Jump to content
The Education Forum

Alfred C. Baldwin

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Alfred C. Baldwin

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

6,386 profile views
  1. 1. I did not "plant" anything at McCord's house. I took what was in the room at the HJ and did what I was told to do, which was to deliver all of it to Jim's house. Those were the instructions I had been given and that I followed. 2. No it is not true. I know for a fact no one followed me that AM to McCord's house. If you have Hunt saying that he followed me then it would have been said as a "figure of speech" in that at some point of time he drove to McCord's house after my trip. I don't believe that anyone else, other than myself or Hunt, would have made that statement since they would not have been there, and I know for a fact that I never made any statement about "anyone following me". I can not speak for Hunt. 3. As to what Caddy knew or didn't know I can not address. You would have to direct those questions to Mr. Caddy.
  2. John - never knew him - but did meet and talk to him during trail phase, Also, I didn't "tip" him.
  3. Pat - never spoke with anyone named Robert Jackson. He was not the reporter from the Los Angeles Times.
  4. 1. Yes, I was there in Wash., D.C.through ouit the Memorial Day week-end on each and every day of that week-end (not off on some other clandestine work), and did work that I have testified about including being at the HJ on the break-in (prior to the June 17 break-in), which I have testified about under oath and have stated in numerous interviews. I am speaking about the break-in prior to the 17th of June where I actually saw Jim McCord come to one of the windows in the DNC. I have testified to the prior entry, that is prior to the 17th, not only in court under oath, FBI interviews, and congressinal hearings under oath. If at any time I had lied I would have faced serious legal, professional, and personal consquences. 2. Yes, I did monitor conversations for those days in June up to the 17th, and did turn most of the logs over to Jim, other than the ones that were delivered to the DNC. I have testified to this and to the contents of the conversations not only to the FBI, but also to a Federal Judge. Also, there were "bugs" in the DNC because I would monitor some conversations when I saw the phone being used in that office and the conversations would start and end with different individuals using the phone in that office. Thus watching those individuals there is no doubt that the "bug" in that office was working. Also, Jim actually displayed some of the "bugs" to me prior to installation. The logs, and copies of the logs, are a fact that cannot be denied or questioned by anyone.
  5. The best way, and I'm not trying to avoid a direct answer, would be to review the FBI 302 interview documents given during July, 19 72. Now with the passage of time every single attempt to review specific events might lead tp misleading answers. Another source would be the interview I gave during October to the Los Angeles newspaper. I am sure these sources given immediately after the event would be more helpful than my failing memory of that time.
  6. 1. Originally, for my interview with McCord for a job position, I did not drive I flew to D.C. and of course had no weapon on my person. 2. Yes, I had a round trip ticket and before I left I was told by McCord that a specific date fo the next Martha trip had not been finalized but it would be in the middle or later part of the week of my return. McCord had not been told or given any reason for my replacement on her next trip prior to my departure to Connecticut, and I had meet with John Mitchell himself prior to my leaving for Connecticut. He "de-briefed me" and thanked me, and left me with the impression there was further work to be done on my part. 3.Yes I had the weapon on the plane and had to report this fact at the ticket counter. Since I was not active in the law-enforcement field the ticket manger was called and I provided him with a phone number to call to verify the fact that I was working in a security position with the re-election committee. He called the number and then cleared me to board with the weapon. The number was for the Security Office of Jim McCord at the Committee and what he told the manger has never been explained or told to me. You must remember this was the early 70's prior to any of the threats that this nation faces today, but there was an air marshall program in effect at that time different I am sure to the programs in effect today. 4. No I did not have a permit for the weapon at any time and when I advised McCord of this fact and that I would not be acting in any official law enforcement capacity while carying the gun he furnished me a business card with his name and a telephone number, His exact words were "if you have any difficulty or if anyone questions your having this weapon have them call this number". I believe that on two occassions that I had to utilize that business card and in both instances I was allowed to proceed with the weapon on my person.
  7. At this point of time I would only state that the sequence of events as to the 38 and when it was obtained and turned back to McCord can ony be verified by the FBI interview as recorded on their 302 interview document. With the passage of years I am now relucant to state a fact from my memory when it comes to precise dates. There is nothing unusual with the fact that I travelled to Connecticut with the weapon. As an FBI agent one always carried one's weapon 24/7. Thus having been issued the weapon and with further possible deployment where the weapon could be used for personal defense it woul have been and was normal for the weapon to remain on my person at all times after it had been issued to me. It is a fact I went to Connecticut to obtain more personal items, such as clothing, and to meet with my personal friend and later attorney Robert Mirto. I did fly to Connecicut and back from Connecticut that weekend and remained there the entire weekend, which has been verified by the FBI.
