Alfred C. Baldwin

[Ashton Gray]

Mr. Baldwin,

I feel you've been given short shrift in one of the most crucial and pivotal incidents related to Watergate, one in which you must have had a key role--since you drove six hours back from Connecticut on a holiday weekend just to participate--and I, for one, think you ought to get the recognition for it you deserve.

Of course you must know I'm talking about the infamous purported "first break-in" at the Watergate building on Memorial Day weekend 1972, and the two purported failed attempts that same weekend.

I've read every single account of that fateful weekend by every one of the other co-conspirators, and I'm sad to report that in their accounts you are the Invisible Man. You're like a non-person. You aren't in even a single one of those legendary accounts by name. It's a stunning omission. The few times that, e.g., Hunt or Liddy mention you at all in relation to that weekend, it's just as "McCord's monitor" and similar dehumanizing, impersonal, dismissive references. (Of course Hunt and Liddy both claim they never met you at all until after that weekend, while you testified that you met both of them that Friday, 26 May 1972, but that gets so complicated it's another message entirely.)

Then when you were testifying before the Senate Watergate committee, even Senator Lowell Weicker, in his questioning, seemed intent on leaving you entirely out of the picture regarding the "first break-in" and the failed attempts on that Memorial Day weekend. He did ask you about a trip to McGovern headquarters in the early morning hours on Friday night, 26-27 May 1972. But he seemed to go out of his way to entirely avoid any mention of or question about the purported break-in attempts and the purported successful break-in at the Watergate that weekend. He skipped entirely over anything having to do with the Watergate offices that weekend and went right to the first week of June in his questioning.

I can't tell you how long the realization of his seemingly purposeful avoidance of that crucial part of your role in Watergate made me sit with my forehead in my hands trying to make sense of it. Maybe I could almost wrap my wits around some justification for the other co-conspirators being coy about your whereabouts and activities that crucial weekend. But Weicker? He was supposed to be investigating Watergate!

It's extremely strange. I find it unkind and unfair. After all, as you testified, you had driven on that ponderously important Friday, 26 May 1972, all the way from your home in Connecticut to D.C., on McCord's orders, to be involved in something (that you say you knew nothing about), so your presence must have been of considerable importance:

• SENATOR WEICKER: Now, Mr. Baldwin, to keep on giving the continuity here--you interrupt me or state if I'm incorrect--that you returned to Connecticut on May the 23rd and came back to Washington on May the 26th. Is that correct?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: That's correct; Friday.
  SENATOR WEICKER: And you returned to room 419 at the Howard Johnson's on May 26th. Now, when you entered room 419 on May the 26th, what did you see?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: When I entered the room, there was numerous items of electronic equipment in the room. When I entered the room it was approximately 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon--I believe about that hour. Mr. McCord was operating one of the receiver units. At that time I didn't know what it was, he explained it.
  SENATOR WEICKER: ...And as you entered the room, Mr. McCord was in the process of what--experimenting with this equipment? What did he indicate to you at the time that you entered the room?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: He was tuning the equipment. The unit was operating and he was working the tuning dials. There's several tuning dials on the piece of equipment--
  SENATOR WEICKER: Did you have any questions of him as to exactly what was going on at that time?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: No. I'd just driven approximately six hours, and he said, "As soon as you get unpacked and relaxed I'll explain this," and I said, "All right. I'll take a shower and shave and join you."
  

So there you were, after a long drive, with no idea why you had been summoned back to D.C. except that McCord had told you that you "would have to work that weekend"--and there was a bunch of strange equipment in the room.

And that night--Friday, 26 May 1972--there was the infamous Ameritas dinner failed attempt at breaking into the Watergate, and nobody has ever said a syllable about where you were and what you were doing that night. (I mean other than the McGovern headquarters event you say took place at 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. that night, but that wasn't related to the Watergate).

And the next night--Saturday, 27 May 1972--there purportedly was a second failed attempt at breaking into the Watergate, but not a single soul involved in it ever has mentioned a word saying what your part was, if any.

