Alfred C. Baldwin

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.

John - never knew him - but did meet and talk to him during trail phase, Also, I didn't "tip" him.

Pat - never spoke with anyone named Robert Jackson. He was not the reporter from the Los Angeles Times.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Will answer your questions in the next few days.

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.

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.

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.

With the hoildays approaching I am pressed for time. However, if it is all right with you I will address each and every question to the best of my ability after the New Year Hoilday season is finished thus probably the first week in Jan., 2006 or sooner if time permits. I truly feel it is important to state facts as accurately as one can. One fact that I have learned, especially in the field of history, is that seldom does man learn from past history and there are those who will do their utmost to desort the truth.

Seldom do I respond to requests for interviews from authors, radio, or television, and thus over the years many iaccuracies have been forthcoming. I would like to state that I have deep respect for the BBC who covered the story with the most accuracy. Since you are involved with education, I will proceed with the belief that you are sensitive to facts and the reporting of same.I have been contacted by several close friends who have stated that their are numerous personal and other misrepresentations, half-truths, and distrtations that require my involvement. With the above said I would like to offer you the following information. I realize that some of the issues I have cannot be corrected, such as what appears in Mr.Hougan's book, Secret Agenda, one of the authors to whom I refused an interview. I hope that the below can be corrected on the sites that you yourself are invoved with and produce. 1. I was born in 1936 in New Haven, Connecticut (Not 1937 in Hartford), and I was living in the New Haven area not Hartford at the tme of the incident. 2. I graduated from Fairfield Uniersity in 1957 with a BBA then entered the USMC as a 2nd Lt. Prior to that I was an enlisted-man in the USMC Reserve. My final rank in the USMC was Captain. 3. After three years of acticve duty with the USMC I entered law school in 1960 graduating in 1963 with an LLB which then became a JD. I also attended Southern Connecticut State University after Watergate receiving a Masters (MS) Degree in Education for employment in the New Haven and State of Connecticut (College Level) school systems. NOTE: With respect to the Connecticut Bar Exam, I would like to furnish you with specific details. Your posts reflect that I "repeatedly failed". This statement is false and insome degree libelous. On successful completion of my final year at law school, May, 1963, I was assigned to a new agents class of the FBI to begin early June 1964. This assignment was changed due to the death of my father. I was thus assigned to a July, 1963 class, which I did successfully attend and complete. Also, I had in my last year of law school signed up to take the bar exam given during June, 1963, In view of the family death and my assignment with the FBI, I intended to pass on takng the bar exam. Several friends and close family members convinced me to take the exam since I had successfully completed the application. In Connecticut at that period of time before you were allowed to take the written test, which consisted of two days of written essay questions, one had to appear before a Board of Attorneys and pass an orarl examination and if one passed you then proceede to the written portion. On the first day of the written exam, immediately after lunch,I turned my paper in telling the Proctor I was not going to complete the exam. If this was a failure then one can say that I failed once, however, I was told, and believe it to be true today, that I had "withdarwn" and it was marked as "incomplete". I sould also point out that then and today one is only allowed three attempts at the Bar unless there is an exception granted. My reasons for taking the action I did were personal and if given that same opportunity again I would take the same course of action. I then waited until the mid 1980s, approximately twenty-three years (23) after law school to apply, take, and pass that examination. Thus I did not "repeatedly take" the exam. After passing the Bar examination I left teaching in the high-school and college and took a job as a prosecutor in the Division of Criminal Justice, State of Connecticut with the title of Assistant State Attorney at the time of my retirement. 4. I was assigned to guard Martha Mitchell and I have no idea why she referred to me as "the most gauchest character". I was later told that it was due to the fact that I had attended a cocktail party and had taken my shoes and socks off and had placed my bare feet on a cocktail table in front one of the President's cabnet members, I believe the Secretary of Transportation Volpe. This was totally false and I was willing to take a lie detector test to prove that I had never ever been in the presence of any cabinet member. The FBI was satisfied with my statement on this subject, and if there was any truth to Martha's clam of gauchness I am sure that her husband would not have allowed my continued employment at the Committee To Re-Elect The President where he became the hairman after leave the cabinet post of Attorney-Geeral. 5. My story was never told to John Cassidento initially. The lawyer who hear it first hand was my friend and classmate at law school, Robert Mirto, who latter appeared at the congressional hearings with me. John was an Assistant Federal Prosecutor in New Haven, not Hartford, who subsequently joined Mr. Mirto's law firm actually in West Haven, CT. Mr Mirto is still practicing law in West Haven. Mr Cassidento is deceased. 6. I did not cooperate to escape prision. The question of indictment must first be meet, then a trail if indicted, then prision if convicted. Since my position the and today is that we were operating under the orders, or with the authority of the Attorney-General, what took place was legal. I was cooperating to avoid the grand-jury not prision. 7. One last point, I never meet nor was I ever interviewed by Mark Felt. I realize that the above is quite lengthy, however the facts must be stated correctly, and I hope that you would have the integrity/professionalism to incorporate the above into your comments and observations on the appropriate sites.

Born: JUNE 23, 1936 Education: BBA, Fairfield Univ. 1957 MS, Southern Connectcut State College, 70's JD, University of Connectiucut, School of Law 1963 Occupations: USMC-- Captain--Retired --Reserve -& Active Duty (Full Time Active Duty from 1957-1960, 3mth Summer Tours while in Reserve) Federal Bureau Of Investigation---Special Agent--1963-1966 Commitee To Re-Elect President---1972 New Haven, Connecticut--Board of Education-- Teacher 1974--1986 Southern Connecticut State University--Adjunct Professor---Approx 8 yrs--late 70's ealy 80's State of Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice--Assistant State Attorney (Prosecutor) 1986 to 1995 Retired from State of Connecticut ( 20 + years) 1996 to present Residence: Vero Beach, Florida, USA Reason for joining forum: As a former educator I believe it is important that historical facts be recited with the utmost accuracy. Since I had direct involvement with the incident known today as "Watergate" I find it necessary to correct certain inaccuracies that have been setforth on your forum including posts that you yourself have written and some that have appeared on the Spartacus site.