In accordance with the instructions of Administrator Andy Walker in his June 24, 2006 posting in the Kennedy Assassination thread under the topic of Infiltrators, Saboteurs and Fifth-Columnists, I have used the Report facility to file a number of violations of Board Guidelines by Mr. Ashton Gray.

The Board Guidelines state:

“You are responsible for what you post on this board. You will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law”.

Mr. Gray, who only joined the Forum on May 26, 2006, has repeatedly violated the Board Guidelines by being abusive, hateful, and harassing in his postings against two Forum members: Mr. Alfred Baldwin and myself.

Mr. Gray has also used vituperative and threatening language against other members who find his postings to be in violation of Board Guidelines.

From the Alfred Baldwin thread on Watergate:

Less than a month after his joined the Forum membership, Mr. Ashton in his posting in the Alfred Baldwin thread of Watergate wrote on June 21, 2006 at 05:04 AM: “Well, you’ve made your record. Just keep sticking to your story, Mr. Baldwin. I’m walking away for now. I’ve had all of your brand of truth I can take at the moment without puking on the keyboard.”

That same day, on June 21, 2006 at 6:06 P.M., Mr. Ashton wrote in the Alfred Baldwin thread:

“I’m done, Mr. Baldwin. You made your record. I’ve made mine. I’m done with you, with your soul-less, conscienceless, lying co-conspirators, and with the entire evil hoax.”

In his posting on the Alfred Baldwin thread, Mr. Ashton wrote on June 22 at 11:51
P.M.: “ 1. Hunt and Liddy both lied. 2. You lied. 3. All three of you lied.”

Member Pat Speer replied on June 21, 2006 at 10:40 PM by posting:

“Mr. Gray, what is your purpose here? You came to this Forum for exactly what? You didn’t come here to gain information, that is for certain. I doubt that Mr. Caddy or Mr. Baldwin even respond to your insulting rants.”


From the Douglas Caddy, Hunt, Liddy, Mullen and the CIA thread on Watergate:

Mr. Ashton in his posting on June 16, 2006 at 10:46 AM, falsely accused me of having a conversation with my client that never took place. It is a complete fabrication by Mr. Ashton, who wrote:

“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.”

Mr. Ashton in his posting of June 16, 2006 at 6:56 PM wrote of myself:

“1) Hunt Lied, 2)You lied, 3)You both lied..”

Mr. Pat Speer replied to Mr. Ashton on June 16, 2006 at 8:21 P.M.:

“Ashton, might I request you tone down your questions? While you have done a good job of demonstrating that Mr. Caddy, in order to keep Hunt's involvement secret, probably lied to a newspaper about a phone call from Barker's wife--(geez, isn't that what lawyers do, protect their clients?)--the relevance is not immediately apparent to some of us on the outside, who value Mr. Caddy's contributions to this forum. Your desire to play "gotcha" with Caddy is understandable, but not altogether appropriate, as he has repeatedly tried to answer any and all questions on his role in history. Ask the questions in a nice manner and I suspect he'll provide you with a response. Point out an inconsistency and he'll offer an explanation if he has one. Ditto with Mr. Baldwin, who has been nothing but a gentleman. I do sympathize with your desire to play "gotcha" however...However long the list you have for Caddy about what appears to be inconsistencies in his statements, I guarantee you it positively PALES in comparison to the mental list of questions I have for Robert Maheu, should I ever be able to ask him a question.

“Please play nice.”

Mr. Ashton in his posting of June 22 at 3:50 PM, addressed to Mr. Pat Speer, appeared to borrow the malevolent lines of Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs:

“And you can take the rest of your non-sequitur, irrelevant, disruptive, off-topic, red-herring bag'o'crap message and shove it anywhere you want, as long as you don't try shoving it in my face again.

“I might stop being so polite. You wouldn't want that.”

Mr. Pat Speer on June 23, 2006 at 9:12 PM replied to Mr. Ashton’s latest threat against him:

“As far as you reporting me to the authorities, give me a break. You come to this Forum, start insulting its members--yes, that's right, Mr. Caddy and Mr. Baldwin are members and not just visitors propped up here for your abuse--and even do a victory dance after insulting Mr. Baldwin off a thread bearing his name. And then you CRY like a child when I won't let you control the thread. Earth to Mr. Gray, this Forum was not created for your sole benefit. You decided to confront Mr. Baldwin on some possible holes in the record, and have accused him and others of being part of an ongoing conspiracy to hide the fact that the Watergate break-in was a CIA coup designed to put Gerald Ford in power. Never mind that this was many months before Ford was even in a position to reap the benefits of this coup. Never mind that Ford was not a friend of the CIA, but a friend of their political rival, the FBI, and that Ford's regime oversaw the most exhaustive investigation of the intelligence agencies in our history, spurred on in part by his own big mouth. While there is almost certainly more to the Watergate story than in the public record, your theory, frankly, appears a bit looney. Those coming to this Forum and wishing to read about Mr. Baldwin should not be subjected to reading your diatribes and ramblings without seeing that at least one member of this Forum found your distortions a bit looney, IMO. Sorry to rain on your hostility parade.”

Mr. J. Raymond Carroll in his posting on June 24, 2006 at 1:04 PM wrote:

“Mr. Ashton Gray is accusing Mr. Douglas Caddy, directly or by implication, of being a liar. This is a clear violation of forum rules. Mr. Gray is clearly a truth-seeker, but throughout this thread he shows every evidence of falling into the fallacy of guilt by association. I do not have the slightest doubt that Mr. Caddy is an honest man. If he was not, then he would avoid this forum like the plague.

“I gather it is true that Mr. Caddy had the misfortune to be retained to represent some unsavory characters connected to the Watergate break-in. I would guess that he now regrets that experience, and wishes he had confined himself to representing widows and orphans. It is no wonder that not everyone wants to be a lawyer, despite what they see on TV.

“But it is a logical fallacy to assume, as Mr. Gray seems to do, that you can attribute the client's knowledge to his lawyer.”

Mr. J. Raymond Carroll, later that same day of June 24, 2005 at 5:24 PM wrote of Mr. Ashton’s repeated attacks on me:

“In this case, I see no reason to suggest that a valued fellow forum member is lying. I suggest you take off that cowboy hat and replace it with your thinking cap.”

The evidence would seem to indicate that Mr. Ashton Gray, who entered membership only recently on May 26, 2006, did so with a hidden agenda. No one can know what is in his mind, but his actions do meet the signs of an Infiltrator, Saboteur and Fifth-Columnist as denoted in my topic of the same title posted June 23.

