Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
John Simkin

Alfred C. Baldwin

Recommended Posts

Thank you very much for answering these questions. It is great that you are willing to provide information that will enable historians to write more accurate accounts of Watergate in the future.

(5) Did you do any work for Operation Gemstone or Operation Sandwedge before the Watergate break-in?

5. You will have to define operation Gemstone. The files I complied were referred to as Gemstone. No with respect to Operation Sandwedge.

Gemstone was the operation being run by James McCord/Gordon Liddy. Sandwedge was the operation being run by Jack Caulfield/Anthony Ulasewicz. It seems that Gemstone concerned itself with fairly low level matters. Sandwedge on the other hand, dealt with the more serious issues, such as taking Edward Kennedy and George Wallace out of the 1972 presidential election. My view is that Nixon took the rap on Gemstone in order to avoid the more serious crimes associated with Sandwedge.

(6) Are you aware of the real reason why the Watergate offices were burgled?

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.

I would be very interested to hear what your opinion is on this matter.

(7) It became your job to eavesdrop the phone calls. I believe that over a 20 day period you listened to over 200 phone calls. Could you explain the sort of information that McCord was looking for.

7. Will leave this for a future reply because it might require a lengthy explanation.

I look forward to your reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Baldwin, thanks for coming here to clear up some of these points. It's important that the story be told as straight as can be, so that people can come to informed decisions. I take from your comments on Hougan that you dispute the Liddy theory that Dean was behind it all. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Liddy's thesis is not the thesis of Hougan's book, Secret Agenda. Secret Agenda's thesis is that Watergate was a CIA operation with Hunt and McCord at the helm. It also presents some pretty irrefutable evidence that the standard story of the wiretapping isn't true, which may be why Mr. Baldwin dislikes it so much.

Owen, you're a bright person. You should read McCord's book A Piece of Tape before you get sucked into the "CIA set up poor Dicky" vortex. McCord acknowledges that he resented Nixon's trying to make the CIA take the fall. He knew that Hunt was working on behalf of the White House, and not the CIA. He let the White House try to bribe him...let them hang themselves...before he sprung the trap and told Sirica what was going on. McCord's role in history is incredibly diminished when people ascribe his actions to Helms. He deserves credit for being the whistle-blower that he was. IMO, and evidently Baldwin's, he was nobody's puppet.

From the excerpts Hougan quotes, A Piece of Tape appears to be a somewhat bizarre little book. IMO, Secret Agenda pretty convincingly shows all the falsehoods in the stories of both McCord and Hunt. Hunt's protestations of "retirement" from the CIA are very convincingly debunked. I don't think I'll be capable of taking McCord's writings on his supposed motivation seriously after reading Hougan's carefully documented and argued book. If McCord's role in history is diminished, then it is deservedly so.

Excuse my confusion between Secret Agenda and Silent Coup. Both books take the established facts of Watergate--that Nixon was corrupt and that it eventually caught up with him--and try to pin the blame on someone else, namely Helms and McCord in one book, Dean and Haig in the other (as I remember). The real story of Watergate is incredibly fascinating--a peek behind the curtain--and pretending or convincing ourselves that there is another curtain is silly, IMO. With Deep Throat exposed, the only mystery left as far as I can see is what was meant by the "Bay of Pigs" thing, and why conservatives such as George HW Bush "broke out in assholes and xxxx themselves" after hearing the tape where Nixon used those words.

Secret Agenda doesn't absolve Nixon from blame at all. Nixon gets full credit for the cover-up (which is all he is credited with in the standard story). Hougan accepts Nixon's guilt as established and refers readers to Lukas' Nightmare for the details of the cover-up. He thinks the Watergate break-ins themselves have been overlooked, and sets about remedying the situation. I had originally thought that looking for "another curtain" was silly, but eventually decided to read Secret Agenda and was very impressed by it. Its a surprisingly cautious and careful book; it doesn't even propose a Deep Throat candidate. I get the impression that you haven't read the book, just the summaries.

