Alfred C. Baldwin

[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

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.

Pat:

It's probably a very common name. Sometimes- even in this little conspiracy world- there are co-incidences.

DAwn

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.

But it sure does sound LIKE the same guy: age is right. What are the odds??

DM

I posted a comment further up too, and tried to do the color thing but it won't work, except on the second part of your post. (SO I was tempted to re-do mine in caps).

[Ashton Gray]

Greetings, Mr. Baldwin.

Here is my Part Two (of three parts) in response to your last message to me. I suggest anyone arriving late should read my earlier Part One (my last previous post in this thread).

Moving on to your second answer to me:

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...

Since I can, I'm going to take the liberty of stopping you right there, Mr. Baldwin.

First, there has never been in evidence a single scrap of paper reflecting your own personal creation of any such "logs" or records of any kind, and in the entire population of the world, there have only ever been two people—no more—who could corroborate the verbal claims you just made.

Those two people are James McCord (who you refer to as "Jim" above), and G. Gordon Liddy.

Unfortunately, by your protestations that you've always and only told the truth in these matters, you have already branded Mr. Liddy as a xxxx—which I proved in Part One of this three-part series—and so you, yourself, have impeached one of only two possible corroborating witnesses on this point. Liddy is scratched. (Which is just as well, since his testimony on this conflicts with yours, as it did in Part One.)

That leaves you and James McCord, alone in the world, as witnesses to your ever having made even a single such "log" at all. That calls for comparison of your testimony and his, so let's roll up our sleeves and dive in.

First, here is James McCord's sworn testimony on your "monitoring" of purported "bugs," and of the "logs" you claim to have made and given to James McCord to pass on to Liddy. McCord is being questioned by Chief Counsel Sam Dash, and has just been asked what your assignment was:

• JAMES MCCORD: His assignment was to listen on a radio receiver that received the transmissions from the Democratic National Committee telephones, in which the electronic devices had been installed in connection with...Memorial Day weekend... .
  MR. DASH: ...In his monitoring how was he recording what he was hearing?
  JAMES MCCORD: He was listening with headphones to the conversations that were being transmitted and would take down the substance of the conversations, the time, the date, on the yellow legal-sized scratch pad, and then ultimately would type them up—a summary of them by time, chronological summary—and turn that typed log in to me and I would deliver them to Mr. Liddy.
  MR. DASH: ...Could you briefly describe, without going into any of the contents, what a log would be, what actually would be entered on the log... ?
  JAMES MCCORD: It would be similar to any other telephone conversation that one person might make to another beginning with a statement on his log of the time of the call; who was calling who; a summary of what was said during the conversation itself, including names of persons who were mentioned that Mr. Baldwin apparently believed were of sufficient significance to set forth in the log.
  —Testimony of James McCord, 18 May 1973, before the Senate Select Committee on Presidental Campaign Activities (Watergate Committee)
  

So McCord, under oath, describes what he claims you, Mr. Baldwin, delivered to him as being summaries of bugged conversations. He claims that you, while listening through headphones to a (singular) radio receiver, regularly would write down, on a yellow pad, summaries of these conversations you supposedly were monitoring, which you "ultimately" would type up for him, with notations of time and names. Now, since you both were "confessing" to the same thing, is that what you also said under oath to the Senate Watergate Committee? Let's take a look:

• SENATOR WEICKER: Now, Mr. Baldwin, what was your primary job, then, during the first two weeks of June?
  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.
  SENATOR ERVIN: The information you got—while you were at the Howard Johnson—from the Democratic headquarters, what form was it in when you gave it to Mr. McCord?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: The initial day, the first day that I recorded the conversations was on a yellow sheet. On Memorial Day, I believe it is Memorial Day, on the holiday of Monday, I believe it was, 29th, when he returned to the room he brought an electric typewriter. He instructed me in the upper left-hand corner to print—by typewriter—the unit, the date, the page, and then proceed down into the body and in chronological order put the time and then the contents of the conversation.
  SENATOR ERVIN: ...And you typed a summary of the conversations you overheard?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: Well, they weren't exactly a summary. I would say almost verbatim, Senator.
  SENATOR ERVIN: Almost verbatim... .
  ALFRED BALDWIN: Well, that is correct.
  

Well... Mr. Baldwin... I hardly know where to begin. The testimony given by you and McCord on these purported "logs" that you and he claim you were creating is made up of nothing but inconsistencies, bow to stern. But I have to start somewhere, so:

1) The two of you still can't even get your stories straight on number of electronic "units!" Can't you even count on your fingers? How many "units" can their be? There's only one. Then there's more than one. Then there's only one again. You say you were supposed to monitor "these units." That's plural, Mr. Baldwin. Then McCord says you were to listen "on a radio receiver." That's singular, Mr. Baldwin. Yet elsewhere in your testimony, regarding your arrival in D.C. on the 26th, you testified that McCord had been "operating one of the receiver units." That's plural, Mr. Baldwin. If we're foolish enough to turn to Liddy— who you've impeached—for help, he says there was only ONE receiving unit. He says in sworn deposition already cited:

• "[W]e had a receiver that cost, in 1972 money, $8,000. It was so sophisticated that it had a cathode ray to a CRT, so that you could even find the signal, because the signal was very weak and very--very finely tuned. And after you found the signal through the oscilloscope, you then used a band spreader to make the thing audible, legible. And then it was from that that they gathered whatever it is that was being fed to it by the room monitoring device and/or the telephone bug."
  