“Among the tell-tale signs of these infiltrators, saboteurs and fifth-columnists are unbridled, unwarranted, unprovoked and vicious attacks on other forum members and the postings of so-called ‘information’ that is essentially mis-information or trivia designed to affect adversely the Forum’s credibility.”
Mr. Ashton always closes his postings with his favorite motto: “Fiction doesn't leave a paper trail.”
However, even in this assertion he is wrong. The fiction that he has posted since joining the Forum less than a month ago has left tell-tale paper trail, one which indicates that his actions are malevolent and destructive in their nature.

My Reports of the violations of the Board Guidelines by Mr. Ashton Gray are now in the hands of the Administrator and Moderator. At stake is whether the Forum will continue to be a valuable and credible source of research information or whether it will be reduced to its lower common denominator, that of character assassination by one of its members.

I am placing this topic on the Watergate and J.F. Kennedy Assassination threads of the Forum because of my past postings in each thread due to my involvement in both historical events in my capacity as an attorney.

A fine post, Doug. It's always nice to get mixed up with Pat Gray. (You mistakenly attribute my 6-23 post to the late Mr. Gray.) (Ashton, once again, was Pat Gray a relation?)

Perhaps to assuage those concerned that our shared annoyance with Mr. Gray has anything to do with your fear of answering his questions, you should answer a few of his questions. I think the one question he's raised about your Watergate experience that most deserves an answer is whether or not you received a call from Barker's wife on that long long night. Evidently, you told Woodward you did. Evidently, Hunt says he told her to call you. Did she, in fact, call, or was this just something you told Woodward to help protect your clients?

Of course, after the way Mr. Gray has treated you, you don't owe him anything. I only suggest you answer a few of his questions to show some of the Forum members seduced by his research and sarcasm that it's not the issues raised by Mr. Gray that have driven you to start this thread, but his behavior. As far as I'm concerned, a former conservative friend of Buckley's and Hunt's who would publicly out himself and become a liberal-sympathizer, has already demonstrated his commitment to the truth. But others more suspicious than I might need your assistance before determining that there is no fire beneath the smoke discussed in Mr. Gray's posts. If you offer a few good-faith answers, and he attacks you as he did Baldwin, well, then we'll know for sure he is what he appears to be.

In the meantime, I believe he, at the very least, owes Mr. Baldwin an apology. His "I’m done with you, with your soul-less, conscienceless, lying co-conspirators, and with the entire evil hoax” ranks as one of the most self-aggrandizing and self-deluded comments in the history of this Forum, and is an embarrassment to this Forum, IMO.

************************************************************

"Mr. Gray has also used vituperative and threatening language against other members who find his postings to be in violation of Board Guidelines."

Am I missing something here? What threats are you talking about, and where are they located? I honestly failed to denote anything resembling a threat from Gray.

******************************************************************

"Among the tell-tale signs of these infiltrators, saboteurs and fifth-columnists are unbridled, unwarranted, unprovoked and vicious attacks on other forum members and the postings of so-called “information” that is essentially mis-information or trivia designed to affect adversely the Forum’s credibility."

__________________________________________________________________

Dictionary
Find definitions for:

fifth' col'umn


1. a group of people who act traitorously and subversively out of a secret sympathy with an enemy of their country.
2. (originally) Franco sympathizers in Madrid during the Spanish Civil War: so called in allusion to a statement in 1936 that the insurgents had four columns marching on Madrid and a fifth column of sympathizers in the city ready to rise and betray it.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.

__________________________________________________________________

- - - - - - - - - - - -

The real "fifth column"
While conservative pundits whine about treacherous lefty intellectuals, a real group of far-right traitors may be striking at America from within.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

Nov. 1, 2001 |

The war against the Taliban and the al Qaida, a single enemy with two names, is not only a just war, but a war that bears some striking parallels to the last great conflict between democracy and fascism. Among those haunting similarities is the apparent presence within the borders of the United States of enemy sympathizers and potential agents -- with the important difference that this time, the "ifth column" may be responsible for acts of terror as well as propaganda.

The real fifth column is not, as some overwrought writers have suggested, represented by miniscule anti-war demonstrations or the handful of academics scribbling anti-American screeds. Such misguided people are of little consequence today and few, if any, of them has demonstrated a propensity for violence. Their right to dissent must be respected and protected.

The true domestic threat is posed instead by an unknown number of organizations and individuals on the farthest fringes of the right, with ideologies that echo Nazism and rap sheets that include every crime from bank robberies to bombings. Having repeatedly declared their determination to overthrow the United States Government and exterminate the "racially impure," these outfits hailed the September 11 attacks as the opening salvo in a conflagration they hope will engulf us.
_______________________________________________________________


Issues: War on Terror

Connecting the Dots – Conjuring Fifth Columns

Col. Daniel Smith, USA, Ret.
Printer-Friendly Page

3/24/2004
Sometimes public and congressional outrage has an effect. First the White House and then Speaker Dennis Hastert refused to allow a 60 day extension for the commission investigating why no one in the U.S. intelligence community “connected the dots” before September 11, 2001. Both quickly retreated when their stance became public.

The commission may well find that reports, properly shared, could have enabled analysts to connect the dots and prevent that awful day. It might also have recommendations for improving inter-agency communication beyond those already implemented so that a similar day can be avoided. What is also needed from the panel but may not be forthcoming is a clear caution against “connecting” the dots when there are no dots to connect. (The process is analogous to “seeing” the many constellations in the night sky by drawing together individual stars to form a mythic figure or geometrical shape.)

Given U.S. history, such a caution would be most timely.

In World War I, the targets were the 2.3 million “hyphenated” German-American immigrants, plus the second and third generations born in the United States. German books and newspapers were burned, German music was banned. In the category of the ridiculous, akin to last year’s renaming of French fries as “freedom fries,” people stopped eating sauerkraut. Fearing for their safety, many German-Americans changed their names (e.g., Schmidt to Smith), stopped speaking German, or stopped celebrating cultural holidays.

At the start of World War II, President Roosevelt issued three directives declaring Japanese, Italian, and German nationals “enemy aliens” subject to internment or exclusion from extensive parts of the U.S. declared as military areas, particularly on the West Coast. While large numbers of Japanese-Americans were interned and even more forced from their homes, “enemy aliens” of European descent were also caught in the frenzy.

