army-Navy Club lunchtime rendezvous with Mr. Hunt and Mr. Barker sometime in June 1971.

Did Mr. Silbert misrepresent the facts in evidence during his closing argument? I ask that with the full understanding that you, at the time—as you characterized in your article—felt that your hands were "tied" by your attorney-client relationships. But surely no significant distortion of material fact regarding your attorney-client relationship with Mr. Barker, or the time and conditions of your first having met him in the company of Mr. Hunt, would have been allowed into the record without objection—especially with Hunt's own attorney, William O. Bittman, there during your role as a witness for the prosecution.

And your hands certainly were not "tied" at the time you authored your article—electing, in doing so, to quote Mr. Silbert's representation that you had met Bernard Barker "a year before" your taking Barker on as a client.

Therefore, I'm relying entirely on your own record to conclude and state that you in fact met Bernard Barker, in the company of E. Howard Hunt, at the Army-Navy Club in Washington, D.C. in or about the month of June, 1971.

If that's not the case, if your own record is wrong, if Mr. Silbert misrepresented an important material fact without objection during his closing argument—which you repeated in your own article without objection or correction—right now would be a very timely time to emphatically and specifically correct the record as to date. And I don't mean with a vague, airy "some months before." Trust me on this one.

Now I'm going to go find my Dinah Washington collection; my singing is scaring the cat.

Ashton Gray


When I testified before the Watergate grand jury and was asked if I had ever met Bernard Barker, I answered that I had and described the circumstances as outlined in my immediate prior reply. I previously answered this question Feb. 6, 2006 when it was posed to me by Chris Newton. His question and my answer can be found in the Forum section “Douglas Caddy: Questions and Answers.” My prior reply of June 15, 2006 and that of Feb. 6, 2006 are consistent.

It is my recollection that the Washington Post, as part of its contemporary stories about my grand jury appearance, quoted me about this meeting with Barker.

I was not asked by Prosecutor Silbert to provide the exact date of the meeting. I am not certain that even my personal and professional records, now in the Library Archives of the University of Oregon, provide the exact date.

Prosecutor Silbert himself used the general phrase, “...a year before” and did not denote a specific date. I certainly shall not vouch for the veracity of all the statements Silbert made in closing argument. I attended his closing argument in court and found myself is sharp disagreement with some of his remarks. Closing argument in court is generally reserved for sweeping statements, designed to sway the jury with emotion. Clearly this was the purpose of Silbert’s closing argument, which highlighted my role and carefully and purposely omitted any mention that there was a larger conspiracy involving higher-ups.

I stand by my prior reply as to the circumstances under which I met Barnard Barker. This was the only occasion prior to June 17, 1972 that I met him.

I testified before the Watergate grand jury under oath, with the penalty of perjury. My bank records were subpoenaed and thoroughly examined. The FBI conducted an investigation of me. I testified under oath at the first Watergate trial. I was interviewed by the Office of the Watergate Special Prosecutor on a number of occasions.

The law enforcement authorities who investigated Watergate never disputed or contradicted the veracity of any statement that I made to them under oath or made to them otherwise in their official capacity.

It is extremely likely that Barker was also questioned by the law enforcement authorities about the circumstances of our one and only meeting before June 17, 1972. Since the issue has never been raised as being significantly relevant, one can safely assume that what he told the law enforcement authorities did not conflict with my sworn testimony.

#12 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 16 June 2006 - 10:46 AM

Hi Doug. Regarding my question about when you first met Barker, you wrote:

I previously answered this question Feb. 6, 2006 when it was posed to me by Chris Newton. His question and my answer can be found in the Forum section “Douglas Caddy: Questions and Answers.” My prior reply of June 15, 2006 and that of Feb. 6, 2006 are consistent.


Yes. Yes, Doug, they are consistent. I'll warrant that. I had seen that exchange, thank you. But seeing you not answer the question in that discussion was no more rewarding than seeing you not answer the question in this one.