And the night after that--Sunday, 28 May 1972--was the event that changed the world as we know it forever: the purported "first break-in" at the Watergate. And after all the trouble you had gone to so you could be there in D.C. for such a momentous historical event, there isn't a single thing anywhere in the record even to suggest what your role was, or why you were in D.C. at all. (Assuming, of course--arguendo--that you actually were in D.C. that weekend.) There just are vague references to some anonymous, unnamed "monitor" somewhere, with no explanation of what this "monitor" was monitoring, or why.

It would be such a relief to have this giant vacuum filled in, and you are in such a unique position to do so here, with an audience that I'm sure is every bit as interested as I in where you were and what you were doing at relevant times that historic Memorial Day weekend in 1972.

What were you doing all that time?

Ashton Gray

[Alfred C. Baldwin]

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.

[Dawn Meredith]

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.

xxxx, what a letdown. Can you tell us what LA newspapers, at least.

Or even if it's not precisely what you may have said in 72, it surely would be nice to

have some of the above questions answered, on this the 34th anniversary of such a momentous

event that it brought down a president. (Totally deserving I thought, but I too noticed how often the

Watergate questioners stopped short, just when it seemed to be getting very exciting. It was obvious

that the investigation was just one more layer to the cover-up).

Dawn

[Ashton Gray]

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.

Okay, Mr. Baldwin. I understand, and thank you. I realize that I went to some specific details that you don't feel qualified to answer based on your recollection of those events 30+ years ago.

So I'm going to bypass all those troublesome details entirely. I'm just going to ask you very frankly a few very simple, direct, unambiguous questions based on my understanding of information I've been supplied with, and that I've encapsulated in the article in this forum, There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate (and its foundational articles). And my questions are simply these:

1) Were you actually in Washington, D.C. throughout the Memorial Day weekend—26, 27, and 28 May 1972—engaged in two failed attempts at breaking into the Watergate building, and in one successful "break-in," as has been claimed in testimony and accounts by you and by your co-conspirators, or were you at any relevant time during that holiday weekend outside of Washington, D.C. on a clandestine mission with some number of the other co-conspirators?

2) Did you actually spend the first two weeks of June 1972 monitoring and making electric-typewriter records of conversations intercepted by "bugs" planted in the Wategate, as has been claimed in testimony by you and by your co-conspirators, or is it in fact true that there were no "bugs" at all planted by McCord, that the electronic equipment was all part of a giant hoax, and that you made no logs at all—which instead were dictated as whole cloth fiction by G. Gordon Liddy to his secretary, Sally Harmony?

These are simple questions, Mr. Baldwin. They require no address to 302s or newspaper articles, all of which are crafted to reflect and support the story of a "first break-in." There's no possibility, Mr. Baldwin, that you don't recall whether you were involved in the purported "first break-in" and its purported failed attempts or not, or that you can't recall whether you actually typed "almost verbatim" transcripts of intercepted oral conversations, as you described in great detail to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities.

Either you were there and you participated as you testified to the U.S. Attorneys and to congress, or you weren't. You made "logs" of electronic bugs and gave them to McCord to pass on to Liddy, or you didn't.

I'm genuinely, deeply sorry to have to be asking these questions at all, but the preponderance of evidence that now has been supplied to me (and quite a few others), as I've laid out in the articles I've linked to for your easy reference, suggests very strongly, to me, that the extremely contradictory testimony on record is false on its face, and that there was no "first break-in" on Memorial Day weekend or any "bugs" planted in the DNC at all.

Whatever the superficial appearance might be, whatever my tone might have seemed in asking any questions, I take no personal joy at all in asking them, and I don't ask them with any personal animosity toward you. I do not ask them to be either accusatory or gratuitously adversarial. I don't ask them to play "gotcha" as another member of this forum has suggested in another thread. I ask them in all sincerety and good faith because I simply cannot reconcile the facts as I now know them to be with your own prior claims, and I am in all earnestness asking you to clear a clouded record.