During the inter-war period but more so in the first decades after 1945, there were real dots to connect. “Communists” and their “sympathizers” (as distinct from the Communist Party USA, which was said to have more undercover FBI agents in it than ideologues) were the “enemy within” that could destroy democracy by infiltrating government agencies, betraying U.S. agents, stealing secrets, and undermining policy.

In the post-September 11, 2001 world, amid all the dire warnings by government about al Qaeda “sleeper cells” scattered across the U.S. and the mass detentions, arrests, and deportations of “Middle Easterners,” Washington has seized upon–and has been seized by–the spectre of a “fifth column” waiting to wreak havoc when ordered to strike. Yet so far, the evidence–the “connecting of the dots”–for the existence of a plan and the structure to carry it out seems limited largely to a few misguided men who traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan for “training,” Muslim chaplains in the military, and peace advocates opposed to the war in Iraq.

(The term “fifth column” usually is traced to the 1936-39 Spanish civil war when a Nationalist general marching on Madrid with four columns of soldiers spoke of another “column” of supporters already in the city awaiting orders to create chaos from within.)

What is equally troublesome is the appearance of the same mentality in other countries, which tends to reinforce the mindset in U.S. agencies. In Britain, which has a “special” intelligence relationship with the U.S., the internal security service (MI5) reportedly is expanding by nearly a 1,000 agents. Its budget is the only one in the British intelligence services that will increase beyond the rate of inflation.

In Iraq, the U.S.-appointed Governing Council debated and then refused to reverse a 1950 decision that Jews, of all Iraqis exiled or forced to leave, could not return and regain their Iraqi citizenship. The New York Times reported the rationale–all too familiar–given by one council member: “as long as there is a state of war [in Palestine], then we should not allow the Jews to return.”

In short, sometimes “connecting the dots” is the worst choice available, and not only for individuals and groups that might be adversely affected. A nation whose politicians and partisans conjure non-existent dangers from non-existent “dots” risk dissipating resources and energy searching for ephemeral constellations of their own making. The world has enough real nightmares; it doesn’t need phantoms.

This analysis was prepared by Col. Dan Smith, U.S. Army (Ret). Smith, a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran, is FCNL's Senior Fellow on Military Affairs. For more background and analysis by Col. Smith, click here.

I am in Sicily and have not had access to the forum. I will have to deal with this when I get back next week.

[quote name='Terry Mauro' date='Jun 26 2006, 07:53 AM' post='66487']
[quote name='Douglas Caddy' post='66466' date='Jun 26 2006, 01:55 AM']
In accordance with the instructions of Administrator Andy Walker in his June 24, 2006 posting in the Kennedy Assassination thread under the topic of Infiltrators, Saboteurs and Fifth-Columnists, I have used the Report facility to file a number of violations of Board Guidelines by Mr. Ashton Gray.

The Board Guidelines state:

“You are responsible for what you post on this board. You will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law”.

Mr. Gray, who only joined the Forum on May 26, 2006, has repeatedly violated the Board Guidelines by being abusive, hateful, and harassing in his postings against two Forum members: Mr. Alfred Baldwin and myself.

Mr. Gray has also used vituperative and threatening language against other members who find his postings to be in violation of Board Guidelines



Mr Caddy:

With all due respect I fail to see any threats here, or any violation of the rules. I also realize that you are very busy and have no duty to anyone on this forum to answer our questions. ( I already apologised and stood corrected for asking that second question of you yesterday).

We are all busy, but we are all here for one reason: To learn the truth about the assassination of JFK, as well as what Watergate was really all about, and how these two events interconnect.

I too have commended you here on the forum for the enlightened changes you have made in your own political life, possibly at risk of losing some old pals of the Republican stripe. Such IS to be commended. I have much enjoyed your posts and truly hope we can all get past this particular matter and come back in a united effort at seeking the truth.

There are infliltrators on all such forums as this, but Ashton is not one. I am certain you feel "singled out" by his posts and questions, and for that I am sorry. You did not ASK to be a participant in the Watergate matter, but none-the -less you ARE one, so I am afraid some questioning comes with this territory.

I do hope-when time permits- you will respond to questions, so that we may all have a better understanding.

Sincerely,
Dawn

Pat: I am indebted to you and Mr. J. Raymond Carroll for posting your incisive comments on Mr. Ashton Gray’s gratuitously insulting remarks directed towards his fellow members, Mr. Alfred Baldwin and myself.

I can assure you that if persons who have direct knowledge of historical events come to believe that by participating in the Forum they will be subjected to character assassination, the Forum will become the “kiss of death” to be avoided at all costs. This will result in all of John Simkin’s skillful diplomacy over the years in getting persons with direct historical knowledge to join the Forum going down the drain, obviously through no fault of Mr. Simkin but as the result of one or more members with malevolent and destructive tendencies.

I may be mistaken but it appears that Mr. Baldwin has already been driven from the Forum and from participating in the thread that bears his name as the direct result of the offensive actions of Mr. Ashton Gray. That Mr. Gray now belatedly is editing his past posted remarks of character assassination against Mr. Baldwin probably will do little to correct the situation. I can categorically state that the only reason I decided to join the Forum was when I saw that Mr. Baldwin had placed membership and through the well-meaning inquiries posed by Mr. Simkin and other members was providing new information. Mr. Baldwin’s role in Watergate had always piqued my interest and I found his replies of great interest.

And by the way, I apologize for mistakenly labeling you as Mr. Pat Gray in your June 23 reply and will edit the posting to correct this. This mistake on my part will undoubtedly cause some question to be posed later on in the Forum as to whether I ever knew or had a conversation with Patrick Gray while he was FBI director, knowing as I do now how some members think. [Hint: the answer is no.]

In regard to the matter of my telephone conversations with the wife of Bernard Barker in the early days of Watergate, I already covered this subject in my posting of Feb. 6, 2006, which can be found in the Douglas Caddy: Question and Answer thread.

It is my intention to do no more posting, besides the immediate one, until John Simkin returns from Sicily next week when he will undertake an investigation of the Record that I filed with him and Administrator Walker of a large number of violations of the Board Guidelines by Mr. Ashton.

I may be old-fashioned but I believe that if the Board Guidelines are repeatedly violated by a member, then the appropriate disciplinary measure should be invoked. If not, of what purpose are the Board Guidelines and why should they be observed?

For the historical record, to be placed in the Forum’s archives, I am posting below an article by me about my role in Watergate that was published by The Wall Street Journal in 1998.