So now we're back to one receiving unit, Mr. Baldwin. But then you tell the committee that on the logs, you were supposed to write down which unit you were monitoring! Now we're back to multiple receiving units! (Where's Louis Black when you need him?) BL-B-B-BLB-B- MAKE UP YOUR DAMNED MIND!

Christ! I practically need dramamine to keep from going somewhere and losing my lunch just to continue with this. It's like being shoved into an industrial washing machine set to the SPIN cycle. So who's lying about all this, Mr. Baldwin? Is it you, Liddy, McCord, or all three of you? Rhetorical question. Moving on:

2. McCord testifies that while you monitored the unit, you would take down these "logs" longhand, on a yellow pad, and only afterward "ultimately" type them up for him. But no: you say you only used a yellow pad the first day, and from there on out used the electric typewriter while monitoring the calls. So who's lying in this case, Mr. Baldwin? You or McCord or both of you? Oh, that's right: you've only always told the truth. So, for some unknown reason, during his sworn "confession" before the whole world, McCord gratuitously lied to the committee about you writing logs on a legal pad. Got it. So now you've impeached McCord along with Hunt and Liddy. Therefore, you alone among this criminal pack of pathalogical liars always tells the truth. (Hey! You and Mr. Caddy have that in common. You two ought to do lunch.) Moving on:

3. McCord testified under oath that what you were writing down while listening to one unit (or two units, or listening to the neighbor's black dog telling you what to write, or whatever the hell you're supposed to have been listening to), that you wrote down summaries of conversations. Is that what you said in your own sworn, 100% honest "confession" before the committee, Mr. Baldwin? No, it isn't, is it. No, you said, under oath, that you were typing phone conversations in real time almost verbatim. Well, now, Mr. Baldwin, I feel it would be unmannerly to just call you a damned xxxx and walk off. So instead I'll say that there's not a person on the face of the earth anywhere that could accomplish the superhuman feat you claim for yourself in your 100% honest sworn testimony. I've already gone over this in some detail in Liddy, Baldwin, and the Phantom Phone Logs, but your claim really doesn't even warrant a comment, Mr. Baldwin. Not to any thinking, rational person who can feed themselves. See? I didn't walk off. Moving on:

You were claiming, in your reply to me, that you gave all these purported "logs" you claim you made to McCord, except for one oh-so-importantly-different set, the handling of which lends oh-so-much-more credence to the whole complicated fiction. Well, all right, if you must: tell us all about what you supposedly did with that exceptional set of "almost verbatim" illegal wiretap records that you say you didn't hand to McCord, but to someone else. I'm on the edge of my seat. You say you gave all the "logs" to McCord except for:

...other than the ones that were delivered to the DNC. I have testified to this...

Oh, yes, yes, yes. I remember now. Yes, this seals the deal, doesn't it? Now we have another party purportedly dragged into receipt of these purported "logs" made directly by you. Okay, Mr. Baldwin. Since you've absolutely forced my hand, let's trot out your testimony on this. First, here you are facing Judge Sirica on this matter, and here's what you told him on Monday, January 29, 1973:

• JUDGE SIRICA: [Y]ou also stated that you received a telephone call from Mr. McCord from Miami in which I think the substance of your testimony was that as to one particular log, he wanted you to put that in a manila envelope and staple it, and he gave you the name of the party to whom the material was to be delivered, correct?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: Yes, I did.
  JUDGE SIRICA: On the envelope. You personally took that envelope to the Committee to Re-elect the President, correct?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: Yes, I did.
  JUDGE SIRICA: And you were under strict instructions from Mr. McCord to give it to the party that was named on the envelope, right?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: Yes.
  JUDGE SIRICA: You testified before this jury and have gone into great detail regarding the various things that transpired or happened insofar as your recollection is concerned correct?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: That is correct.
  JUDGE SIRICA: But you can't remember the name of the party to whom you delivered this particular log?
  

And you couldn't remember who this was.

Of course, here we've also been shoved back into the singular/plural SPIN cycle again, Mr. Baldwin, since in your reply to me you said the ones, yet you told the jury and Sirica that it was one particular log. But, hey—who's counting? So for everyone still reading who hasn't just called you a damned xxxx and walked away in disgust, we have your testimony here that McCord called from Miami and gave you a specific name of a specific person at CREEP to put these patently illegal, damning documents into the hands of, in a sealed envelope—and the name had just slipped your mind less than six months later. Right. Got it. And is that what you also later told the Watergate Committee about this daring escapade? Let's do our due diligence here and just check:

• SENATOR WEICKER: At any time, did you hand those logs to an individual other than Mr. McCord?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: The one incident where I was telephoned from Miami and told to deliver the logs to the Republican headquarters--the Committee to Re-Elect the President on Pennsylvania Avenue, which I did.
  SENATOR WEICKER: ...It is your testimony, then, that you gave these items ["logs"] to Mr. McCord, with the exception of one time when you delivered them to the Committee To Re-Elect the President?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: That is correct.
  SENATOR WEICKER: Whom did you give them to on that occasion?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: I left them with a guard that was in the lobby. I arrived after 6 o'clock and the guard was stationed in the lobby, the offices had been closed.
  —Alfred Baldwin in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (Watergate Committee), May 24, 1973
  

Oh, for the love of Chirst! How much sheer codswollop can anybody deal with in one sitting?

