Tim Gratz and Donald Segretti

[Dawn Meredith]

.

And, as I suspect you know, despite how strongly I felt at the time that it was important for the future of the country that Nixon be re-elected

_____________________________

It's just AMAZING how people can see things so differently!!. Myself and many others believed- (correctly so, it's been shown)- that what was "important for the future of the country" was that Nixon be DEFEATED.

Had Wallace not been shot there is a very good chance that he would have taken away enough votes so that McGovern would have been president. Much the same way Perot helped ensure Clinton's election in 92.

But....once again assassination (attempt) intervenes.

Who benefited??

Dawn

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

William Turner is a much respected journalist.

He is indeed, but has an additional distinction.  As a former FBI man who butted heads with Hoover during his career, Turner has the added benefit of having a number of FBI sources.

This may prove important, in that we now know certain key data was generated by the FBI, but then syphoned directly into the Nixon White House, never to reappear again.  So, for example, did Turner learn about the proximity to Bremer of the cited "Segretti-Cassini-Gratz" group from an FBI, or other "official" source? If the pertinent FBI report alleging this detail evaporated from the extant record, was this because it had been "cleansed" by the White House?

Bear in mind the following points raised by Timothy Maier's intruiging article [cited earlier]:

What follows is the story of how the FBI, led by Acting Director L. Patrick Gray, dug relentlessly into Bremer's background. And how Gray, who later admitted destroying Watergate records, prevented the Bremer case from being explored during the Watergate hearings......

What is known is that Nixon stepped in to control the Bremer investigation shortly after the shots were fired, according to [local DA] Femia. At the hospital, an FBI agent hung up a hospital phone, turned to Femia and barked, "That was the president. We're taking over. The president says, `We're not going to have another Dallas here.'" Femia, who already had prepared an indictment, objected fiercely, but the agents pushed him aside and grabbed Bremer in the gurney....

Forty-five minutes after the shooting, the WalShot Files show, a Baltimore FBI agent called the Milwaukee FBI office identifying Bremer as the shooter based on personal identification found on Bremer. The Secret Service identified Bremer's address at 5:35 p.m., it claims, after tracing his .38-caliber handgun. But 25 minutes earlier, at 5:10 p.m., when two FBI agents entered Bremer's apartment, a Secret Service agent already was there. How the Secret Service managed that remains a mystery, inspiring conspiracy aficionados to speculate that the White House knew about Bremer before the shots were fired. The Secret Service agent told the FBI he was on an "intelligence-gathering mission."........

The thousands of pages Insight reviewed in the WalShot Files ....show Nixon ordered the FBI to take charge and get the Secret Service out of the case. They show acting FBI Director Gray provided Nixon with daily briefings on the case. And they show the president personally ordered all materials seized inside Bremer's apartment be taken not to FBI headquarters but to the White House......

When Nixon learned the FBI made copies of the transcripts of the diary and provided them to the Secret Service, he ordered those copies surrendered and destroyed. He then told Gray not only to destroy all records indicating that the White House saw the diary but to issue a directive that "no one is allowed access to the subject, even [bremer's] lawyer." According to the file, Nixon was concerned Bremer might be tied to the White House "plumbers." He told Gray to chase down any plots to kill Bremer and to rule out all conspiracy theories beyond doubt......

The WalShot Files show the FBI spent considerably more time and devoted more agents to pursuing alleged plots to kill Bremer than investigating allegations, however exotic, that pointed to the door of the White House. Though responsive to Birch Society allegations, they refused to look at other press reports that claimed the Watergate hearings might reveal some dirty tricks linked to Bremer [defense attorney] Lipsitz claims to have known something was up with the plumbers because Senate Watergate investigators told him he would be called to testify in the Senate Watergate hearings. "I thought these guys were off the wall," Lipsitz says. "What does Bremer have to do with Watergate?"....

The WalShot Files say Wallace had received a letter from Bernard Parker, one of the men caught in the Watergate break-in. The alleged letter is said to have claimed Bremer was paid by G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt for shooting Wallace. All deny the allegation. According to the WalShot Files, the FBI and Barker claim the letter is a fraud.......

At every turn, we find that the Nixon White House didn't simply "interfere" with the FBI investigation, but usurped control of the investigation, illegally controlled the evidence and who had access to it.  Time and again, we have encountered strong indications that the Nixon White House was exceedingly paranoid that evidence may surface demonstrating a connection between Arthur Bremer and the Nixon posse. 