Owen, you need to understand that writers like Hougan have their own Secret Agenda. To sell a theory of what happened and sell lots of books... I have Secret Agenda, but only skimmed through it. I read a lot more of Silent Coup (The Dean's wife is a whore book that Liddy found so attractive). I didn't find either one very credible. Their operating thesis seems to be that Nixon and his cronies were too smart to bug the Watergate, and too smart to get caught. I just don't see them as all that smart...true believers rarely are. In order to get into the muck, IMO, you need to read the memoirs of those involved...In McCord's book he announces that he is planning on writing a series of books exposing corruption in government. His lawyer was Bernard Fensterwald, one of the leaders of the assassination research community. In other words, McCord had thrown in with the research community. I just don't see him doing that if the whole expose-Nixon op was a plan hatched by the CIA. Would the CIA want their money to go to Fensterwald, who was personally lobbying Congress for a new investigation? Would they let Fensterwald use his involvement in Watergate as a platform to expose his views on the assassination? Besides, by the time McCord's book came out Helms was long gone and had been replaced by Nixon's hatchet man Schlesinger--so who was giving McCord his orders? In McCord's book and testimony he makes it clear that he'd heard from Hunt's wife that Nixon was going to try and pin the break-in on the CIA, and that this disgusted and horrified him. He decided to expose the whole thing right there. I totally understand why he would do this and fail to see what the mystery is. Yeah, it's possible he had a talk with Helms somewhere and that strengthened his decision. But that doesn't make his actions a CIA operation, merely a political act by a former member of the CIA. I suppose it's easy for me to relate to McCord because I was in a similar position once. I was a long-time employee of a company where I witnessed mass embezzlement; I stayed at the company a year or so longer than I enjoyed simply because I wanted to help catch the crooks (Despite the involvement of the FBI and the IRS, no one was arrested.) Something about their behavior offended me to my core. I suspect McCord had the same response to Nixon's behavior. Another book you should skim through, written by a long-time government official who was similarly offended by Nixon's behavior (and who took very damaging notes on his meetings with Nixon's lackeys in order to help nail Nixon and protect the CIA), is Vernon Walter's book, Silent Missions.

People like McCord and Baldwin are the reason why mass conspiracies often collapse. There are people out there who have a low tolerance for what they perceive to be unethical behavior and who will find a way to help the truth come out. I suspect Mark Felt is in this same kind of person. It doesn't make these men saints, just more complicated than the Yes Mr. Helms Yes Mr. Hoover robots so many imagine them to be. I was recently at a National Park taking in the view when a Park Ranger came up to me and started telling me about a scam he was aware of involving the National Park Service. He told me that he would write letters to every newspaper in the country if he wasn't a Federal employee. And he told me this WHILE I WAS FILMING. He clearly wants the truth to come out. While it's always possible McCord got caught on purpose, my instinct tells me that if this was the case, it was by his own doing, and not Helms'.

Ironically, in your belief that the CIA was behind the exposure of Watergate, you have something in common with one or two of the conspirators, including Nixon himself. According to Haldeman, Colson convinced Nixon that the CIA, through Hunt, McCord, and (current Senator from Utah) Bob Bennett, had prchestrated his downfall. Haldeman, to his credit, wouldn't take this plunge...

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Owen, you need to understand that writers like Hougan have their own Secret Agenda. To sell a theory of what happened and sell lots of books... I have Secret Agenda, but only skimmed through it.

Oh, come on. This is the same garbage that gets thrown at JFK assassination researchers and witnesses. Whenever some one disagrees with you, they are out for money. I think this is a bit *inappropriate* since you haven't ever met or talked with Hougan and have only "skimmed" through his book. You are not in a position to pass judgements on his character. Why don't you try seriously reading and engaging with his book and leave out the character assassination? In addition, I find your attitude a bit condescending, like I wouldn't understand that people can have ulterior motives.

I read a lot more of Silent Coup (The Dean's wife is a whore book that Liddy found so attractive). I didn't find either one very credible. Their operating thesis seems to be that Nixon and his cronies were too smart to bug the Watergate, and too smart to get caught. I just don't see them as all that smart...true believers rarely are. In order to get into the muck, IMO, you need to read the memoirs of those involved...In McCord's book he announces that he is planning on writing a series of books exposing corruption in government. His lawyer was Bernard Fensterwald, one of the leaders of the assassination research community. In other words, McCord had thrown in with the research community.

Yes, I know all about Fensterwald and McCord. Hougan's book goes over it (he actually defends Fensterwald from allegations that he was CIA, something McCord perpetuated). I suggest you seriously read Hougan's book before talking about its "credibility" and "operative thesis." In addition, Helms is pretty much a peripheral character in the book. It is the Office of Security that gets most of the credit, if I recall (its been over a month since I finished reading the book and returned it to the library).

I just don't see him doing that if the whole expose-Nixon op was a plan hatched by the CIA. Would the CIA want their money to go to Fensterwald, who was personally lobbying Congress for a new investigation? Would they let Fensterwald use his involvement in Watergate as a platform to expose his views on the assassination?