First there's some mysterious special person at CREEP H/Q you've got to specifically hand-deliver these criminal documents in a manilla envelope to (but the name just slipped your mind, I guess), then you tell us, oh, it was just whatever rent-a-guard happened to be watching the ball game at the front desk.

Well, you've made your record. Just keep sticking to your story, Mr. Baldwin. I'm walking away for now. I've had all of your brand of truth I can take at the moment without puking on the keyboard.

But once I'm fresh as a daisy again—and I will be—I'll be back for the third and final installment.

Count on it.

Ashton Gray

Edited June 24, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Pat Speer]

Ashton, I'm in the process of re-reading every bit of eyewitness testimony to the Kennedy assassination, and I assure you the inconsistencies that make you want to vomit so regularly are to be expected. If they DIDN'T occur with regularity, we would be justified in assuming the stories had been rehearsed. I urge you to watch the film Rashomon at your earliest convenience. That said, I believe you've raised a few points which hopefully Mr. Baldwin will try to answer (That is, if your hostile tone hasn't forced him to leave the Forum). In particular, you've got me curious about who at CREEP received the logs. It would most logically have been Magruder, who was technically Liddy's boss at the time. The public record regarding Magruder is a bit messy due to his having perjured himself, per Dean's coaching. Does Magruder discuss the logs in his book?

[Ashton Gray]

Ashton, I'm in the process of re-reading every bit of eyewitness testimony to the Kennedy assassination

John Simkin was clever and thoughtful enough to provide a whole forum for discussing the Kennedy assassination. This is the Watergate forum. Yet every time you post anything in response to my posts here in the Watergate forum, you bring up the JFK assassination. Are you just lost? Do you need an usher?

I assure you the inconsistencies that make you want to vomit so regularly are to be expected.

Yes, wherever liars lie, putrid inconsistencies are to be expected. We're in complete agreement on that.

And always, inevitably, when they are CIA liars (but I repeat myself), they have a clean-up crew of apologists following along explaining why it's all perfectly reasonable and expected.

That said, I believe you've raised a few points which hopefully Mr. Baldwin will try to answer (That is, if your hostile tone hasn't forced him to leave the Forum).

I'm not asking him questions. He made his record, I'm making mine. As for my "hostile tone," he's a former FBI agent, has faced U.S. Attorneys, U.S. court judges, and congressional hearings. You afraid he can't handle big bad Ashton? Thanks for the vote of confidence, but Alfred's a big boy. He's got a keyboard just like I have. Hell, he can type live conversations in real time "almost verbatim." Just ask him. So he ought to be able to type rings around me.

In particular, you've got me curious about who at CREEP received the logs.

What logs? Post one of these logs you're talking about. I want to see one.

You can't. There are no logs. There were no logs. There were only stage prop logs that Liddy dictated to his secretary with a big GEMSTONE splashed across the top, and even those were destroyed. Alfred Baldwin never typed a "log" of any bugs in the Watergate in his life, because there were no bugs. If he did, produce one—then we'll talk about it. Post it here. Do you have one to post? Or are you just busy keeping the fiction going? Fiction doesn't leave a paper trail. So where are these logs you're talking about?

Is this something like constantly thinking this is the JFK forum? Same kind of thing?

Ashton Gray

Edited June 21, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

Mr. Baldwin, we meet again.

Here is my third and final installment of a three-part series in response to your last answers to me of some questions I had asked you in good faith. You made your record. Now I'm making mine. Any questions that seem to be posed herein are rhetorical, because I think the record speaks for itself. Loudly. And as I've made no bones about, I think the record absolutely shouts that you and your co-conspirators, in knowing collusion with CIA and their symbiotes, put a massive hoax over on the entire world that has mangled and destroyed too many lives and careers even to count, and I believe that the living participants continue the hoax to this very minute for their own entirely selfish, amoral self-protection.

That last part is my opinion.

Now to facts of record and your continuing claims:

Also, there were "bugs" in the DNC.

No, there weren't any "bugs" in the DNC between Memorial Day weekend 1972 and June 17, 1972. There were none at all. Not one, not two, not twenty, not a phone bug and a room monitor, not two phone bugs, not any of the confusing, conflicted lies that any of you have told. There were no bugs there at all. That's why no bugs were found in the DNC at relevant times.

The only actual physical evidence in the entire pathetic fraud is an electronic sweep of DNC headquarters just before June 17, 1972, and electronic sweeps of DNC headquarters immediately thereafter. Both sweeps determined conclusively that there were no bugs at the only possible relevant times.

You can repeat the fiction for 30 years (which you have done), and it still doesn't alter the fact of record that there were no bugs. The constant, monotonous reiteration of the fiction by you and your co-conspirators doesn't make any bugs appear where there were none. In fact, let's try your claim this way:

ALFRED BALDWIN: "Also, there were pterodactyls in the DNC."