The Wall Street Journal
Editorial Page
March 24, 1998

WHAT IF JUDGE SIRICA WERE WITH US TODAY?

By Douglas Caddy
(Mr. Caddy is a Houston lawyer)

The Clinton scandals, with all the claims of coverup and executive privilege, are certainly reminiscent of Watergate. But there is a crucial difference: This case lacks a John Sirica, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia who played such a crucial role in Watergate. The untold historical record reveals that the early actions of Sirica, who assigned the Watergate case to himself, helped spur the subsequent coverup and obstruction of justice that ultimately led to the resignation of President Nixon and the criminal convictions of many Watergate figures.

The Watergate scandal began at 2:30 a.m. on June 17, 1972, when Washington, D.C. police arrested five men on burglary charges at the Watergate office building. At 3:05 a.m. E. Howard Hunt phoned me from his White House office and asked if he could come immediately to my Washington residence. I had been Hunt’s personal attorney for several years.

Hunt arrived half an hour later and informed me what had transpired earlier at the Watergate. He retained me to represent him in the case and then called G. Gordon Liddy, who also hired me. At that time, about two hours after the burglary, both Hunt and Liddy requested I also represent the five people arrested, four Cuban-Americans and James McCord, who were then incarcerated in the D.C. jail.

On June 28 – 11 days later – while working on the case in the federal courthouse in Washington, I was served with a subpoena bearing the name of Chief Judge Sirica, to appear “forthwith” before the federal grand jury investigating the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Donald Campbell grabbed me by the arm and pulled me into the grand jury room.

From June 28 until July 19 I was to appear before the grand jury on six occasions and answer hundreds of questions. I drew the line, however, on the advice of my own legal counsel, at answering 38 questions we felt invaded my clients’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the attorney-client privilege. A typical question: “Between the hours of Friday at midnight, June 16, and 8:30 a.m. Saturday, June 17, did you receive a visit from Mr. Everett Howard Hunt?” We believed answering such questions would incriminate Hunt and Liddy, who had not been arrested, and would violate their constitutional rights.

Judge Sirica, rejecting such arguments out of hand, threatened to jail me for contempt of court. When I went before the grand jury on July 13, I refused to answer the 38 questions. Within an hour I was back before Judge Sircia, who immediately held me in contempt of court and ordered me to jail. Five days later, on July 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the contempt citation and ordered me to testify under threat of being jailed again. The opinion, which I found gratuitously insulting, declared: “Even if such a relationship does exist, certain communications, such as consultation in furtherance of a crime, are not within the privilege.”

In his July 19, 1972, Oval Office tape, Nixon is recorded as expressing dismay to John Ehrlichman: “Do you mean the circuit court ordered an attorney to testify?”

Ehrlichman replied, “It [unintelligible] me, except that this damn circuit that we’ve got here, with
[Judge David] Bazelon and so on, it surprises me every time they do something.”

Nixon then asked, “Why didn’t he appeal to the Supreme Court?”

The answer is that my attorneys and I believe we had built a strong enough court record that if Hunt, Liddy and the five arrested individuals were found guilty, their convictions could be overturned on appeal because of Sirica’s and the appeals court’s abuse of me as their attorney.

However, Judge Sirica’s actions had an unintended consequence. Hunt and Liddy, seeing their attorney falsely accused by Judge Sirica of being a participant in their crime, realized early on that they were not going to get a fair trail, so they embarked on a coverup involving “hush money.” As Hunt has written: “If Sirica was treating Caddy – an Officer of the Court – so summarily, and Caddy was completely uninvolved in Watergate – then those of us who were involved could expect neither fairness nor understanding from him. As events unfolded, this conclusion became tragically accurate.”

Liddy appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals, claiming that my being forced to testify denied him his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court upheld his conviction: “The evidence against appellant...was so overwhelming that even if there were constitutional error in the comment of the prosecutor and the instruction of the trial judge, there is no reasonable possibility it contributed to the conviction.” Neither Judge Sirica nor the appeals court acknowledged that their assault on the attorney-client privilege helped spur the ensuing coverup and obstruction of justice.

I was never indicted, named an unindicted co-conspirator, disciplined by the Bar or even contacted by the Senate Watergate Committee or the House Judiciary Committee, whose staff included a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham.

Now the issue of the attorney-client privilege is again being raised, this time by Monica Lewinsky’s first lawyer, Francis D. Carter, who has been subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury and bring the notes he took while representing Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Carter got involved when Vernon Jordan referred Ms. Lewinsky to him in January. On March 4, Mr. Carter’s attorney, Charles Ogletree, argued before Chief Judge Norma Hollaway Johnson that the subpoena should be quashed: “Once you start to allow the government to intrude on the attorney-client relationship and allow them to pierce the attorney-client privilege, clients will no longer have a sense of confidence and respect that lawyers should have.”

Coming days will reveal how Mr. Carter fares in his fight to protect Ms. Lewinsky’s constitutional rights and what effect this will have on the case’s ultimate outcome. To date, at least, Judge Johnson has shown a restraint that her predecessor Judge Sirica did not.

Actually, Mr. Caddy, I already was entirely familiar with what you had written in the thread you reference long before I posted a single question to you. The thread, by the way, is not titled "Douglas Caddy: Question and Answer." That's very imprecise language for an attorney. The thread is in the "JFK Assassination Debate" forum, and is entitled "Questions for Douglas Caddy." If you actually want people to be able to find what you said when you send them off somewhere else instead of answering a question, it might do them a considerable service to tell them the correct place to go.

The one and only thing you said about Mrs. Barker in that other thread is not at all responsive to any questions I have asked about the purported phone call from Mrs. Barker that you have said you received from her shortly after 3:00 a.m. on the morning of June 17, 1972, and therefore is not responsive to Mr. Speer's civilized, reasonable suggestion that you answer a few of my questions on that specific point.

In fact, not only is what you wrote there not responsive, it regretably adds yet another layer of confusion to the facts at issue. In that thread, you wrote the following:

DOUGLAS CADDY: "I did talk to Mrs. Barker several times in the days immediately following her husband's arrest, primarily about providing security for bail to get him out of jail. With her permission I publicly alluded to these calls in order to provide an excuse for my showing up at the jail on the day of the arrests without having received a telephone call from any of those arrested."

Thank you.