Please read Hougan's book before building this strawman. Hougan's book does not hold that the ensuing scandal was a CIA "op." He thinks Nixon's bad press was fully deserved. He does not impute ulterior motives to either Woodward or Bernstein. The CIA was involved only to the extent of dissuading speculation about their own involvement. Bob Bennet did drive Woodward off the path of the CIA, as shown in CIA memos reprinted in full in one of Hougan's appendices. Also, Hougan cites numerous investigations by both the FBI and the phone company (one of which was immediately after the break-in), which demonstrate pretty conclusively that the phones of R. Spencer Oliver and Larry O'Brien were never tapped in the first place.

Besides, by the time McCord's book came out Helms was long gone and had been replaced by Nixon's hatchet man Schlesinger--so who was giving McCord his orders? In McCord's book and testimony he makes it clear that he'd heard from Hunt's wife that Nixon was going to try and pin the break-in on the CIA, and that this disgusted and horrified him. He decided to expose the whole thing right there. I totally understand why he would do this and fail to see what the mystery is. Yeah, it's possible he had a talk with Helms somewhere and that strengthened his decision. But that doesn't make his actions a CIA operation, merely a political act by a former member of the CIA.

Secret Agenda depicts McCord acting much more autonomously and in his own self interest than you seem to think it does.

Anyway, I'm going to stop here because I don't have the book with me. I can only really rebut what you think the book is about from memory. Its a better position than your own, but I'm not comfortable with it.

Edited by Owen Parsons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owen, you've convinced me that Secret Agenda is quite different than I remember. I'll have to dig it out and re-read it... Over the years, and even on this Forum, I've come across those who hold that Nixon was set up by the CIA. I was of the mistaken belief that this theory, which originated with Colson, Thompson, and Nixon, was put into book form by Hougan. Obviously, I was wrong. As far as Hougan's credibility, I didn't mean to sound like I was accusing him of anything beyond what all writers do--present their theory in its best possible light. Quite often this means leaving out important details. If you liked Secret Agenda, might I suggest you check out Hougan's book Spooks, (a book I actually read). Merry Christmas.

P.S. In McCord's book, he gets into the details of the actual bugs, and explains that one of the bugs wasn't found for months afterwards. He cites this as but one example of the terrible work performed by the prosecution. Which brings me to another point (which may or may not have any bearing on Secret Agenda)... in McCord's book he goes on and on about the corruption of the Watergate prosecutors. If the CIA was in any way orchestrating his statements I would think they'd have made him focus on Nixon and would have asked him to avoid a fight with the Justice Department, if possible. But that's just speculation...

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Owen, you need to understand that writers like Hougan have their own Secret Agenda. To sell a theory of what happened and sell lots of books... I have Secret Agenda, but only skimmed through it. I read a lot more of Silent Coup (The Dean's wife is a whore book that Liddy found so attractive). I didn't find either one very credible. Their operating thesis seems to be that Nixon and his cronies were too smart to bug the Watergate, and too smart to get caught. I just don't see them as all that smart...true believers rarely are. In order to get into the muck, IMO, you need to read the memoirs of those involved...In McCord's book he announces that he is planning on writing a series of books exposing corruption in government.
During the Watergate burglary, security expert McCord put tape over the lock on the door so that it wouldn't lock. But instead of putting the tape on vertically so that it wouldn't be seen with the door closed, he put it on horizontally, so that the security guard could spot it. As I recall, McCord did this twice: the first time the guard simply removed the tape; the second time the guard decided he better find out what kind of idiot was doing this. So sure enough, the burglars were caught, and the rest is history.

I am a great admirer of Secret Agenda. I have read virtually all the books available on Watergate and believe Jim Hougan gets the closest to explaining what really went on. There is still a lot more to be told. Especially concerning Operation Sandwedge.

As Ron points out, McCord clearly sabotaged the Watergate break-in. Who was he really working for? In my opinion, he was still working for the CIA. Deep Throat was a collection of different sources but was largely CIA (Richard Ober/ Robert F. Bennett).

Pat, I agree with most of what you post, but the two areas you have got wrong concerns the way that the CIA use the media (Watergate/Operation Mockingbird). You have also fallen for the Bob Woodward "Mark Felt" story.

The CIA got rid of Richard Nixon, not the Washington Post. If George Bush is eventually impeached, it will be the CIA and not the New York Times that will be behind his removal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(5) Did you do any work for Operation Gemstone or Operation Sandwedge before the Watergate break-in?