Well, no. No, there weren't any pterodactyls in the DNC.

ALFRED BALDWIN: "Also, there were gorgons in the DNC."

Well, no. No, Mr. Baldwin, there weren't any gorgons in the DNC, either. I will grant you this: the claim has as much truth and validity and reality as the false claim that there were "bugs" in the DNC, but the only real "bugs" we need to exterminate are the completely irreconcilable conflicts strewn like train wreckage throughout the fictions told by you and your co-conspirators.

That's what I'm doing here.

But do go on:

...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.

Oh. I see.

Well, first, let's notify everybody that you've again used your CIA-trained singular/plural trick to spin everybody's head around like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist," and in one short paragraph you switched from "bugs" (plural) to "the 'bug'" (singular). I already know, Mr. Baldwin, that this trick evolved from decades of vicious CIA mind-control experiments on unwitting United States military men, and you know it, too, and you knowingly use it like a bludgeon to practically knock people unconscious. Having just woken a couple of people up who had nodded off:

So your "proof" that there were bugs is "because" we can't doubt your word—for which there is not a single particle of evidence or corroboration—that you voyeuristically watched Bela Lugosi and Jayne Mansfield (headless) and Pinnochio and Betty Boop talk on some phone that conveniently happened to be placed in a convenient window, and that you simultaneously eavesdropped on their private conversations.

And we're supposed to just accept your unsupported claims, even though you can't get your own story straight about how many "units" you purportedly were monitoring; even though you can't get your story straight on whether you took these fantasy conversations down on a yellow legal pad and then typed them later, or whether you typed them directly while listening; even though you claim you typed "almost verbatim" running transcripts of phone conversations when that is patently, utterly, ridiculously impossible; even though your co-conspirators claim there were no such transcripts, but just "summaries;" even though nobody can even get the story straight about how many "bugs" there purportedly were in the DNC and where. No. We're all just supposed to ignore these idiotic contradictions and accept your unsupported claims at face value because you, like Mr. Caddy, are the One True Boy Scout in this whole pack of lying criminal thugs who Cannot Tell A Lie.

Oh, yeah: and we also have to ignore two professional electronic sweeps that say there were no bugs. Why do we have to ignore this hard physical evidence? Because you, Mr. Baldwin, tell us that we have to, since it completely contradicts and eradicates every claim you've made.

But do go on with your record of "The Official Myth":

Also, Jim actually displayed some of the "bugs" to me prior to installation.

He certainly did that, all right. I don't doubt you at all on that count.

Except the only "installation" that ever was done was with these electronic stage props, paid for with public money, was "installation" in McCord's possession to get "caught" with, and "installation" at key locations that would point directly to the White House, including "installation" into Hunt's White House safe and the "installation" that you yourself did at McCord's house—which is exactly what set it up for you to go to the U.S. Attorneys a week after McCord and company were "caught" (on cue), and start this entire enormous, despicable, unconsionable, self-serving, self-protecting fiction about your whereabouts and activities on Memorial Day weekend, which ultimately would destroy an entire culture and its people's little remaining faith in their leaders, and which today still has reverberations of shock waves echoing around the world, such was its maliciously destructive force.

That's the credit I think you deserve, Mr. Baldwin. That's the credit I said earlier in this thread you are due. And I told you there that I meant to see you got the credit you deserve. You actully started all this "Memorial Day weekend" fiction. You. Personally. Knowingly, and with malice aforethought. You're the water-carrier the CIA elected to plant the first fictions about the "Memorial Day weekend" into the record and raise the curtain on the play. And as a result, here we sit right now, still sifting through the rubble of disgusting CIA-scripted lies after 30 long years.

So since we all want the CIA to get plenty of mileage out of tax dollars they've fleeced from all of us and squandered on their vast criminal programs, let's hear the fiction again:

The logs, and copies of the logs, are a fact that cannot be denied or questioned by anyone.

<SPIT!> The hell they can't. The only stage-prop "logs" anybody ever saw came—as one source has so aptly put it—"from Liddy's lying lips." He dictated these "logs" into a tape recorder, and gave the dictated tapes to Sally Harmony, and she did her job. And the stage props were thereby created, and then strategically spread to a few stupid dupes whose hearts beat fast.

But Liddy even screwed that part up royally, didn't he, Mr. Baldwin? Isn't that exactly why you had to go on national TV in front of a congressional committee, and put over on an already confused and credulous and weakened nation the absolutely ridiculous lie that you had typed "almost verbatim" real-time transcripts of intercepted conversations? That's a rhetorical question, because you and I both know that's why you had to put such absurd fiction into the record.

Liddy just couldn't help himself: when he sat there dictating these fictitious "logs," he went overboard. He was supposed to dictate SUMMARIES, which is exactly why McCord stuck to the CIA script and claimed they were summaries. But Liddy, always a little too full of himself, embellished and embroidered the CIA script outline, and filled in too many details in his fictional "logs," and so dictated what read like actual "conversation" dialog. So the few mouth-breathing rubes who had been selected to get glimpses of Liddy's stage prop "logs" then had to be supplied with some kind of "plausible explanation" for having seen what appeared to be real-time transcripts of conversations.