So, if there was an FBI memo - seen by Turner - disclosing the basis for alleging Bremer had something to do with "Segretti-Cassini-Gratz" [whether true or not], it is entirely possible it was scrubbed from the extant record by the White House itself.  No party would have had a greater interest in making that memo disappear.  Hence, we would be left with Turner's allegation, just not the basis for it having been made in the first place.  

It seems strange that he should add Tim Gratz’s name to this list of conspirators. During the Watergate investigation it was revealed that Tim had actually reported Segretti’s activities to CREEP. This was in the public record. Tim was one of the “good guys”. There were lots of “bad guys” that Turner could have added to this list. Yet, he does not do this. Instead he opts for someone that had apparently tried to distance himself from this undercover action. To me, that suggests that Turner had evidence to believe that Tim was involved in these events. This raises two possibilities:

(1) Tim was involved in this dirty tricks campaign against Wallace.

(2) Someone was trying to set Tim up by passing false information to Turner.

These really are the only two possibilities, barring a simple case of mistaken identity.  One finds it hard to believe that Turner would simply invent something so potentially provocative out of whole cloth, irrespective of whatever use Sprague may have made of the information.

I would again like to ask Tim a question he seems to have missed in my prior post:  In the course of your Republican campaign travels in 1971/72, did you have occasion to visit Michigan?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Mark Stapleton]

Come on Tim, we're waiting with baited breath here. What about Michigan?

[Shanet Clark]

I have a number of friends and journalistic associates in Wisconsin.

They have struggled to publish newspapers for many years, under

the auspices of a loose Alternative Press Syndicate.

They have been infiltrated and sabotaged in many ways, burglarized,

the papers have been infiltrated by known federal agents repeatedly.

They have told me about personal knowledge they had of the

manipulation of Arthur Bremer. This is a sad story, one tied

to CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD.

It is absolutely appalling that one of our most vocal FORUM members

was at the center of this effort.

......................

[Mark Stapleton]

I have a number of friends and journalistic associates in Wisconsin.

They have struggled to publish newspapers for many years, under

the auspices of a loose Alternative Press Syndicate.

They have been infiltrated and sabotaged in many ways, burglarized,

the papers have been infiltrated by known federal agents repeatedly.

They have told me about personal knowledge they had of the

manipulation of Arthur Bremer.  This is a sad story, one tied

to CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD. 

It is absolutely appalling that one of our most vocal FORUM members

was at the center of this effort.

......................

           

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Especially since Tim is always ready to sanctimoniously denounce others.

[Tim Gratz]

Shanet wrote:

It is absolutely appalling that one of our most vocal FORUM members

was at the center of this effort.

That's it, brother: if you do not IMMEDIATELY withdraw that allegation, I am suing.

Enough is enough!

[Tim Gratz]

Robert:

I never did any political work in Michigan and I do not recall even knowing any College Republican officers from Michigan.

I was only in Rhode Island (and from there a one day jaunt to New Hampshire) and in Wisconsin.

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

These really are the only two possibilities, barring a simple case of mistaken identity. One finds it hard to believe that Turner would simply invent something so potentially provocative out of whole cloth, irrespective of whatever use Sprague may have made of the information.

Robert, two points.

THe first I have made before: the error may be Sprague's, not Turner's.

Second, what you said about Turner is my thought about Trento and his detailed description of the Politburo members who he says conspired first against Kennedy and then against Khruschev. Hard to believe either he or Angleton would simply manufacture this whole scenario "out of whole cloth" as the saying goes.

[Mark Stapleton]

Shanet wrote:

It is absolutely appalling that one of our most vocal FORUM members

was at the center of this effort.

That's it, brother:  if you do not IMMEDIATELY withdraw that allegation, I am suing.

Enough is enough!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

I guess you'll have to sue me too. You took money. You've confirmed it. You were involved.

[Tim Gratz]

In an effort to have Arthur Bremer kill George Wallace?

That is what Shanet is talking about, Mark!

[John Simkin]

And, as I suspect you know, despite how strongly I felt at the time that it was important for the future of the country that Nixon be re-elected, I would not have even smeared a Democrat candidate to ensure the re-election of Nixon.  In my opinion, morality is needed in politics.  And morality means, among other things, that the ends (even important ends) cannot justify immoral means.

You still use the same tactics. How does this smear help explain Rove's dirty tricks tactics against Wilson.