I don't know if you will elect to answer responsively, Mr. Baldwin. I genuinely, and with no malice toward you, hope that you will. Not to satisfy me, personally; I have no importance in this. I hope you'll answer simply to clear and confirm the record. These are very, very troubling issues. And while you owe no answer to me, it's my best information and belief that these same ponderous questions now are going to be repeated until they are answered with finality, and not just in a pat-a-cake public forum.

I appreciate your patience with me, and, no matter what, I wish you Godspeed, but I don't have any questions for you beyond the two above.

Ashton Gray

Edited June 18, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Alfred C. Baldwin]

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.

[Pat Speer]

Mr. Baldwin, as long as we're in a setting-the-record-straight mode, might I ask you a few questions about Robert Jackson? Jackson was, I believe, the Los Angeles Times reporter to whom you and McCord first talked. Amazingly, for those of us who search for coincidences involving Watergate and the Kennedy assassination, the one reporter who saw a rifle in the sniper's nest during the shooting, and who was quoted on this issue in Kennedy's autopsy report, was also a Robert Jackson. Even more amazingly, this Robert Jackson just so happened to have been in the exact right place at the exact right time to capture the famous image of Ruby shooting Oswald two days later. A conspiracy-minded person might think there was a connection, that Jackson was saying what he was supposed to say regarding the sniper's nest, and was told where to stand for the Ruby image, and was given access to McCord and yourself through his CIA connections. While I believe this is nonsense, I am nevertheless curious about how you came to talk to Robert Jackson, and whether this was the same Robert Jackson. Your recollections of Jackson appreciated.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...e-sources_x.htm

[Dawn Meredith]

MOST coincidental I would say. And for those of us who don't believe in "coincidence" in this case only "meaningful coincidence", I think you've just asked same damn good questions, Pat.

Dawn

[Pat Speer]

MOST coincidental I would say. And for those of us who don't believe in "coincidence" in this case only "meaningful coincidence", I think you've just asked same damn good questions, Pat.

Dawn

Dawn, I was pretty sure they were not the same Robert Jackson, but I kept thinking I'd read somewhere that they were. When I tried to look it up online, I found an interview with the Watergate Jackson from 2005, when he was 70. I also found an interview with the Dallas Jackson from 2004. This article said he was 69. This got me thinking again that they were the same guy. As I said, even if it is the same guy, I doubt he was anything but a good journalist. He reported the last two shots in Dallas as coming right after each other. A knowing or willing part of a conspiracy would have said the shots were evenly paced, thus making it sound more like the handi-work of a bolt-action rifle.

[Alfred C. Baldwin]

Mr. Baldwin, as long as we're in a setting-the-record-straight mode, might I ask you a few questions about Robert Jackson? Jackson was, I believe, the Los Angeles Times reporter to whom you and McCord first talked. Amazingly, for those of us who search for coincidences involving Watergate and the Kennedy assassination, the one reporter who saw a rifle in the sniper's nest during the shooting, and who was quoted on this issue in Kennedy's autopsy report, was also a Robert Jackson. Even more amazingly, this Robert Jackson just so happened to have been in the exact right place at the exact right time to capture the famous image of Ruby shooting Oswald two days later. A conspiracy-minded person might think there was a connection, that Jackson was saying what he was supposed to say regarding the sniper's nest, and was told where to stand for the Ruby image, and was given access to McCord and yourself through his CIA connections. While I believe this is nonsense, I am nevertheless curious about how you came to talk to Robert Jackson, and whether this was the same Robert Jackson. Your recollections of Jackson appreciated.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...e-sources_x.htm

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

[Pat Speer]

Mr. Baldwin, as long as we're in a setting-the-record-straight mode, might I ask you a few questions about Robert Jackson? Jackson was, I believe, the Los Angeles Times reporter to whom you and McCord first talked. Amazingly, for those of us who search for coincidences involving Watergate and the Kennedy assassination, the one reporter who saw a rifle in the sniper's nest during the shooting, and who was quoted on this issue in Kennedy's autopsy report, was also a Robert Jackson. Even more amazingly, this Robert Jackson just so happened to have been in the exact right place at the exact right time to capture the famous image of Ruby shooting Oswald two days later. A conspiracy-minded person might think there was a connection, that Jackson was saying what he was supposed to say regarding the sniper's nest, and was told where to stand for the Ruby image, and was given access to McCord and yourself through his CIA connections. While I believe this is nonsense, I am nevertheless curious about how you came to talk to Robert Jackson, and whether this was the same Robert Jackson. Your recollections of Jackson appreciated.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...e-sources_x.htm

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

Thanks. I knew that Jackson broke a lot of the McCord-related stories and incorrectly assumed he broke your story as well. How did your story get out, if you don't mind my asking?