So that's exactly why you went into congress, and raised your hand, and swore to tell the truth, and promptly spewed out one of the biggest, most brazen, most absurd, most laughable lies ever told. Even poor Senator Ervin just sat there and repeated what you said in stupefied incredulity. Let's revisit that magic moment again together just one more time. I certainly want you and the CIA get your blood-money's worth:

• SENATOR ERVIN: ...And you typed a summary of the conversations you overheard?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: Well, they weren't exactly a summary. I would say almost verbatim, Senator.
  SENATOR ERVIN: Almost verbatim.
  

I couldn't have put it better myself. So let's just give Senator Ervin the last word on the whole pathetic stage play, and let the curtain ring down.

I'm done, Mr. Baldwin. You made your record. I've made mine.

I recall vividly being a very young man agog at the flashing, swirling, colorful lights, the noise, the barkers (no pun intended, but fitting), the smells, the sawdust, and the electrifying energies and cross-currents of the State Fair midway. I remember well the sense of giddy gullibility (despite what I'd been told repeatedly) with which I went from canvas booth to canvas booth, listening to the friendly, buddy-buddy come-ons, looking at cheap, tawdry prizes that I'd never actually buy under any circumstances, but seeing the quarter entry fee for taking a shot at "games" for me to play, and thinking, "Hell, I can do this."

I also remember all too vividly the feeling of walking away empty-handed, with considerably lighter pockets, duped, conned, snookered by smooth-talking swindlers whose up-front good-ol'-boy affability was a tissue-thin veneer to hide the simple truth that they didn't give a royal damn about my survival or well-being: they only wanted to take as much as they could from me by any means, then move on to the next mark.

There's no feeling quite like being made a fool. But there's no shame in it, either; we've all been duped in our lives.

To realize that the Watergate "first break-in" was nothing but a cheap, showy con job on all of us--entirely funded by our own quarters--is similar in a lot of ways, even if exponentially greater. And just like the rubes on the midway, we were all mesmerized by the flashing lights, the echoing gavels, and the shills at the Washington Post feeding us the CIA lies, and so we surrendered our trust and our quarters.

There is one crucial difference, though:

We all know on some level when we go to the midway that we're fair game for a con. It's part of the game.

Not so with Watergate. The very people we entrusted and paid to protect us from just such criminal deception are the very people who ran the con.

You were one of them, Mr. Baldwin. You knowingly, willfully made use of your FBI background to earn certain trusts, and you knowingly, willfully betrayed that trust in ways that, in my opinion, have no equal in the history of mankind.

And that is, and will be, your legacy.

Ashton Gray

Edited June 26, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Guest John Gillespie]

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

______________________________________

AG,

This is thrilling, believe me. Over the years Liddy has admitted being a foil, but only in his role as dupe to Dean. One merely has to read (research - as you have, meticulously) to see how much this operation - or these operations - was compartmentalized down to the CIA 'Security' boys, Hunt and McCord. Mr. Baldwin's role, heretofore incredibly washed-over and characterized as menial if not benign, now is shown in all its feathers thanks to you.

Most of us have read the Colodny/Gettlin and Hougan books. The liddy false start as well as the units (pl.) testimony you cited lead to the bugging of the Columbia Plaza, no? The following is not exactly news but I like it as a very brief summation. It was published on Newsmax.com about a year ago in the wake of the Mark Felt flap, by Phil Brennan:

"According to Hougan, whose groundbreaking investigation of Watergate set the standard for all future Watergate probes, if there were any bugs, they were on the phone lines of a call girl operation working out of the Columbia Plaza Apartments across the street from the Watergate buildings. " Bugs plural, again.

Now, I am sure I'm not alone in pleading "C'mon, Ash, tell us where they really were..." Let me tell you, this must be rocking someone's world.

Regards,

JG

[Guest John Gillespie]

"In particular, you've got me curious about who at CREEP received the logs. It would most logically have been Magruder, who was technically Liddy's boss at the time. The public record regarding Magruder is a bit messy due to his having perjured himself, per Dean's coaching. Does Magruder discuss the logs in his book?"

_______________________________

Hi Pat,

I can't recall any direct testimony nor hard evidence that showed whether Our Golden Boy (OGB) was in the loop. But he understandably was apprehensive, shall we say, over possible exposure of his, ahem, bride-to-be-cum-prostitute Maureen "Clout" Biner, so encoded by pimp Phillip Mackin Bailley in his address book. Mr. Dean, now the reprehensible Faux Emeritus with the burnished 'integrity', was quite concerned with the FBI seizure of said address book. Talk about a shotgun wedding!

The Dean dimension, well framed in "Will" and especially in "Silent Coup", is always worth some retrospection, n'est ce pas? Isn't it disgusting how the media gushes towards this 'John' every Watergate anniversary, how PBS cannot seem to televise "All The Presidents' Men" enough times as we approach mid June and another season of seminars on how "the system worked." My God, how all of these people practically beg to be fooled all of the time!

What the late Senator Daniel Inouye said in stage whisper of Mr. Ehrlichman certainly applies to OGB: "What a xxxx!"