Indeed.  The Guardian article never stated, by the way, that Rove engaged in "dirty tricks" against Wilson, which is the way you phrased it.  The issue is whether he revealed the name of Wilson's wife as a covert CIA operative, and there is apparently no evidence that he did.

Wilson is a discredited xxxx.  Members are urged to read this piece from the July 13, 2005 "Wall Street Journal":

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110006955

[Tim Gratz]

What "smear" are you talking about, John?

Did you even read the WSJ editorial piece?

It is my understanding that the difficulty Rove MAY face is not that he "smeared" Wilson but that he told the "truth" to a reporter when he should not have: i.e., that Wilson's wife should not have been publicy revealed by Rove as a CIA operative if she was a covert (secret) operative for the CIA.

The statute was adopted as a result of Phillip Agee's public disclosure of covert CIA operatives around the world, revelations that may have led to some deaths.

As I understand it, for Rove to be to be criminally responsible under the statute, Wilson's wife's identity as a CIA officer had to have been confidential AND she had to have worked overseas at least some time within the previous five years. From what I have heard, her identity as a CIA officer was well-known, AND she had been working within the US for the past five years. So if I am correct in the interpretation of the statute, and if the facts recited above are correct, Rove cannot be criminally responsible for his revelation of the employment of Wilson's wife.

NOTE however that even if Rove had violated the statute, the violation occured because he told the TRUTH. In no way did he "smear" Wilson by revealing who his wife's employer was.

If you don't follow this, let me know.

Edited July 18, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

Tim, for someone with a legal background, you seem to miss a few things. First, if Shanet has committed a crime, go at it. As established by our other discussions, you KNOW that to establish libel you have to prove both that you were harmed by the allegation and that the libelous party would have had no reason to believe that what he said was true.

While I believe you are innocent, there are written accounts suggesting you were involved to which you did not take action. As far as I can see, you have no leg to stand on regarding anything Shanet has to say. On the second point as to whether you have been harmed, your case is once again a loser. Shanet, sad to say, has embraced so many different conspiracies and elements of conspiracy that his statements carry no weight in and of themselves. He has never presented himself as an expert on you or on the case and as a result I doubt you could convince anyone that people out there would take his word for granted. He has never intimated that he had secret information about you that led him to his statements. Your differnece with him is therefore one over interpretation of an accepted set of facts.

I believe the first amendment protects his right to be wrong. You better hope so before Fidel comes after you. (A joke.)

Secondly, if no crime was committed in revealing Plame's identity why in heck is there a special prosecutor spending millions to uncover who was responsible? While the information released so far indicates Rove was probably not guilty of a crime, we still don't know how Rove uncovered that Plame had CIA ties, or what he told others. If he used his role at the White House to uncover her role at the CIA, and then revealed that role for political purposes, his security clearance should be revoked and he should be fired regardless of whether or not he told anyone her name, or whether or not he technically committed a crime. Can we at least agree on that?

Edited July 18, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

We are mixing apples and oranges here so I will use separate posts to respond to Pat's points:

Pat wrote:

Tim, for someone with a legal background, you seem to miss a few things. First, if Shanet has committed a crime, go at it. As established by our other discussions, you KNOW that to establish libel you have to prove both that you were harmed by the allegation and that the libelous party would have had no reason to believe that what he said was true.

While I believe you are innocent, there are written accounts suggesting you were involved to which you did not take action. As far as I can see, you have no leg to stand on regarding anything Shanet has to say. On the second point as to whether you have been harmed, your case is once again a loser. Shanet, sad to say, has embraced so many different conspiracies and elements of conspiracy that his statements carry no weight in and of themselves. He has never presented himself as an expert on you or on the case and as a result I doubt you could convince anyone that peoploe out there would take his word for granted. He has never intimated that he had secret information about you that led him to his statements. Your differnece with him is therefore one over interpretation of an accepted set of facts.

Pat, here in the US libel is not a "crime" (it might be in Great Britain).

Re "harm" you do raise a good point, and I am glad you did, that Shanet's posts have been so overboard that he ought not be taken seriously. Unfortunately, not every member of the Forum shares your intelligence and there are some (perhaps Stan is a case in point) who believe almost anything they read here. Also, regardless of how many members believe him, it still hurts to be labeled a murder conspirator. Also, libel although not a crime, carries punitive as well as compensatory damages. The punitive damages can be much greater than the compensatory damages. They are designed to punish reckless conduct.

Regarding your point that Shanet has not intimated he has "secret information about me", I beg to differ with you. Here is what he wrote in that post:

I have a number of friends and journalistic associates in Wisconsin.