[John Simkin]

Thanks. I knew that Jackson broke a lot of the McCord-related stories and incorrectly assumed he broke your story as well. How did your story get out, if you don't mind my asking?

I believe Alfred Baldwin told his story to a lawyer to a friend and classmate at law school, Robert Mirto. This information was eventually passed to John Cassidento. He did not tell the authorities but did pass this information onto Larry O’Brien. The Democrats now knew that people like E.Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy were involved in the Watergate break-in.

As Edward Jay Epstein has pointed out: "By checking through the records of phone calls made from this listening post, the FBI easily located Alfred Baldwin, a former FBI agent, who had kept logs of wiretaps for the conspirators and acted as a look-out." On 25th June, Baldwin agreed to cooperate in order to avoid the grand-jury looking into the case.

Robert Mirto and John Cassidento also arranged for Baldwin to talk to the press. He was interviewed by Jack Nelson and the article was published in the Los Angeles Times on 4th October, 1972.

[Ashton Gray]

On 25th June, Baldwin agreed to cooperate in order to avoid the grand-jury looking into the case.

That's exactly right, John: just a week after the men were "caught" inside the Watergate, Baldwin was cooperating with the U.S. Attorneys to "avoid the grand jury," and—as I'm going to explore more thoroughly in a response here soon (I'm really strapped for time at the moment)—Baldwin volunteered the electronics equipment he had planted at McCord's house (on script), then spoon-fed the U.S. Attorneys the story of the purported "first break-in," which of course made it into the indictments. And the stage play was off and running.

Ashton Gray

[Pat Speer]

Robert Mirto and John Cassidento also arranged for Baldwin to talk to the press. He was interviewed by Jack Nelson and the article was published in the Los Angeles Times on 4th October, 1972.

Ahh...Jack Nelson, the L.A. Times' long-time Washington bureau chief. He knew a thing or two.

[Ashton Gray]

Hello again, Mr. Baldwin.

Thanks for your replies to my two questions. I said I wouldn't have any more questions for you, and I'm going to honor that.

So you've made your record. Now I'll make mine.

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)

All right. That's your record. I didn't have any expectation that your answer, should one come at all, would deviate in any way from the The Official Story that's been being told for 30 years. I'm not obligated to accept it at face value, though, and I don't. I'm about to chronicle at least some of the reasons why.

If at any time I had lied I would have faced serious legal, professional, and personal consquences.

Well, somebody among your group of co-conspirators lied, Mr. Baldwin. That's inarguable. Your stories about your whereabouts and activities that Memorial Day weekend not only don't line up with those of your co-conspirators, they can't possibly be made to line up. So somebody among you lied. When I finish making my record here in response, maybe you'll care to say which of your co-conspirators lied—if you didn't lie, as you assert—and maybe you won't care to. That will be your choice. But there's one thing you won't say, and I'll give you an iron-clad money-back guarantee on this: you won't say that none of you lied.

As for any possible "legal, professional, and personal consequences" you might (or might not) have faced for lying during an "investigation" that was completely railroaded from the start, I'm of the opinion that you might have faced far more "serious legal, professional, and personal consequences" regarding your whereabouts and activities over that weekend if you hadn't lied.