Regards Pat,

John Gillespie

Edited June 21, 2006 by John Gillespie

[Pat Speer]

Mr. Gray, what is your purpose here? You came to this Forum for what exactly? You didn't come here to gain information, that is for certain. I doubt Mr. Caddy or Mr. Baldwin will even respond to your insulting rants. You made certain of that. While John has given you the benefit of the doubt, as he believes the official story of Watergate is a limited hang out designed to hide greater crimes, I believe in this last post you revealed your true cause: Nixon. Are you a Nixon worshipper, Mr. Gray? I ask this because you seem obsessed with all the people who were wronged by the Watergate investigation. To whom do you refer? Not Baldwin, Dean, McCord, Magruder, Liddy, Hunt, etc... or any of the burglars. These were all co-conspirators in your world. No, it seems the only person you can be talking about is Nixon and maybe a few of his closest aides. Are you acquainted with Charles Colson, Mr. Gray? Karl Rove? I'm just trying to figure out what YOUR real agenda is here.

As for my own agenda, which you've called into question, and why I often refer to the Kennedy assassination, it's because of the many possible connections between the Kennedy assassination and the Watergate break-in. That's right, Mr. Gray. This Watergate Forum was created as a spin-off of the JFK Assassination Forum. If you did any research into this Forum before you began spouting your self-serving bile, you'd have noticed that, and have noticed that I have been one of the biggest contributors to this Forum. You'd have also noticed that, while I don't believe the CIA planned the Watergate break-in (or the release of the Pentagon papers) in order to harm your hero, Nixon, I DO believe there was CIA involvement on some level in the Kennedy assassination. I have suspicions in particular about Hunt's involvement.

I ask you again...IF the CIA was out to get Nixon, why embark on such an ARCANE, SLOPPYand SLOW process? Nixon was dirty as dish water. All the CIA would have to have done to bring him down was

arrange for the cables forged by Hunt to get exposed for what they were--a Nixon attempt to smear John Kennedy's legacy. Such a revelation would have led to Nixon's complete disgrace. Hunt also had Nixon by the cojones through his spying on Ted Kennedy, his role in the ITT affair, and the break-in at Fielding's office. His arranging for any of these stories to come out through his buddy Buckley would have ended Nixon's reign. He could even have used Jack Anderson, if he could control his urge to kill him, as Sturgis and Anderson were long-time pals. But he did not. Why? Because until the moment he turned himself in--remember, he'd thought about fleeing the country--he was a LOYAL REPUBLICAN. As was Liddy...Liddy, who DID HARD TIME rather than rat on his Fuehrer, Nixon, had additonal dirt on Nixon regarding Nixon's attitudes about Hoover, and the campaign financing of his GEMSTONE activites. And yet he kept silent. It would have undoubtedly been damaging, perhaps fatal, to Nixon's campaign, should these little details have come out before the election. Your assertion that he faked a bunch of conversations in order to help smear Nixon is preposterous. Liddy is as conservative as they come. If he was gonna fake a bunch of transcripts, wouldn't these transcripts have at the very least been damaging to the DEMS? Instead of the waste of paper they were purported to be? Your suspicions of McCord, while having more foundation than your suspicions of of Hunt, also run into a trouble once one thinks about the over-all motive of the convoluted plot you envision. If the over-all goal was to remove Nixon from office, then why didn't McCord come forward to Sirica BEFORE the election, when the public could simply have voted the crook out? Why wait till after the election, so that Nixon could try and stop the investigation, and drag it out for two years? If there was an ongoing conspiracy among McCord, Hunt, and Liddy, it was not to bring down Nixon, but to get him re-elected. That is what they set out to do when they first went into the Watergate, and that's what they accomplished, BY KEEPING THEIR MOUTHS SHUT until after the election. If they were really working for Agnew, or were secretly working for Gerry Ford, I suspect we'd have heard about it by now. Ford, after all, was so devious that he told owners of media companies about the CIA's role in assassination attempts, spurring the most intense investigation into CIA activites to date. If he had in fact come to power via a CIA-orchestrated coup, that was some "thanks" he gave them.

In short, your theory makes little sense to me. If the CIA was out to get Po' Lil' Richard, and the Watergate break-in and burglary was the BEST they could do, we all deserve a refund. Might I suggest you find Hunt in Florida and repossess his wheelchair in our name?

P.S. your assumption that people witnessing or experiencing the same event will have similar and precise recollections of the event is completely without factual support. Your assumption that the eyewitnesses I was referring to were "liars" is indicative of your own obsession. There are dozens of innocent by-standers in the Kennedy assassination whose stories changed gradually on the day after the assassination and over the subsequent years. THIS IS NORMAL and to be expected. If you have any doubts about this, I suggest you read up on the research of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and Dr. Barbara Tversky, among others. Many of their papers are available online.

Edited June 22, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Ashton Gray]

Pat, you're gettin' all red in the face...

And for some reason, your message isn't quotable, so your brickbats will be in bold:

Mr. Gray, what is your purpose here?

To read and post about Watergate. That's what I've been doing.

You came to this Forum for what exactly?

To read and post about Watergate. That's what I've been doing.

I believe in this last post you revealed your true cause: Nixon.