The one (singular) specific call that you "publicly alluded to in order to provide an excuse" for your showing up at the jail on the day of the arrests is the one (singular) call that you told reporters from the Washington Post about on that very day, as reported in the Post, later repeated in "All the Presiden't Men." I quote:

"Douglas Caddy, one of the attorneys for the five men, told a reporter that shortly after 3 a.m. yesterday [June 17, 1972], he received a call from Barker's wife. 'She said that her husband told her to call me if he hadn't called her by 3 a.m.: that it might mean he was in trouble.'" —The Washington Post June 18, 1972: "5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats' Office Here"

The same thing is repeated in "All the President's Men":

"Caddy said he'd gotten a call shortly after 3:00 A.M. from Barker's wife. "She said her husband had told her to call me if he hadn't called her by three, that it might mean he was in trouble." —All the Presiden't Men, Woodward and Bernstein

These accounts of that one (singular) crucial phone call have stood for 34 years in these seminal references on Watergate, uncontested by you.

In the post in that other thread you cited, which I have quoted above, you say that you had talked to Mrs. Barker "several times" (plural). That's fine. I have no idea what relevance the other conversations have to the one—and only one—specific phone call that you unquestionably "publicly alluded to" in order to "provide an excuse" for your having shown up "at the jail on the day of the arrests without having received a telephone call from any of those arrested."

There is only one phone call anywhere in the available record that fits that description. One. That's the one I've been trying for some time now to get a few simple answers about, which even Mr. Speer has asked you to answer, and still no answers are forthcoming to the very pertinent questions that arise about that one purported phone call.

The reasons the perfectly reasonable and logical questions, still unanswered, have been asked repeatedly now by several people, in many ways, is because you, yourself, told reporters that Mrs. Barker's call had come to you "shortly after 3:00 a.m." on the morning of June 17, 1972, specifically because her husband had given that time as a cut-off time by which she should become concerned, and specifically because Bernard Barker had given her your name and phone number as the person to call in that event.

And very relevant to all the foregoing, there are these facts of record:

• You have testified under oath that you received a telephone call from E. Howard Hunt "between 3:05 a.m. and 3:15 a.m." on that same morning of June 17, 1972, and have testified that he arrived at your apartment at 3:35 a.m. that morning.
  
• E. Howard Hunt says in your article that his call to you that morning was made at 3:13 a.m. In that conversation, neither you or Hunt make any reference to any call from Mrs. Barker, and Hunt apologizes for having woken you up.
  
• In his autobiography, Hunt says that after speaking to you at 3:13 a.m. and securing his White House office, he then left his White House office and went across the street to his office at Mullen, and there placed a call to Mrs. Barker, who he says "shrieked" at the news of her husband's arrest.
  
• It had to be at least 3:20 a.m. by the time Hunt placed the call to Mrs. Barker. Hunt says that during that call he, not Bernard Barker, is the one who gave your name and phone number to Mrs. Barker. He says exactly: "I gave her Caddy's name and telephone number and asked that she phone Doug and retain him for her husband."
  
• You, on the other hand, told the Washington Post that Bernard Barker had told his wife to call you if she hadn't heard from him by 3:00 a.m., because it would "mean he was in trouble." Yet by as late as 3:20 a.m., or even later, apparently she hadn't been concerned enough to call anyone, and she got the news about the arrest delivered to her by E. Howard Hunt. According to Hunt, she had no idea that there had been any trouble.
  
• In Hunt's account of his purported conversation with Mrs. Barker, where Hunt gives her your name and number, she gives no indication at all of knowing anything about you, or of already having your name or your phone number, or of having been told to call you by her husband, Bernard Barker.
  
• Despite the above, you told the Post that she had your contact information from Bernard Barker, not Hunt. You gave that to the Post (purportedly with her permission) as your entire motive for having been present at all: an early morning call shortly after 3:00 a.m., from a concerned woman in Miami that you didn't know, telling you—a corporate attorney—that she thought her husband "might be in trouble" somewhere in Washington, D.C. What the nature of such trouble might be, or even where in Washington, D.C. he might be, presumably neither you nor she knew the slightest thing about.
  
• In your accounts, and in Hunt's accounts, there is no mention of any call from Mrs. Barker at all during the entire time Hunt was at your apartment, which you have said under oath was from 3:35 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.
  
• In Hunt's account, he says that at some unspecified time after he arrived at your apartment—which you have testified was not until 3:35 a.m.—he told you the following: "Bernie Barker's wife will probably call you and retain you officially to represent her husband and the other men." He says you didn't respond, only looked at your watch, and went off to call your law firm partner. (Or partners, since your accounts differ on that point, too, which I've covered in another thread.)

Obviously, Mr. Caddy, these accounts conflict. I think any reasonable and rational person would be perfectly justified in attempting to get the conflicting accounts resolved in some direction for the sake of historical accuracy, specifically in wanting to ascertain:

1) Did Mrs. Barker actually phone you "shortly after 3:00 a.m." on the morning of June 17, 1972, as you told the Washington Post?

2) If Mrs. Barker did call you "shortly after 3:00 a.m.," did her call come before or after Hunt called you? (His call came at 3:13 a.m., according to your own article, "Gay Bashing in Watergate.")

3) If Mrs. Barker already had called you by 3:13 a.m. (when Hunt called you), why did you not tell Hunt when he called you, and why does your own article say that Hunt woke you?

4) If Mrs. Barker already had called you by the time Hunt purportedly called her and gave her your name and number—around or after 3:20 a.m.—do you have any way to account for her surprise that her husband was in trouble, or for her not telling Hunt she already had your name and number from her husband and already had called you?

5) If Mrs. Barker didn't call you until after Hunt's purported call to her at 3:20 a.m., did she tell you that Hunt had recently called her and given her your name and number and had said to call you, or did she tell you that her husband had given her your contact information and had said to call you—as you told the Washington Post?

6) E. Howard Hunt says Mrs. Barker asked him on the phone if she should call you from her home, and that he said to her: "No. Go to a pay telephone and do it." Did Mrs. Barker call you from her home, or had she gotten up, gotten dressed, and gone out to a phone booth, as Hunt says he told her to do?

7) You also said to the Washington Post that you simply had met Bernard Barker "a year ago over cocktails at the Army Navy Club in Washington." You have said this was the one and only time you had met Barker before June 17, 1972. Do you have any knowledge or understanding of why he would have had your name and number at all a year after that brief encounter, or why he would have given it to his wife as an emergency contact in a distant town without having made prior arrangements with you?