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.

(7) It became your job to eavesdrop the phone calls. I believe that over a 20 day period you listened to over 200 phone calls. Could you explain the sort of information that McCord was looking for.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P.S. In McCord's book, he gets into the details of the actual bugs, and explains that one of the bugs wasn't found for months afterwards. He cites this as but one example of the terrible work performed by the prosecution. Which brings me to another point (which may or may not have any bearing on Secret Agenda)... in McCord's book he goes on and on about the corruption of the Watergate prosecutors. If the CIA was in any way orchestrating his statements I would think they'd have made him focus on Nixon and would have asked him to avoid a fight with the Justice Department, if possible. But that's just speculation...

Read the chapter "The September Bug" for the story McCord won't tell you about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Thread!

Welcome Alfred Baldwin and thanks for the information

so many of us have read the books here and were curious

about your minor, but pivotal and central, role in the Watergate.........

Mr. Baldwin,

"How sexual were the phone conversations? Were they graphic to the point of

call girl or madam conversations, were you listening to a sexual procurement operation?"

Welcome to the Forum

((((((((((((

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Baldwin wrote:

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.

This statement certainly seems consistent with the premise of "Silent Coup".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a bilateral pair of espionage and blackmail operations.

One, a capital city sex entrapment program operated by Philip Mackin Bailey apparently,

(really a cut out for Haig, Paisley and Osborn?)

and one run by Hunt, Liddy and McCord.

One was eminently professional and effective,

the MODINE trick book ring with its political "johns"

and one, "the Watergate Burglary"

a bungling farce featuring Hunt, Barker, Sturgis, Gonzalez and Martinez.

An eternal puzzle, that link between May 1972 and November 1963.........

Best

Edited by Shanet Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are still a few questions outstanding (I have added an extra one):

(1) Welcome, Mr. Baldwin. I guess the first question would be who you felt you were working for. While it seems clear to me that the "burglars" were working for Magruder and Mitchell and that the break-in to the DNC was on behalf of Colson, there's this alternative theory now espoused by Liddy that it was all Dean's doing. Similarly, there are a lot of people who put CIA and CIA together and get CIA, and assume that McCord got caught on purpose to set-up Nixon. I'm skeptical of this one as well. Your views on these issues will be much appreciated. (Pat Speer)

(2) Mr. Baldwin, thanks for coming here to clear up some of these points. It's important that the story be told as straight as can be, so that people can come to informed decisions. I take from your comments on Hougan that you dispute the Liddy theory that Dean was behind it all. If I'm wrong, please let me know. One minor point, however. Did a lawyer ever tell you that your actions were legal? As Liddy's operation was approved when Mitchell was still A.G., on the surface it might appear you were in the clear. But as the break-in itself was never approved by Mitchell, and as the break-ins and phone-tapping were conducted after Mitchell left to run CREEP, it could certainly be disputed. I believe you did the right thing by coming forward, even if it was to protect yourself. I'm wondering if Liddy, or anyone else, ever threatened you. Any comments appreciated. (Pat Speer)

(3) Are you aware of the real reason why the Watergate offices were burgled? (John Simkin)

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. (Alfred Baldwin)

I would be very interested to hear what your opinion is on this matter. (John Simkin)

(4) How sexual were the phone conversations? Were they graphic to the point of call girl or madam conversations, were you listening to a sexual procurement operation?" (Shanet Clark)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John Gillespie

"5) On May 7, 1990, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Frank Sturgis acknowledged: "the reason why we robbed in Watergate was because (Richard) Nixon was interested in stopping the news leaks related to the photos of our role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy." Were you aware of any connection between Watergate and the assassination of JFK?" Simkin

"If you are permitted, is it your (or other parties currently unknown) agenda to drive Mr. Baldwin off of this Forum. Do your "associates" fear that he might make some untoward remarks as to the realities of the "Watergate Affair"?? Hemming

Messrs. Baldwin/Hemming,

Could either of you please comment if you saw or heard anythng to corroborate the Sturgis quote, above? Also, If the reason for the "robbing" at Watergate was, as Sturgis states, because of Nixon's concerns regarding fallout from the Dealey Plaza 'tramp' photos, could one of you - Gary in particular - comment on the judiciousness of the use of any operatives from that group and the likelihood of such assignment(s) if indeed some were photographed among the 'tramps'?