But that's my opinion. The following are facts:

1) You testified under oath in congress that on the afternoon of Friday, May 26 1972, you arrived at room 419 of the Howard Johnson's motel, after a six-hour drive from Connecticut, and that you there found James McCord tinkering with a piece of electronics equipment that you had no familiarization with or prior knowledge of. You go on to say that on that same afternoon two men came to room 419 and you were introduced to them, and they to you, by first name. Here are the relevant excerpts from your testimony:

• SENATOR WEICKER: And as you entered the room, Mr. McCord was in the process of what—experimenting with this equipment? What did he indicate to you at the time that you entered the room?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: He was tuning the equipment. The unit was operating and he was working the tuning dials. There's several tuning dials on the piece of equipment— ...I'd just driven approximately six hours, and he said, "As soon as you get unpacked and relaxed I'll explain this," and I said, "All right. I'll take a shower and shave and join you."
  SENATOR WEICKER: Now, Mr. Baldwin, is there a sequence of events leading up to a visit by other persons to the room that afternoon.
  ALFRED BALDWIN: Well, I was told that some other individuals would be coming to the room that were part, uh, part of the security force, and that in view of their position, they would be introduced under aliases to me. And that I would also be introduced— And Mr. McCord said, "Don't take this personal; it's no reflection on you, but because of the nature of work we're involved in, I'm going to use an alias for you, and I'll use an alias for them. ...Two individuals came to the room, and when they entered the room, Mr. McCord turned to me, and at this point he introduced— He said, "Al, I'd like you to meet—" And I believe he said, uh, "Ed and—" And he got all confused, because he hadn't used the alias... . And he was introducing them— I don't know if he said at that point "Ed and Gordon" or how he did it, but he had to retrack. And then he tried to introduce me under my alias, and he couldn't remember it, and then he just introduced us under first names.
  SENATOR WEICKER: Right. Now, subsequently, have you identified who those two men were that came into the room?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: That's correct. In the FBI photographic display they were identified as Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt.
  

That's your testimony under oath, Mr. Baldwin: that you were introduced by McCord to both Liddy and Hunt at the same time, in room 419, on the afternoon of Friday, May 26, 1972—the same day as the "Ameritas Dinner." (Make a mental note, if you would, that you claim in your testimony that there only was one "unit" that had "several tuning dials." We'll revisit that.) For now, back to you, Liddy, and Hunt:

2) In your sworn testimony, you go on to claim that on the same night, May 26-27 1972, at "around 1:00 or 2:00" in the morning, you rode with McCord to McGovern headquarters, and there met up with G. Gordon Liddy. Of course, this could only be after the "Ameritas Dinner" fiasco the same night, which Weicker avoided like the plague, but here is your relevant testimony:

• SENATOR WEICKER: Now that same evening, the same evening of May the 26th, was there a trip to McGovern headquarters?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: That's correct. There was.
  SENATOR WEICKER: Would you describe to the committee that trip, and the evening's activities at McGovern's headquarters.
  ALFRED BALDWIN: Well, the purpose of my returning from Connecticut was to work that weekend. Mr. McCord advised me that there be, uh— That we would have to work that weekend. I didn't know we were going to McGovern headquarters until we arrived at the scene. ...And then we proceeded to McGovern headquarters and as we drove by the headquarters, he pointed to a building, and he said, "This is what we're interested in. We've got to meet some other people here." And then he proceeded to explain that, uh, "We have to find our individual. One of our men is here. He'll be in a yellow Volkswagon. Keep your eyes open for the Volkswagon—for the man sitting in it." I think he even mentioned "boy;" I don't think he said "man." "There's a boy in the Volkswagon." He said, "We have one of our— One of our people is inside the headquarters." The problem was there was an individual standing outside of McGovern's headquarters, which was a second-story headquarters above, I believe, they were stores. There was a chain across them. And this individual was there. This was late in the evening, approximately 1:00 or 2:00 o'clock in the early morning hours, and Mr. McCord was quite upset at the fact this individual was standing in front of the store. He had no business being there according to Mr. McCord. Or he shouldn't have been there.
  SENATOR WEICKER: Did you meet any other individuals at that particular— at that particular address?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: That's correct. Mr. McCord had been in communication over a walkie-talkie unit with some other individuals. And at one point as we proceeded on the same street that the McGovern headquarters is located on, we stopped adjacent to a light-colored car. An individual alighted from the car and came into the front seat of Mr. McCord's car. I slid over so I was between Mr. McCord and this individual.
  SENATOR WEICKER: Can you tell me who that individual was?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: It was Mr. Liddy. ...We— They drove around. Mr. McCord and Mr. Liddy did all the talking, and they drove around—I don't know the exact length of time, but it was over a half hour. As a matter of fact, we drove up the alleyway adjacent to the building. They discussed a problem of lights. There was a discussion of whether or not their man was still inside. There were several discussions, and finally Mr. Liddy said, "We'll abort the mission." That was his terms.
  