8) If Mrs. Barker called you before Hunt arrived at your apartment at 3:35 a.m., why did Hunt tell you the following when he was there with you: "Bernie Barker's wife will probably call you and retain you officially to represent her husband and the other men," and why did you say nothing in response?

9) If Mrs. Barker instead had not called you by 3:35 a.m., when Hunt arrived, did she not call you until after Hunt had left at 5:00 a.m.? If so, why did you tell the Post that her call had been received by you "shortly after 3:00 a.m."?

10) Is it, in fact, your position—as it appears—that an unknown woman called you out of the blue shortly after 3:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning, and said she was calling from Miami, and said that her husband had told her he had met you over cocktails a year before, and had told her to give you a call if she hadn't heard from him by 3:00 a.m. because he might be in some unknown kind of trouble at some unknown location in Washginton D.C., and that after hearing that at 3:00 o'clock in the morning, you did not slam down your phone and go back to sleep?

These are perfectly valid and reasonable questions, Mr. Caddy. They are obvious questions arising from your own statements. They are perfectly logical questions. Some of them have already been expressed in earlier threads, some implied, but there they are.

Your character isn't being assassinated by being asked straightforward questions about your own assertions of fact. Perhaps it isn't enough of the celebrity treatment to suit you, but speaking just personally, I didn't come to this forum for celebrity fawning, Mr. Caddy; I came here to read and discuss historical fact, and to sort fact from the fiction.



'Scuse me: the exact problem is that we have two completely different sets of purported "historical events" trying to occupy the same place at the same time in the instant case, Mr. Caddy: yours and Hunt's. That doesn't work in this universe. One set, or both sets, are not "historical events" at all, but "historical fictions."

You have your own responsibility for both conflicting sets having equal "authority," since you have endorsed Hunt's account yourself by incorporating part of it into your own.

How else can anyone hope to pull such taffy apart without asking reasonable questions?



Okay. It's fine with me if you leave these, and all the other questions I've asked, sitting here festering and unanswered. They're generating quite a good deal of interest in some quarters, I hear, just as questions, and even more interest in why you're going to such extreme, even draconian lengths to keep from answering them. In fact, it's my opinion that the longer you don't answer them, the more the questions are answering themselves in fell voice.

I also have a pretty good prescience that even if you should succeed in your strident cries for my head on a platter (hat and all ) these questions—these very same questions—will be following you for a very, very long time to come. In fell voice.

Your mileage may vary.



That's very imprecise language for an attorney, Mr. Caddy. You meant "alleged violations."

And it's not "Mr. Ashton." It's "Mr. Gray." But you can call me Pat.

Ashton Gray

[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jun 27 2006, 05:34 AM' post='66546']
And it's not "Mr. Ashton." It's "Mr. Gray." But you can call me Pat.
Ashton Gray
[/quote]

Very well, Pat. You won't mind if we call you "PAT-IN-THE-HAT," to avoid confusion with the distinguished Mr. Speer.

[quote name='John Simkin' date='Jun 26 2006, 01:34 PM' post='66502']
I am in Sicily and have not had access to the forum. I will have to deal with this when I get back next week.
[/quote]

I do not support the removal of Mr. Gray from this forum, but I believe he should be severly reprimanded by the moderator for persistently accusing Mr. Douglas Caddy of being a liar. I suggest that he be reminded that libelous statements or innuendos against fellow-members do not belong on this forum.

I would also advise him to stop insulting the intelligence of members of this forum by asking asinine questions of Mr. Caddy.

This is from the thread entitled: "Who Was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When?"

Mr. Gray's questions are in quotes:

[*]Did the purported call from Hunt to you come at 2:13 a.m. or at 3:13 a.m. on the morning of June 17, 1972—if at all?"


The "if at all" part seems just gratuitously insulting. As to whether the call came at 2.13 or 3.13, clearly one of these was a typo. Anyway, what difference would it make?

"[* in your due diligence for your clients, what did you discover concerning this bizarre police response for a reported burglary in progress?"
[/quote]

How in heaven's name would that be any part of Mr. Caddy's "due diligence"?

[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jun 25 2006, 11:29 AM' post='66428']
[*]What section, division, department, or unit of the D.C. police were these plain-clothes first responders part of?
[/quote]

See previous note. Even if Mr. Caddy once had this information in memory 30-odd years ago, it is absurd to think that he would be able to recall it today.

"[*]Did Hunt in fact tell you that you likely would be getting a call from Bernard Barker's wife?"

Mr. Gray seems to have quite a thing going for old Ma Barker. Where is this supposed to lead?

"[*] You claim contrarily [to Hunt's account] that both you and Hunt spoke to Liddy at some length on the telephone between 4:45 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.... Which of these contradictory accounts, if any, is true?"

Again, the "if any" is gratuitously insulting. It is not at all clear that there IS a conflict here, but -- even if there is -- using Howard Hunt's version in an attempt to impeach Mr. Caddy is, well, a bit silly.

"[*]." How did you get the aliases that the other men were using in order that you and Rafferty could locate them downtown?"

What difference could it possibly make?

"[*]Referring to your due diligence for your clients, what had Hunt done with the antenna he purportedly had stuffed down his pants leg?"

I can answer that myself. At some point Hunt took the antenna out of his pants. Of course there is no evidence that he did this in Mr. Caddy's presence. The question is completely lacking in foundation, like so many other questions posed to Mr. Caddy by Mr. Gray.

"[*]Referring to your due diligence for your clients, why was there purported "surplus electronic gear" in the temporary "command post" room with Hunt and Liddy?"

"[*]Referring to your due diligence for your clients, when did you learn that Hunt had stashed incriminating "surplus electronic gear" in his White House safe, and did you advise him to leave it there?"

Here, as in other questions, Mr. Gray is asking Mr. Caddy to violate the attorney-client privilege ( I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that Hunt told Mr. Caddy about this electronic gear. It would not surprise me if that assumption is false). I think Mr. Caddy has amply demonstrated that he is willing to go to jail before he would violate his solemn obligations in this regard.

Does Mr. Gray have delusions that he is John J. Sirica? Is he going to put Mr. Caddy in jail for refusing to answer his asinine questions?

Mr. Caddy has demonstrated that he acts upon his principles; Mr Gray has yet to demonstrate that he has any, unless persistently calling Mr. Caddy a liar, or insinuating that he is one, is Mr. Gray's idea of a "principle."