  8. At this point of time I would only state that the sequence of events as to the 38 and when it was obtained and turned back to McCord can ony be verified by the FBI interview as recorded on their 302 interview document. With the passage of years I am now relucant to state a fact from my memory when it comes to precise dates. There is nothing unusual with the fact that I travelled to Connecticut with the weapon. As an FBI agent one always carried one's weapon 24/7. Thus having been issued the weapon and with further possible deployment where the weapon could be used for personal defense it woul have been and was normal for the weapon to remain on my person at all times after it had been issued to me. It is a fact I went to Connecticut to obtain more personal items, such as clothing, and to meet with my personal friend and later attorney Robert Mirto. I did fly to Connecicut and back from Connecticut that weekend and remained there the entire weekend, which has been verified by the FBI.
  9. John--I was never directly approached by either Woodward or Bernsten, however, I did learn at a latter date that they had contacted my lawyers who refused to have aything to do with them for reaons that were never disxlosed to me. Thus I can say that I did not know either of them. As to whethern or not Mark Felt was Deep Throat I can honestly say that I have my doubts especially since I had been in cotact wit the FBI in July, 1972 yet there is no mention of me by either Bernstein or Woodwar in he early (post July, 1972) days. So if Felt was reading all the FBI 302s (interview reports) why didn/t he alert those writers to the act that John Mitchell had been named in my very first interview with the FBI, So in July 1972 the government had a "trail" to Mitchell, whichwould have been termendius news at that period of time. Lastly, believe it or not the interview was given to the Los Angeles Times reporters(two of them) for basically two reason. The first was that they were present on a daily basis at my lawyer's office in West Haven, Connecticut for weeks into months presenting themselves by saying that " if and when he (myself) decides to tell his story they would be present to take it". The second reason was they were perfect gentlemen and never pressed the issue and agreeded to print everything that I said with no exceptions, deletions, or comments. Their honsty and sincerity impressed me, and my lawyers knew that I had "been left out to hang in the wind with no support or backing from ANYONE in Washngto, D.C.". Then add the fact that I had been told " you wont find a job anywhere, not even driving a truck" and you have the partial answer to that interview with those reporters. I hope this answers your questions and thank you for your comments. ---Al Baldwin Jim Hougan in Secret Agenda dismisses Felt as a possible Deep Throat for much the same reason. Since Deep Throat failed to tell Woodward about Baldwin, and Felt knew about Baldwin, Felt can't be Deep Throat... I think what has been missed is that, according to Woodstein, Deep Throat rarely provided information; he mostly confirmed information that they'd already uncovered. And even this was done in vague terms, sometimes so vague he was misunderstood. Remember the screw-up regarding Haldeman's pre-knowledge? That almost got Woodstein pulled off the case. To whomever stated that Felt "rarely provided info",I'm glad the word "rarely" was used because he did in a round about way provide information on occassions. I believe naming John Mitchell in July,1972 and a "possible White House connection" was of such importance that if Felt was Deep Thoat some type on mention or innuendo would have been provided to either of the two.
  10. John - I was never directly approached by either Woodward or Bernsten, however, I did learn at a latter date that they had contacted my lawyers who refused to have anything to do with them for reaons that were never disclosed to me. Thus I can say that I did not know either of them. As to whethern or not Mark Felt was Deep Throat I can honestly say that I have my doubts especially since I had been in contact with the FBI in July, 1972 yet there is no mention of me by either Bernstein or Woodward in he early (post July, 1972) days. So if Felt was reading all the FBI 302s (interview reports) why didn't he alert those writers to the act that John Mitchell had been named in my very first interview with the FBI, So in July 1972 the government had a "trail" to Mitchell, which would have been termendius news at that period of time. Lastly, believe it or not the interview was given to the Los Angeles Times reporters (two of them) for basically two reason. The first was that they were present on a daily basis at my lawyer's office in West Haven, Connecticut for weeks into months presenting themselves by saying that "if and when he (myself) decides to tell his story they would be present to take it". The second reason was they were perfect gentlemen and never pressed the issue and agreeded to print everything that I said with no exceptions, deletions, or comments. Their honsty and sincerity impressed me, and my lawyers knew that I had "been left out to hang in the wind with no support or backing from ANYONE in Washington, D.C.". Then add the fact that I had been told " you won't find a job anywhere, not even driving a truck" and you have the partial answer to that interview with those reporters. I hope this answers your questions and thank you for your comments. - Al Baldwin