So here your testimony, Mr. Baldwin, is that on the night of May 26, 1972—actually in the first few morning hours of May 27, 1972—you rode around in a car with James McCord and G. Gordon Liddy on a reconnaisance of McGovern headquarters for "over a half hour." We'll come right back to it, but for now, here is point number 3 of my record, which is Count 10. from the grand jury indictment, describing the same event at McGovern headquarters that night of May 26-27:

3. From the grand jury indictment: "On or about May 27, 1972, within the District of Columbia, the defendants Liddy, Hunt, and McCord inspected, surveyed, and reconnoitered the headquarters of Senator George McGovern at 410 First Street, S.E."

Uh-oh, Mr. Baldwin. This is: "Houston, we have a problem." Already. The problem is E. Howard Hunt. You don't mention Hunt being there at McGovern headquarters in your congressional testimony, do you? That's a rhetorical question; no answer required. You don't. And it's a good thing you don't. Hunt, Gonzalez, and Liddy all claim that Hunt and Gonzalez were locked in the Continental room of the Watergate at that very moment, where they purportedly spent the night, with Hunt relieving himself into a Scotch bottle that he then replaced with the liquor stores.

And if you don't mind my saying so, it appears to me that you're the one stuck with this problem, since you, Mr. Baldwin, were the one who was "cooperating" with the U.S. Attorneys at the time, spoon-feeding them the script of what purportedly happened that Memorial Day weekend, including this "McGovern headquarters" teleplay. This, of course, is why you aren't in the same scene in their version: you were the one ratting out the others, and the U.S. attorneys had to keep you out of the grand jury in return. But it seems that you royally screwed up the script when you were telling the McGovern headquarters story to the U.S. Attorneys, and accidentally put Hunt there that night, when according to the script, he was supposed to be locked in the Continental room.

Uh-oh. Of course this screw-up also explains why, by the time you got in front of the Senate Committe, you planted into your testimony to that august body a mysterious, anonymous "individual" standing out front, and a mysterious, anonymous "one of our people" supposedly inside the building, and explains why your hired ventriloquist, Lowell Weicker, carefully avoided asking any questions about the identities of these shadowy anonymous people you littered the landscape with, sowing confusion.

So you screwed up your story to the U.S. Attorneys, and you put Hunt in a scene he hadn't been written into, so you then had to write him out again in the televised congressional testimony, and Weicker helped you create the confusion with the anonymous straw men, the "extras" that you planted, standing around in the scenery. Isn't that true, Mr. Baldwin? Rhetorical question again. I actually don't give a damn at this point what you have to say about any of it: you made your record; now I'm making mine. And I'm not even finished with my warm-up pitches yet. Back to the curious case of how you say you met Hunt and Liddy, because now here are their stories about it:

4. G. Gordon Liddy said both in his autobiography, and in sworn deposition, that he never met you at all until Wednesday, May 31, 1972, and not in room 419 at the Howard Johnson's, nor at McGovern headquarters, but in room 723 at the Howard Johnson's, where he claims he had gone to discuss with McCord the problems with the purported "bugs" (that didn't exist). Here are Liddy's two accounts of your meeting, first from his autobiography:

• "The observation post was dark. Inside was a man whom I could hardly see, and McCord introduced us monosyllabically, using aliases. As the man returned to his watching of the DNC offices across the street, McCord showed me an elaborate receiver with an oscilloscope and band-spreader." —G. Gordon Liddy, Will
  

And here he is in sworn deposition:

• "The listening post was across Virginia Avenue Southwest, in a room in the Howard Johnson's motel. ...Mr. McCord brought me there to see the setup, so to speak. It was after dark. ...And I was sort of monosyllabically introduced to a man who turned out to be Mr. Baldwin, who was seated there and was observing. There was a camera mounted on a tripod with a telephoto lens. It was pointed in the direction that Mr. Baldwin was observing. There was a typewriter. There were the— was a receiver. And I didn't stay there very long. It was dark."—G. Gordon Liddy, Dean v. St. Martin's et al., USDC DC No. 92-1807
  

I don't know about you, Mr. Baldwin, but after reading your testimony, and then reading this, it just makes me cringe with embarrassment. I actually turn red. These are such amateurish lies, that if my brother and I had ever told any two such conflicting stories to my Daddy, he wouldn't have asked another single question: we both would have just been strapped till we couldn't sit down, and that would have been the end of it. And if you're cringing in embarrassment, too—I mean, assuming you're capable of it—unfortunately, I'm still not done. (Do, though, make a mental note of Liddy's false start of "There were the— was a receiver." We're going to come back to it.)

5. E. Howard Hunt claims he never laid eyes on you at all in his entire life until after the 2:30 a.m. arrests on the morning of Saturday, June 17, 1972—just before he trotted over to Doug Caddy's apartment and we have the "Mrs. Barker's phone call" fairy tale, about which Mr. Caddy still hasn't answered—and below is E. Howard Hunt's breathless account of how he claims he met you for the first and only time in the whole affair. Get out your popcorn—it starts with Hunt and Liddy parting company at Liddy's jeep while the arrests are going on, Liddy having the first lines from the play:

• "'Good night, Howard. I'll be in touch tomorrow.' We shook hands and he walked toward his green jeep. I made a U-turn and parked two blocks from the motel. Within pistol range of the police, I reflected.
  "From the motel lobby I took the elevator to the seventh floor and knocked on the L/P [Listening Post] door. It opened a crack and I saw a man with a crew cut indistinctly against the dark background. 'Are you—?' he asked, but I handed him the W/T [Walkie Talkie] and went inside, locking the door behind me. Offering me binoculars, he said, 'Hey, take a look; the cops are leading them out.'
  "'Listen,' I said, 'it's all over. Pack up and get going.'
  "He looked around with uncertainty. 'Lotta heavy gear here. What do I do with it?'
  "'Load the goddamn van and shove off.'
  "'Where should I go—McCord's house?'
  "I stared at him incredulously. 'That's the last place to go. I don't care if you drive the van into the river; just get the stuff out of here. Understood?' Turning, I strode toward the door.
  "Plaintively he called, 'What's going to happen?'
  'I don't know—but you'll be contacted.'"
  —E. Howard Hunt, Undercover
  

Oh, somebody please cue a dramatic diminished chord on a goddamned full-stops pipe organ while I try to get my flesh to stop crawling—not from suspense, but from "just how corny can fiction get" syndrome. Would they even put this on a Saturday morning cartoon show? I'm practically under the table from embarrassment. And, "plaintively," Mr. Baldwin? Seems like Hunt could have treated you better than that.

But of course you did the natural thing right after that, didn't you: you drove the equipment straight to McCord's house. I mean, where else would a former FBI agent go to ditch incriminating evidence than to the home of the chief of security for the Committee to Re-elect the President? (That's another rhetorical question, Alfred. At ease.)

So, referring you back to your testimony about when and under what circumstances you met Liddy and Hunt, and comparing your 100% honest-and-true testimony (your claim) to their melodramatic legends, I come again—as I did with Mr. Caddy and his "Mrs. Barker phone call" claims to the Washington Post— to only three possibilities that I can see:

1. Hunt and Liddy both lied.

2. You lied.

3. All three of you lied.

If your own accounts are as pure and uncontestable as you claim, then you've just branded both Hunt and Liddy as amoral lying scum who will say anything at all, even under oath, that suits them, without regard for truth or falsity. I'm comfortable with that. You've impeached them completely. I don't know how "Mr. Truth, Justice, and the American Flag Behind Me," G. Gordon Liddy, is going to take it, but I find it quite entertaining.