"[*]Given that you had worked for John Dean beginning in March 1972; given that as an extension of that work did work for Liddy; given that you purportedly had been advised that Liddy was involved; given that Hunt says that Dean was in town at the time, did you contact John Dean that morning, and if not, why not?"

Why in heaven's name would he? Is a lawyer supposed to notify his other clients every time one client gets in trouble? This one is a candidate for the title of "Most Asinine Question Ever Asked by Ashton Gray," but the competition is intense.

"[*]Referring to your due diligence for your clients, isn't it true that all "documentation" for every one of the aliases for every one of the participants had originated at CIA?"

Why ask Mr. Caddy that question? He has already made it crystal clear that he had no CIA clearance. Or is this just another of the myriad ways Mr. Gray is inventing as an excuse to call Mr. Caddy a liar?

Besides, even if Mr. Caddy could prove that the documents originated in CIA, would this have done much to assist his clients defense, which was Mr. Caddy's sole responsibility?

Mr. Gray's final questions for Mr. Caddy in that thread are listed below. There will be a prize for the first person who can correctly list them in order of asininity:

"[*]Did you wait for Rafferty to come to your apartment, or did you meet Rafferty elsewhere?

[*]Had you ever seen or met James McCord prior to seeing him in the cell block? If so, when, where, and under what circumstances?

[*]What became of the tapes from the recording system that had been installed in Hunt's White House office on or about July 9, 1971?

[*]Had you ever met with Hunt in that office?

[*]Hunt, in telling you the men had been arrested, claims to have said to you: "You know one of them, Bernie Barker." Is that how it happened?

[*]Hunt says he never saw you again after he left your apartment. How did you manage to avoid ever encountering him throughout all the subsequent legal actions?

[*]Exactly when and under what circumstances did you stop representing each of the seven people that you have both claimed, and denied to the press, as having represented?
Ashton Gray"

On June 15, 2006, in the thread "Douglas Caddy, Hunt, Liddy, Mullen, and the CIA"

Mr. Caddy wrote:

"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."

Despite Mr. Caddy's unambiguous statement about what he knew and did not know about the operations of the Mullen Company, Mr. Gray keeps on insinuating that Mr. Caddy is lying.

Mr. Gray: What part of "no" do you not understand?

If Mr. Caddy is no longer answering Mr. Gray's questions, I suspect it is not just because he persists in casting aspersions on Mr. Caddy's character; it is also because he persists in insulting Mr. Caddy's (and our) intelligence.
[/quote]

Mr. Gray, if there is a Mr. Gray, who is Huntley Troth????

Forum members and readers of this thread are invited to contrast what Ashton Gray has written about the first break-in at Watergate and the document below from Wikipedia. The dates of Huntley Troth writing on this topic in Wikipedia and those of Ashton Gray in our Watergate Forum appear to be suspiciously aligned. Huntley Troth even makes note in Wikipedia of the virus that appeared in the Spartacus Forum on virtually the same day of its appearance.

In Wikipedia an alert observer who apparently can spot a phony writes about Huntley Troth:

“What I forgot to mention: The already dubiously looking name given by the original author is nothing but an unimaginative anagram of "Only the Truth". I leave it to others to check out how reliable Wikipedia contributions are whose authors claim that they possess the truth.”

In the Watergate forum reference has been made that Ashton Gray is the name of Canadian porn star.

I leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions of whether Ashton Gray may actually be Huntley Troth or whether both of these are made-up names for someone who actually may be an undisclosed third party. Or whatever or however the bizarre case may be. In any event the credibility of Ashton Gray and Huntley Troth is being questioned in the Watergate Forum and in Wikipedia.

From Wikipedia::


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/Huntley_Troth


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Watergate_first_break-in

Heh.

Doug, I have to say I'm a little hurt that you think I could write something as bland, lifeless, stodgy, and plodding as Huntley Troth's excellently researched, but humorlessly turgid, prose.

It just kinda' hurts a little, that's all.

Ashton Gray

Let me hasten to the defense of Ashton Gray on this one. According to the online dictionary WordNet,

"The noun porn has one meaning:

Meaning #1: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire
Synonyms: pornography, porno"


While it may be true that Mr. Gray's postings on this forum have no value, literary or otherwise, it is grossly unfair, IMHO, to accuse him of stimulating sexual desire.

With your daft jokes you are beginning to sound like Tim Gratz.

With your daft jokes you are beginning to sound like Tim Gratz.

And I'm very disappointed, too. I was hoping the "porn star" smear might stick, at least a little.

Ashton

Funnily enough, I recall many complaints about good ole boy Tim Gratz, but I don't remember anyone complaining about his best feature, which was his sense of humor.

But it is a pity that the moderator can take time out to chastize me for my humorous tone, while remaining silent about the venomous tone that Ashton Gray has been using for a number of weeks back in some of his postings (some are more venemous than others) addressed to Douglas Caddy.

[quote name='John Simkin' date='Jul 9 2006, 05:38 PM' post='67734']
[quote name='J. Raymond Carroll' post='67708' date='Jul 9 2006, 01:26 PM']
While it may be true that Mr. Gray's postings on this forum have no value, literary or otherwise, it is grossly unfair, IMHO, to accuse him of stimulating sexual desire.
[/quote]

With your daft jokes you are beginning to sound like Tim Gratz.
[/quote]

While Tim Gratz and I had many differences they were all political in nature. (he loves W; I can't stand him). On matters of a higher importance we were in agreement. And in spite of all his innane "Castro- did it" nonsence -(which I never once believed HE actually believed)- he was good hearted, ultimately. In his own peculiar way. That is til he threatened to sue the moderator, for which he was banned.

I once thought that Raymond Carroll meant well too but I have seen differently.

He's is neither funny, nor is he kind.

But I am breaking my own self-imposed "peace maker" rule here.

So I am going to bow out of this discussion and ignore the tag- team of Ray and Pat.

Frankly, I do hope Mr Caddy answers the questions he's been asked, the ones that don't
violate attorney client privilege, which is of course, sacrosanct. I am very interested in what he
has to say.

Dawn

Hey, Doug: I have a great idea! Since you've admitted now that you in fact have read my articles about the CIA hoax of a "first break-in," and since you're a lawyer and I'm not, how about you come and join me in that thread that has the article you've read:

There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate

Now that we all know that you have read it, you'll know that I said the following at the end of that message:



Now I ask you: who better in the entire world to pick up that gauntlet than you? Hell, you represented most of the cruds who claimed to have been in Washington, D.C. over Memorial Day weekend breaking into the Watergate (when they weren't), so you not only have done the "minimal homework," you're probably the world's greatest expert! In fact, you're probably the only one in the world who might have even a ghost of a chance.