  11. I believe I have already answered the question as to who I felt I was working for, but I will expand further. When I was initially hired there was no doubt in my mind that I was being hired for a position with the Committee To Re-Elect the President, which in turn was being chaired by the then Attorney General John Mitchell. I was also told that once Nixon was re-elected I would be re-instated as a Special Agent with the FBI with White House backing, and even told with the President's intervention should Hoover object to my re-instatement. In May, 1972, on my return to Washington from a short visit to Connecticut and immediately prior to my monitoring duties at the Howard Johnson I was told that I would be engaged in "activities", such as surveillance, counter-terrorism, etc., and that such activities came with the approval of the Attorney General and the White House at "the highest level". I really can’t speak to what other individuals are espousing to as the reasons for Watergate, and with regards to McCord's reason for doing what he did I feel it would be more appropriate for him to state his position. I do know for a fact that I made a promise to him that I would allow him to state his position/reasons, however, if he did not do so prior to is demise than I would be free to comment should I be asked that question. His book "A Piece of Tape" does not truly furnish the answers. 2. I definitely dispute ANY theory that places John Dean as the one responsible for Watergate. With respect to whether or not a lawyer advised me as to my actions I believe I had previously answered that question. Again, I will expand somewhat on my previous answer. One must understand that at the time of this event in 1972 I was an attorney/lawyer and had been a Special Agent with the FBI. Thus I felt capable of making the decisions that I was making and I in no way felt it was necessary to seek legal advice on what was taking place. Also, remember that I felt we were acting with the approval of the Attorney General and the White House. What lawyer/attorney could trump that? Also, keep in mind that what you may term are break-ins are still occurring today; however, they most likely are be done under terms of "National Security". Last issue on question 2 is that I am not coming forward to protect myself, and yes, I did learn of threats but they were never direct threats. 3. I am not sure that anyone can answer the question as to "the real reason why the Watergate offices were burglarized". I do know that one of the reasons was to correct one of the listening devices that was not transmitting. One has to remember that it was known to all that O'Brien was not in D.C. and would be out of town for several months. Thus no one can truly assert that the device in O'Brien's office had to be corrected unless that devise was in O'Brien's office but was there for a different purpose. I also know that the devise in Spencer Oliver’s office that was working was being left in place. As to other reasons, I am still awaiting Jim McCord's answers before I elaborate further. 4. Sorry, based on our current federal statutes I can not discuss the essence of the conversations overheard. 5. Since Frank is now deceased I truly believe it is inappropriate for me to comment on anything Frank has said or done. I would state that I have been asked a similar question as to my personal knowledge of any connection between Watergate and the assassination of JFK. I can state without hesitation that I have no knowledge of any facts of any nature that would result in a connection between those two events.
  12. Will answer your questions in the next few days.
  13. I never did any work for Operation Gemstone or Sandwedge. The only knowledge I have of Gemstone is that was the name assigned to all the "logs" that were being typed with respect to overheard conversations at the DNC. Regarding the nature of the material being collected from those wire-taps the courts have "sealed" the records and the only thing that I am allowed to say is that the "explicitly intimate" contents may not be publicly divulged.
  14. 1. Between 1966 and 1972 I worked as the Director of Security for a multi-state trucking firm. I left this position to work for a retired Naval Admiral who was creating a college degree program for law enforcement personnel who desired a college degree in the police administration and law enforcement field. I was hired as his assistant with the task of hiring adjunct professors as well as teaching law related subjects. The college was the University of New Haven located in New Haven. Yes, there are other colleges/universities other than Yale located in New Haven. 2. Prior to 1972 I did not know James McCord, but I was aware of the fact that he was a former Special Agent with the FBI. 3. No 4. No 5. You will have to define operation Gemstone. The files I complied were referred to as Gemstone. No with respect to Operation Sandwedge. 6. I have my own personal opinion based on my conversations with McCord at that time, and I should add this opinion hasn't changed in any way even with all the information and data that has come forth since 1972. 7. Will leave this for a future reply because it might require a lengthy explanation. 8. Gordon can state whatever he wants. I worked for McCord who may not have Liddy's viewpoint. 9. I really cannot make a judgement call on what Mr. Baker did or didn't do because my communications where with McCord. Now if McCord gave his unit to Baker your statement might be relevant. 10. True Hunt on arriving at my room did make a call to someone who I realized was a lawyer due to the nature of the conversation coming from Hunt. No name was ever used so I can not name that person.
  15. James - I did use the name Bill Johnson in order to obtain some information and while working for McCord, however, it was not at his suggestion Actually, Bill J was a cousin of mine in Connecticut who was an Assistant Fire Chief in West Haven, Connecticut, who I felt would not be angered at my use. I hope this answer is satisfactory.
×
×
  • Create New...