And, apparently, you were able to lie down with just such mangy, pathologically lying scum, and get up 100% flea-free. That's quite an accomplishment, Mr. Baldwin. I salute you. I've never encountered that in my life before. In fact, my Daddy—the one with the strap—use to say, "If you lie down with dogs, you've already got fleas." Either he couldn't get the old saws right, or maybe he knew something worth knowing.

I'll get to your second answer in my next message. I think this is enough to chew on for now, don't you? Rhetorical question.

Oh! Before I go, I think I mentioned something above about the single electronic receiving unit you described as having been in room 419 on May 26, 1972, with "several tuning dials," and Liddy's faltering over being about to say there were several units (plural) in room 723 when he claims he came up and met you for the first time on Wednesday, May 31, 1972 (but you've already branded Liddy as a xxxx), which Liddy hastily corrected to saying "unit" (singular).

Well, I mentioned it, Mr. Baldwin, because you said something very curious in your congressional testimony. Here's the exchange with your ventriloquist, Lowell Weicker:

• SENATOR WEICKER: Now, Mr. Baldwin, what was your primary job, then, during the first two weeks of June? We've now moved from the end of May to June—what was your primary job during that period of time?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: I was instructed to monitor all telephone conversations that were being received over these units that were in the Howard Johnson room, and to make a log of all units.
  

"Units?" Plural? Did you say, "units," Mr. Baldwin? How did we suddenly get "unit proliferation"? Do you mean to tell us that while typing 200 phone conversations "almost verbatim"—that superhuman feat you claimed you accomplished—you also were having to monitor several different receiving units? Really? Wow! Were you switching headphones back and forth, or just plugging one set of headphones back and forth into different units between bursts of amazing typing? And, what were these various units receiving, since supposedly only one "bug" was working? Isn't that why your friends went "back in?" Or was it because of the photos that never existed? I get confused.

That's a whole paragraph of rhetorical questions above, Mr. Baldwin. Don't think for a moment that there's even a response possible. There isn't one that would matter. And I'm about to make my further record concerning your second answer to me, with lots more about that "Ripley's Believe or Not" typing feat you accomplished. Or say you did.

Stay "tuned" for part two. Don't touch that dial!

Ashton Gray

Edited June 19, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[John Simkin]

On 25th June, Baldwin agreed to cooperate in order to avoid the grand-jury looking into the case.

That's exactly right, John: just a week after the men were "caught" inside the Watergate, Baldwin was cooperating with the U.S. Attorneys to "avoid the grand jury," and—as I'm going to explore more thoroughly in a response here soon (I'm really strapped for time at the moment)—Baldwin volunteered the electronics equipment he had planted at McCord's house (on script), then spoon-fed the U.S. Attorneys the story of the purported "first break-in," which of course made it into the indictments. And the stage play was off and running.

Ashton Gray

Alfred Baldwin's cooperating with the FBI also proves that Bob Woodward is lying about the identity of Deep Throat. Jim Hougan (Secret Agenda) argues that Deep Throat was unlikely to have been a member of the FBI. He points out that Deep Throat did not tell Woodward about the role played by Alfred Baldwin in the Watergate break-in. This was first revealed by a press conference held by the Democratic Party in September. In fact, in All the President's Men, Woodward and Bernstein show little interest in the activities of Baldwin.

Hougan suggests that the only reason Deep Throat did not pass this important information to Woodward was that he did not know about it. If that is the case Deep Throat was not from the FBI (L. Patrick Gray or Mark Felt). Nor could he have been one of Nixon's aides who all knew about Baldwin's key role in the break-in (John Dean, H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, John N. Mitchell, Jeb Magruder, Egil Krogh and Frederick LaRue).

Woodward had to be getting information from someone senior in the CIA. I suspect the whole thing was being organized by Richard Helms. He got help for this from Cord Meyer and Richard Ober. It was the CIA who got rid of Richard Nixon. That is why Watergate was a successful "limited hangout". Nixon accepted the deal because he wanted to keep details of his serious crimes from the American public. I suspect these are the crimes hinted at by Ashton Gray.