It is my recollection that the Washington Post, as part of its contemporary stories about my grand jury appearance, quoted me about this meeting with Barker.


Yes. Yes, Doug, on that point your recollection is like a steel trap. In fact, I'll quote the relevant passage for you. Here 'tis:"Caddy, one of the attorneys for the five, said he met Barker a year ago over cocktails at the Army Navy Club in Washington. 'We had a sympathetic conversation -- that's all I'll say,' Caddy told a reporter."

—The Washington Post, Sunday, June 18, 1972, "5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats' Office Here," by Alfred E. Lewis
Awwwww. That's sentimental.

So in addition to the record made at trial that I've already documented saying you had met Barker "a year before" you started representing him, here we have you—personally, directly, from your own lips—telling a Post reporter on June 17, 1972 (which was published the next day, June 18, 1972) that you had met Barker a year ago. That would put your "sympathetic conversation" with Barker at the Army-Navy Club (along with E. Howard Hunt, who had been at your apartment only hours before you spoke to the Post reporter, which you cannily omitted) in June 1971.

Would you like to stipulate to that fact now, Doug? 'Cause I'm all waltzed out. And whether you stipulate to it now or not, you made the record yourself contemporaneously with the events at issue, when your meeting with Barker was certainly fresh in your memory. You are the one who said it was "a year" before June 17, 1972. So your meeting with Hunt and Barker was right around June 1971 by your own statement. If you still want to argue the point, you'd do well to find a mirror, since you're only arguing with yourself.

(If you'll take a moment to recall carefully, I specifically said in my earlier reply to you that I was using the Silbert cite "in this exchange." It's just above in this thread if you'd like to scroll back and check. I'll wait for you.)

I was not asked by Prosecutor Silbert to provide the exact date of the meeting.


Yeah, but I'm not Silbert.

I stand by my prior reply as to the circumstances under which I met Barnard Barker. This was the only occasion prior to June 17, 1972 that I met him.


Excellent! Since you established in your statement to the press that the meeting was in June 1971 sometime, let me now turn back to those circumstances you outlined in your first response on this. You said:

When I arrived Hunt was already there with his guest, Bernard Barker. Hunt made the introductions. The luncheon conversation was almost entirely consumed with Hunt and Barker recounting their involvement in the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.


I'll be damned. I'll just be damned. That's fascinating. I can't tell you how absorbing that detail is. In fact, that pretty much nails your little luncheon/cocktails get-together with Barker and Hunt right down to the first two weeks in June. I'm sure you know why. Right?

Surely you'll recall that you couldn't hold a conversation after June 13, 1971 in Washington, D.C. that wasn't "almost entirely consumed with" talk about the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg. Right?

And surely, surely you'd recall if you, Barker, and Hunt discussed the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg just a couple of months before Hunt and Barker were involved in the Fielding op that gave Ellsberg his "get out of jail free" card. Right? I mean, Hunt was your client at the time.

Right, Doug?

Ashton Gray

P.S. From the Watergate Trivia Files: You have earned the considerable distinction of being the only person ever associated in any slightest way with Watergate to put Barker in D.C. with Hunt during this crucial time frame. I think you have done the world a great service, and that you deserve a gold star. While I say it's from the trivia files, I assure you it is not trivial, and that it will be remembered for a very long time to come.

Edited by Ashton Gray, 16 June 2006 - 10:49 AM.


#13 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,410 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 June 2006 - 10:52 AM


Hi Doug. You wrote:

As to my meeting Bernard Barker on one occasion some months prior to June 17, 1972...


Ouch. I hate to interrupt you, but can we stop right there for just a moment? I had asked you about "the circumstances under which you had met Bernard Barker about a year before you ended up representing him." You've responded about an incident you characterize as being "some months prior to June 17, 1972."

Sung: "You say 'to-may-to' and I say 'to-mah-to'..."

(Wait; that's the wrong song. Gimme a sec. I'm getting it... I know!)