So come on, Doug: just you and me, keyboard to keyboard. Come on into that thread with me, and you make your case for the Phabulous Phantasy Phirst Break-In! Think of the victory you can have over your Moriarity!

I've just finished incinerating Pat Speer's "case" for the Phabulous Phantasy "Diem Cables" that never existed. He's over there by himself talking to the ghosts of Nixon and his press secretary right now trying to figure out where they went. I didn't even work up a sweat on that one.

So come on, Doug. Now's your big moment. Now you can "slap me down big time." You can dance away in total victory, having proven that there really, really was a "first break-in." Think of the glory!

So what are you waiting for? Make your case. I'll type with one hand tied behind my back. And I'm not even a lawyer—just a wannabe writer. How can you possibly lose, Doug? It's a sure thing. Right?

Doug? Shall we dance? Let's tango.

I'm calling you out.

Ashton Gray

[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 9 2006, 08:35 PM' post='67754']

[quote name='Ashton Gray' post='65480' date='Jun 15 2006, 03:31 AM'
]If you do just that minimal homework, and still would like to return here and attempt to make the case that there was a "first break-in"—as all of us were duped into believing three decades ago and have accepted as an article of faith ever since—I will be more than happy to debate and discuss any evidence you're able to scrape up in support of a "Watergate First Break-in."

I'm calling you out.

Ashton Gray
[/quote]

please explain to us why it should make the slightest difference to Mr. Caddy in his professional capacity whether there were one, two or even fifty break-ins. He has no current client to represent. What do you expect him top do about it now, supposing you convince him there was no first break- in?

Tim's jokes:

Daft si, deft no.

Dawn,

Hello from Boston...just back from vacation up the Maine Coast. It was wonderful !

I quite agree with your assessment, especially now that I have dug out from under these interminable postings about Ash's individual suitability as a member. I see nary a posting that engages Ash, Caddy, Baldwin or any one of the three on the substance of these matters. Let me point out to those reading this that we may be witnessing history in the making and I am hardly kidding.

But the debate has degenerated to whether Ash has been "vituperative and..." whatever. The 'Agenda' thing - so pathetic and transparent - has taken hold so tenaciously that even to suggest there is more to Watergate than the cashiering of Nixon is somehow to state or imply that the Tricky One somehow was worthy of support. "Nixon worshipper' is one unforgettable phrase I have seen here. How insightful!

Makes one wonder why so many postings are made daily that signify nothing. It can make for an easy comparison - at least at times - between the look & feel of this place and American television.

You go, Ash.


John Gillespie

It is indeed hypocritical to assert that anyone's calling Gray a Nixon defender or Nixon worshipper is off-target, but his calling anyone who disagrees with him a CIA-conspirator or CIA-apologist on target. We are discussing the historical record here. Some of us simply understand that the mountain of evidence supports that the Watergate break-in was performed by Nixon's people doing Nixon's bidding. Others are under the impression that when two people tell slightly different accounts of an historical event years later then that means the CIA is reponsible. This is the height of lunacy, IMO. My Mom thought I was born on a Friday when the calender shows I was born on a Thursday. Must be the CIA... Maybe I wasn't born at all...

As far as my overall attitude to the CIA, I consider myself very critical of the CIA. I don't discount the CIA's involvement in Watergate. It is not unreasonable to assume that the CIA was involved in McCord's decision to come forward. It is not unreasonable to assume that the CIA fed people like Woodward information to make sure the truth got out on Nixon. One might even go so far as to theorize that McCord deliberately got caught. But to hold that every event from the release of the Pentagon Papers to Nixon's appointment of Ford as Vice-president was a CIA-orchestrated plot is completely without merit and evidence of someone with no real grasp of history. Such "wouldn't it be interesting" thoughts are best recorded in screenplays and fail to stand up under the heat of extensive examination. Who was "the CIA" and what were their motives? Were they against the war or for the war, and why would did they feel Ford would make a difference? And why did they do nothing to help Ford get re-elected?

My concern is that, by focusing on these theoretical crimes, we can learn nothing about the real crimes and the real abuses of power under the Nixon regime. We can't apply what we learned from Watergate to today's headlines. We can't say that Bush is becoming another Nixon because, well, maybe Nixon wasn't even a Nixon... I asked Mr. Gray if he believed Nixon committed any impeachable offenses--he refused to answer. I asked Mr. Gray if he saw parallels between what he believes to have been an unlawful removal of a President during wartime to the Plame scandal currently plaguing Bush. Once again, no answer.

Mr. Gray...is there anything to be learned from the Watergate scandal? Is there one morsel of information that can be useful to understanding what goes on today? Is the CIA still calling the shots? If not, when did it stop calling the shots, and why?

Hey John! 'Bout time! Damn! Here I am juggling lion cubs, and you're off touring Maine?



Enh. It's just the gathering of the Nazguls. They got nothing, so they post nothing. They just take up as much space as they possibly can ranting and raving about it. Same old snake oil pitch we've been hearing for 34 years. Hasn't changed a whiff.

Good to have you back!

Ashton

QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Jul 10 2006, 09:35 PM)

QUOTE (John Gillespie @ Jul 10 2006, 12:03 PM)

Hello from Boston...just back from vacation up the Maine Coast. It was wonderful !

Hey John! 'Bout time! Damn! Here I am juggling lion cubs, and you're off touring Maine?

QUOTE

The 'Agenda' thing - so pathetic and transparent - ...Makes one wonder why so many postings are made daily that signify nothing.

Enh. It's just the gathering of the Nazguls. They got nothing, so they post nothing. They just take up as much space as they possibly can ranting and raving about it. Same old snake oil pitch we've been hearing for 34 years. Hasn't changed a whiff.

Good to have you back!

Ashton

John,

Yes, great to have you back. Having just read Pat's post above ....I hardly know what to say. He just totally contradicted himself in the first sentence. I don't even read his rants anymore. His logic is on Mars.

But what can one expect from someone who professes to believe the likes of Liddy, McCord etc.? Geez I never believe my own clients until I have corroborated what I am told in several other ways...so why would I believe a convicted felon whom I have never met? Oh well, some folks are just skilled in the art of naivete, a skill I do not possess

Glad you had a wonderful vacation.

Dawn