They have struggled to publish newspapers for many years, under

the auspices of a loose Alternative Press Syndicate.

They have been infiltrated and sabotaged in many ways, burglarized,

the papers have been infiltrated by known federal agents repeatedly.

They have told me about personal knowledge they had of the

manipulation of Arthur Bremer.

In the context, that statement certainly implies that his friends with "personal kmowledge about the manipulation of Bremer" placed me in the center of the conspiracy, as he later wrote. Does it not?

Re the fact that I did not "take action" about Sprague's book, he was dead by the time I first read the charge. In some sections of this country dead people may vote, but nevertheless they are not subject to civil process. Also there was no publisher to sue since so far as I knew the book was only on the INTERNET.

Also, since I am not a "public figure", the basis for libel is, for instance, a lot stronger than would be a suit by, for instance, Howard Hunt. I do not think Shanet is shielded from liability merely because of the statement in the Sprague book. Not only that, his posts went beyond reporting what was written in the Sprague book. He adopted and endosed Sprague's theory as his own.

Since I know I am innocent, Shanet will not be able to cite a single fact linking me to Bremer or Cassini. So he will lose. And regardlng the punitive damages, the court may allow me to introduce evidence of the other people whose names and reputation Shanet has defamed even though such people cannot sue since they are dead.

For the benefit of other members of this Forum, I have given Shanet until Friday to retract his scurrilous charge.

Back to Fidel. You raised the point that I had not sued Sprague (as if my failure to see might have an evidentiary bearing on my guilt). I said I could not sue because Sprague was dead. But notice how often Fidel has been accused of the assassination, and in books with far greater exposure than this Forum. Yet Fidel has never sued anyone re this allegation (at least to the best of my knowledge). So perhaps we should cogitate on Fidel's failure to sue.

Edited July 18, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

What "smear" are you talking about, John?

Did you even read the WSJ editorial piece?

It is my understanding that the difficulty Rove MAY face is not that he "smeared" Wilson but that he told the "truth" to a reporter when he should not have: i.e., that Wilson's wife should not have been publicy revealed by Rove as a CIA operative if she was a covert (secret) operative for the CIA.

The statute was adopted as a result of Phillip Agee's public disclosure of covert CIA operatives around the world, revelations that may have led to some deaths.

As I understand it, for Rove to be to be criminally responsible under the statute, Wilson's wife's identity as a CIA officer had to have been confidential AND she had to have worked overseas at least some time within the previous five years.  From what I have heard, her identity as a CIA officer was well-known, AND she had been working within the US for the past five years.  So if I am correct in the interpretation of the statute, and if the facts recited above are correct, Rove cannot be criminally responsible for his revelation of the employment of Wilson's wife.

NOTE however that even if Rove had violated the statute, the violation occured because he told the TRUTH.  In no way did he "smear" Wilson by revealing who his wife's employer was.

If you don't follow this, let me know.

This is what I mean by dirty tricks campaigns. During the State the Union Address on January 28, 2003, George Bush said: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” It is true that this information had come from the British security services. What Bush did not tell the American people was that those same security services also warned that they suspected that these documents were fakes (later confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency). As a result of his own investigation sponsored by the CIA, Joseph Wilson knew that these documents were fakes and that Saddam Hussein had not sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa (Niger).

Wilson went public with this information. Rather than admit that he had been wrong about this matter, Bush got people like Karl Rove to launch a campaign to undermine Wilson. This included leaking information about the role his wife was playing in the CIA.

To quote your pathetic article on Wilson: “Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."

The Butler Report has of course being completely discredited as a “whitewash”. In fact, it was described at the time as being another “Warren Report”. What Butler was saying in this section of the report was that Blair and Bush could not be blamed for believing that these faked documents were real. However, as we now know, Bush and Blair cherry-picked the evidence that supported their claim that Saddam Hussein had WMD. They conveniently ignored those reports that suggested the documents were fakes (as they were). Other reports they ignored was that an invasion of Iraq would cause an increase in terrorist attacks against the British and the US. That is why Bush is so desperate to argue that there is no link between the London bombings and the Iraq War.

Your tactics are the same as those of Bush and Rove. Rather than answering claims that Bush was wrong about Saddam Hussein’s attempts to obtain uranium from Niger (as he clearly was) you attack the man himself. This is of course typical of the modern Republican Party that was originally shaped by that other crook, Richard Nixon.