Sung: "What a difference a day makes... ."

Dinah Washington just tore that up, didn't she? And what a fitting name. And if a day can make such a big difference, just imagine what "some months" can mean. I realize that a year is made up of "some months," but I'm trying to verify what I understand to be your own testimony. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The cite I'm using for the "year" time period, in this exchange, is your own article: "Gay Bashing and Watergate."

In it, you quote U.S. Attorney Earl Silbert in his closing argument, to wit:"Mr. Caddy told you, oh yes, he was going to be in the case. He was going to be in the case of those five. He never met them before except for Barker a year before. He was going to represent those five."
I realize that lawyers feel and exercise a certain sense of latitude in their practice, but closing arguments, after all, are crafted with considerable care—I'm sure you'll agree—and are not a very strategic place to be attempting to make material alterations to the trial evidence.

Mr. Silbert, in authoring his closing arguments in this world-watched case, represented that you had met Bernard Barker "a year before" you announced that you were going to represent him (Barker) and the others—which, as you point out, was on June 17, 1972.

That would put the date of your Army-Navy Club lunchtime rendezvous with Mr. Hunt and Mr. Barker sometime in June 1971.

Did Mr. Silbert misrepresent the facts in evidence during his closing argument? I ask that with the full understanding that you, at the time—as you characterized in your article—felt that your hands were "tied" by your attorney-client relationships. But surely no significant distortion of material fact regarding your attorney-client relationship with Mr. Barker, or the time and conditions of your first having met him in the company of Mr. Hunt, would have been allowed into the record without objection—especially with Hunt's own attorney, William O. Bittman, there during your role as a witness for the prosecution.

And your hands certainly were not "tied" at the time you authored your article—electing, in doing so, to quote Mr. Silbert's representation that you had met Bernard Barker "a year before" your taking Barker on as a client.

Therefore, I'm relying entirely on your own record to conclude and state that you in fact met Bernard Barker, in the company of E. Howard Hunt, at the Army-Navy Club in Washington, D.C. in or about the month of June, 1971.

If that's not the case, if your own record is wrong, if Mr. Silbert misrepresented an important material fact without objection during his closing argument—which you repeated in your own article without objection or correction—right now would be a very timely time to emphatically and specifically correct the record as to date. And I don't mean with a vague, airy "some months before." Trust me on this one.

Now I'm going to go find my Dinah Washington collection; my singing is scaring the cat.

Ashton Gray


When I testified before the Watergate grand jury and was asked if I had ever met Bernard Barker, I answered that I had and described the circumstances as outlined in my immediate prior reply. I previously answered this question Feb. 6, 2006 when it was posed to me by Chris Newton. His question and my answer can be found in the Forum section “Douglas Caddy: Questions and Answers.” My prior reply of June 15, 2006 and that of Feb. 6, 2006 are consistent.

It is my recollection that the Washington Post, as part of its contemporary stories about my grand jury appearance, quoted me about this meeting with Barker.

I was not asked by Prosecutor Silbert to provide the exact date of the meeting. I am not certain that even my personal and professional records, now in the Library Archives of the University of Oregon, provide the exact date.

Prosecutor Silbert himself used the general phrase, “...a year before” and did not denote a specific date. I certainly shall not vouch for the veracity of all the statements Silbert made in closing argument. I attended his closing argument in court and found myself is sharp disagreement with some of his remarks. Closing argument in court is generally reserved for sweeping statements, designed to sway the jury with emotion. Clearly this was the purpose of Silbert’s closing argument, which highlighted my role and carefully and purposely omitted any mention that there was a larger conspiracy involving higher-ups.

I stand by my prior reply as to the circumstances under which I met Barnard Barker. This was the only occasion prior to June 17, 1972 that I met him.

I testified before the Watergate grand jury under oath, with the penalty of perjury. My bank records were subpoenaed and thoroughly examined. The FBI conducted an investigation of me. I testified under oath at the first Watergate trial. I was interviewed by the Office of the Watergate Special Prosecutor on a number of occasions.