Regards,

John Gillespie

Edited by John Gillespie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are still a few questions outstanding (I have added an extra one):

(1) Welcome, Mr. Baldwin. I guess the first question would be who you felt you were working for. While it seems clear to me that the "burglars" were working for Magruder and Mitchell and that the break-in to the DNC was on behalf of Colson, there's this alternative theory now espoused by Liddy that it was all Dean's doing. Similarly, there are a lot of people who put CIA and CIA together and get CIA, and assume that McCord got caught on purpose to set-up Nixon. I'm skeptical of this one as well. Your views on these issues will be much appreciated. (Pat Speer)

On 12-23-05 Mr. Baldwin sent me a personal message explaining that, even though he was hired by McCord, he was employed by CRP, and that there had been a court case where he'd sought to prove as much. He says he was pleased with the result.

(2) Mr. Baldwin, thanks for coming here to clear up some of these points. It's important that the story be told as straight as can be, so that people can come to informed decisions. I take from your comments on Hougan that you dispute the Liddy theory that Dean was behind it all. If I'm wrong, please let me know. One minor point, however. Did a lawyer ever tell you that your actions were legal? As Liddy's operation was approved when Mitchell was still A.G., on the surface it might appear you were in the clear. But as the break-in itself was never approved by Mitchell, and as the break-ins and phone-tapping were conducted after Mitchell left to run CREEP, it could certainly be disputed. I believe you did the right thing by coming forward, even if it was to protect yourself. I'm wondering if Liddy, or anyone else, ever threatened you. Any comments appreciated. (Pat Speer)

In a subsequent correspondence, Mr. Baldwin told me that he disputed the theory that Dean was behind the break-in. He was of the belief that the break-ins were approved by Attorney General Mitchell. As such he believed his actions were legal. He said he'd never consulted a lawyer on this point because he was himself a lawyer and had even taught U.S. Constitutional law. He acknowledged that this point has been much-debated.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(1) Welcome, Mr. Baldwin. I guess the first question would be who you felt you were working for. While it seems clear to me that the "burglars" were working for Magruder and Mitchell and that the break-in to the DNC was on behalf of Colson, there's this alternative theory now espoused by Liddy that it was all Dean's doing. Similarly, there are a lot of people who put CIA and CIA together and get CIA, and assume that McCord got caught on purpose to set-up Nixon. I'm skeptical of this one as well. Your views on these issues will be much appreciated. (Pat Speer)

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) Mr. Baldwin, thanks for coming here to clear up some of these points. It's important that the story be told as straight as can be, so that people can come to informed decisions. I take from your comments on Hougan that you dispute the Liddy theory that Dean was behind it all. If I'm wrong, please let me know. One minor point, however. Did a lawyer ever tell you that your actions were legal? As Liddy's operation was approved when Mitchell was still A.G., on the surface it might appear you were in the clear. But as the break-in itself was never approved by Mitchell, and as the break-ins and phone-tapping were conducted after Mitchell left to run CREEP, it could certainly be disputed. I believe you did the right thing by coming forward, even if it was to protect yourself. I'm wondering if Liddy, or anyone else, ever threatened you. Any comments appreciated. (Pat Speer)

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) Are you aware of the real reason why the Watergate offices were burgled? (John Simkin)

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. (Alfred Baldwin)

I would be very interested to hear what your opinion is on this matter. (John Simkin)

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) How sexual were the phone conversations? Were they graphic to the point of call girl or madam conversations, were you listening to a sexual procurement operation?" (Shanet Clark)

4. Sorry, based on our current federal statutes I can not discuss the essence of the conversations overheard.

"5) On May 7, 1990, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Frank Sturgis acknowledged: "the reason why we robbed in Watergate was because (Richard) Nixon was interested in stopping the news leaks related to the photos of our role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy." Were you aware of any connection between Watergate and the assassination of JFK?" Simkin

"If you are permitted, is it your (or other parties currently unknown) agenda to drive Mr. Baldwin off of this Forum. Do your "associates" fear that he might make some untoward remarks as to the realities of the "Watergate Affair"?? Hemming

Messrs. Baldwin/Hemming,

Could either of you please comment if you saw or heard anythng to corroborate the Sturgis quote, above? Also, If the reason for the "robbing" at Watergate was, as Sturgis states, because of Nixon's concerns regarding fallout from the Dealey Plaza 'tramp' photos, could one of you - Gary in particular - comment on the judiciousness of the use of any operatives from that group and the likelihood of such assignment(s) if indeed some were photographed among the 'tramps'?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×