The law enforcement authorities who investigated Watergate never disputed or contradicted the veracity of any statement that I made to them under oath or made to them otherwise in their official capacity.

It is extremely likely that Barker was also questioned by the law enforcement authorities about the circumstances of our one and only meeting before June 17, 1972. Since the issue has never been raised as being significantly relevant, one can safely assume that what he told the law enforcement authorities did not conflict with my sworn testimony.


Until a few years ago, I was far more intrigued by Watergate than the Kennedy assassination. I barely remembered the Kennedy assassination, but I'd watched every bit of Watergate testimony I could as a precocious pre-teen. The CIA-did-it theory, in relation to Watergate, was an obvious smokescreen put up by Nixon's defenders at the time. The original CIA did it theories were propounded by Colson and spread throughtout certain circles by Colson's contacts. This was to hide his own involvement, IMO. Ultimately, of course, only the LORD JESUS CHRIST could save Chuck from his own guilty conscience. Fred Thompson, another key proponent of the CIA-did-it theory, was, not surprisingly, minority counsel, trying to save the elephants some embarrassment by blaming it on the spooks. Howard Baker, who worked closely with Thompson in spreading this theory, was another loyal Party Man. Years later, he would be brought in at the last minute to save Reagan's sinking ship. His putting the CIA-did-it theory on the record, IMO, was an attempt to muddy the waters and help his party retain power.

The big fish got caught. While some want to believe there was a bigger fish behind the big fish, I'm at a loss understanding just who this fish was. Outside of Mao and maybe Stalin, Nixon was the dominant political figure from 1945-1980. He was exposed as dishonest and corrupt and manipulative. The man was justifiably disgraced. If, by some miracle, George Bush and Dick Cheney get exposed as the lying crooks most of us believe them to be, will we become consumed by suspicions that Joe Wilson and George Tenet were behind their downfall, or accept that sometimes truth does out?

Edited by Pat Speer, 16 June 2006 - 07:45 PM.


#14 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 16 June 2006 - 11:30 AM

The CIA-did-it theory, in relation to Watergate, was an obvious smokescreen...


Well, no, it wasn't.

Asserting generally that it was, however, is.

Start here: There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate.

If you'll actually study the referenced foundational articles, and the timeline that's referenced within those articles, then would like to discuss specific related facts in each of those threads, I'll head over and meet you there, and then this thread can be salvaged from going wildly off the rails into...

Well, a smokescreen.

Ashton Gray

#15 Douglas Caddy

Douglas Caddy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,049 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 16 June 2006 - 03:08 PM

P.S. From the Watergate Trivia Files: You have earned the considerable distinction of being the only person ever associated in any slightest way with Watergate to put Barker in D.C. with Hunt during this crucial time frame. I think you have done the world a great service, and that you deserve a gold star. While I say it's from the trivia files, I assure you it is not trivial, and that it will be remembered for a very long time to come.


I reiterate my previous statement about this matter, which indeed is trivial as to a specific date over 30 years ago about a meeting that was thoroughly examined at the time by the appropriate Watergate law enforcement authorities:


I stand by my prior reply as to the circumstances under which I met Barnard Barker. This was the only occasion prior to June 17, 1972 that I met him.

I testified before the Watergate grand jury under oath, with the penalty of perjury. My bank records were subpoenaed and thoroughly examined. The FBI conducted an investigation of me.
I testified under oath at the first Watergate trial. I was interviewed by the Office of the Watergate Special Prosecutor on a number of occasions.

The law enforcement authorities who investigated Watergate never disputed or contradicted the veracity of any statement that I made to them under oath or made to them otherwise in their official capacity.

It is extremely likely that Barker was also questioned by the law enforcement authorities about the circumstances of our one and only meeting before June 17, 1972. Since the issue has never been raised as being significantly relevant, one can safely assume that what he told the law enforcement authorities did not conflict with my sworn testimony.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users