<Snort!>Really? Is that what you deduced? Clever you. And to think: I didn't even mention his name once. How did you figure me out so fast? What gave me away?

By the way, did you get the memo, Pat? Nixon's dead and buried. Probably pretty far along the mouldering process, too.

Here's something to help you keep from going all the way off of this cliff and hitting the bottom hard: I couldn't care less about Nixon. That's why I haven't brought him up at all except in good faith response to questions others have asked my opinion on related to Nixon. I hope that saves you a lot of wasted work in trying to build your case any further. It's a real Whoopee Cushion of a case.

I ask this because you seem obsessed...

And you do amateur psychoanalysis, too! (Don't bother to bill me for it.)

I'm just trying to figure out what YOUR real agenda is here.

Hmm. Well, I hate to be disagreeable, but I don't think that's what you're trying to do at all. If you actually were, you would by now have read this timeline—something I've pointed you to several times already, something I've referenced and linked to in about 10 posts as being what I consider an indispensable reference tool regarding Watergate, and something that I've said repeatedly that I've relied on for much of the information I've posted here, much of which I've been thanked for by others who are glad to have it.

If you had read the document, you couldn't possibly, possibly be going off at me like you have in your post. Unless, of course, you are passionately devoted to distracting from the issues by attempting to make Ashton Gray the issue. It's such a pitiable, worn out, transparent ploy, Pat, I hope you aren't stooping to it. Your post sounds an awful lot that way, though.

I've also said loud, clear, and repeatedly what my position is: that the "first break-in" was a CIA planned and executed hoax. What part of this position are you having trouble figuring out? What's the big mystery? Everybody else seems to pretty well grasp this.

Nobody has to agree with it.

But nobody yet has successfully or effectively refuted it, either—including you. You've yet to effectively address or resolve one single material fact I've raised in issue. You only distract from them, or come at me with ad hominem. Like I'm answering here.

why I often refer to the Kennedy assassination, it's because of the many possible connections between the Kennedy assassination and the Watergate break-in.

I'm not an idiot, Pat. I'm aware of the connections. But not a single one of your cross-references on it yet has been remotely germane or applicable to my posts that you've responded to, always throwing in a gratuitious and irrelevant JFK reference. None of your references to JFK have added any clarity or new analysis whatsoever of what I was discussing at the time, nor have any of them been at all relevant to the topic. Every one of them did, though, create dispersion and distraction from issues I had raised in topics I had started to invite responsible and informed discussion.

It's in the record. The record speaks for itself.

I have been one of the biggest contributors to this Forum.

Congratulations. I trust those contributions have moved everyone closer to the truth.

And if you want a one-word statement of my "agenda," that's it: truth. I want the truth out. I'm sick of the lies. That's why I just invested a considerable amount of my own time in this very thread documenting inarguable lies. When lies are exposed and stripped away, we all are closer to the truth.

If you have something that will contribute to that, we'll have plenty to talk about.

So far, though, the net product I've seen of every one of your posts in response to me is muddied waters, to which you've now added a brackish Niagara of ad hominem, log-jammed with meritless accusations and bobbing waterlogged straw men.

So quantity isn't necessarily a factor that I put much stock in, Pat. I believe the wise old saying: "By their fruits, ye shall know them."

So why haven't you read that timeline yet?

Ashton Gray

Edited June 22, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

This is thrilling, believe me.

I'm genuinely glad it's being well received, John, and hope it helps everyone come to a better understanding. I don't know if I've reached "thrilling" yet. I still sort of feel like I've just come out of having been in a drugged or hypnotized stupor for 30+ years. But at least I'm out.

Mr. Baldwin's role, heretofore incredibly washed-over and characterized as menial if not benign, now is shown in all its feathers thanks to you.

As I've said before, I'm just a scribe. A lot of people have sacrificed one hell of a lot over many years to collect all this information and organize it and analyze it. Finally enough has come together to reveal the fraud we all were duped by for so long, and I'm just thankful that I'm here in this place and time where it's being exposed, and am able to make some contributions in compiling and presenting it.

As for Mr. Baldwin's role, I don't think we've really plumbed those depths. Yet. Once past the pure fiction alibi for Baldwin, Liddy, Hunt, and McCord over that Memorial Day weekend, the next step is to find out where they actually were and what they actually were doing. Since you've opened this particular door, I'm now going to lay out what I believe to be worthwhile lines for further investigation. Of course, Mr. Baldwin is quite a typist, and can step in here at any moment and lay any of these points to rest, but for starters, here are some of my personal opinions, as opinion only:

• 1) That Alfred Baldwin was fully informed prior to the evening of May 1, 1972 that he would be receiving the "surprise" call from James McCord that night; that Alfred Baldwin had been priorly briefed on the nature of activities he would be called upon to engage in with McCord; that Alfred Baldwin knew at all relevant times that he would be working in an intelligence capacity on a secret operation under the auspices and control of CIA, but which had interagency coordination, and which involved "national security." I believe Alfred Baldwin's covert briefing line for this CIA operation he had been selected for was through Naval Intelligence connections to where he had been working prior to his sudden "hiring" by McCord over the phone, supposedly from a listing with "Society of Ex-FBI Agents"—which is more complete fictional nonsense.
  2) That on that night of Monday, May 1, 1972, at the time of McCord's call to Alfred Baldwin, both Alfred Baldwin and McCord had foreknowledge that on the following morning J. Edgar Hoover would be found dead in his home, and would be replaced by L. Patrick Gray, who would strictly serve the CIA interests during the ensuing events. I further believe that confirmed foreknowledge of Hoover's death is precisely what triggered McCord's call to Alfred Baldwin, and Baldwin's immediate flight to Washington, D.C. on the basis of nothing but a single phone call from someone he supposedly didn't know.
  3) That McCord issuing Alfred Baldwin the .38 revolver immediately after Hoover's death on the morning of Tuesday, May 2, 1972 had nothing whatsoever to do with Baldwin being a "bodyguard" for Martha Mitchell, as Alfred Baldwin claims, but was to provide an entirely specious reason for his having the gun at all relevant times, as I've already covered in

this message in this thread.
4) That there never was any plan at all for Alfred Baldwin to take more than the one trip with Martha Mitchell—which Alfred Baldwin left for on that same day, Tuesday, May 2, 1972—and that the only real purpose of his making even that one trip with her was solely to make Alfred Baldwin known to Andrews Air Force base personnel as someone cleared and approved for travel on planes of the White House fleet (other than Air Force One), that purpose specifically to later serve the clandestine mission away from Washington, D.C., which already was planned by CIA for Memorial Day weekend so it would happen while Nixon was on his trip to Moscow.
5) That the untraced, unaccounted for (to this day) .38 revolver never was returned by Alfred Baldwin to James McCord, as Alfred Baldwin claims, and had been given to Alfred Baldwin specifically to be used on the planned clandestine mission outside of Washington, D.C. over Memorial Day weekend.
6) That Alfred Baldwin's trip to Andrews Air Force base on Saturday, May 20, 1972—the day Nixon left for his trip to Moscow, Iran, and Poland—had nothing at all to do with the patently ludicrous story that McCord had sent Alfred Baldwin there to do "surveillance on demonstrators;" that his trip to Andrews was specifically related to a White House plane for the following weekend—Memorial Day weekend—on the false story that it was for Martha Mitchell; that the reason CIA had long before planned this clandestine mission for Memorial Day weekend was because Nixon and key administration officials would still be on the trip to Moscow and the middle east; that the placement of Liddy, Hunt, and McCord in connection with the White House had been engineered by CIA for the dual purpose of being able to use a White House plane for the clandestine mission, while at the same time implicating the White House on the "first break-in" hoax.

Most of us have read the Colodny/Gettlin and Hougan books. The liddy false start as well as the units (pl.) testimony you cited lead to the bugging of the Columbia Plaza, no?

No. (Well, you asked.)

Seriously, John, that whole hooker saga is just another snipe hunt. I'm sorry, but I've chased enough snipes. Chase 'em all you want. That entire Punch'n'Judy show between Liddy and Dean duking it out is just more bad fiction mounted solely to reinforce the existing bad fiction, and they all knew all along going in that no matter how much sturm und drung was stirred up, it all would come to a big fat net goose egg, which is exactly what it did. But it sold a lot of copy and sent people running off on more snipe hunts. Great.

If there is one cardinal rule I've finally learned in following the spoor of CIA and their fellow criminal thugs, it's this, and I'm going to put it in all caps bold red: THEY ALWAYS PLAY BOTH SIDES OF THE GAME. Always. Always. Invariably. Cardinal rule. It's how they always win. Always. Invariably. They ALWAYS control both sides of the game. They ALWAYS have their own people in place on BOTH SIDES of anything they are doing.

They are amoral criminal thugs, but they also are smart amoral criminal thugs, which is why the Mafia works for them: they make the Mafia look like a bunch of choir boys. They are the one group on the planet that the Mafia is scared of, so it makes a great working relationship.

The plural/singular trick literally is a psy-op gimmick to keep confusion swirling around a bunch of lies. It literally brings about a lowered state of consciousness to constantly confuse someone on numbers. They know this. As for the Watergate hoax, I don't really give a damn how many "units" they had, sending or receiving. They were props to use to put over a hoax, and to run around stashing them in places that could only implicate the White House. And that was the only purpose for any of the "units," and the blatantly obvious proof that that was the only purpose of having them is: that's exactly what the "units" were used for!

Of course, when I finally got this, I felt about as stupid as I've ever felt in my life. It's really hard to let go of all the false "reasons why" that these bastards have spread like their own offal all over the world. But they got these stage props to use for exactly what they used them for: for McCord to get "caught" with some, and then Baldwin and Hunt to run around the same night and plant the rest where they would turn the White House to rubble. It's just too damned simple.

Now, I am sure I'm not alone in pleading "C'mon, Ash, tell us where they really were..."

I don't know. I honestly don't know. I believe they were overseas, probably somewhere in Europe, because:

• Hunt had come out of the CIA European division for his "retirement"
  
• Mullen provided European cover for CIA ops
  
• Hunt was in touch CIA Chief European Division John Hart and CIA Executive Officer European Division John Caswell in October 1971, then met privately with CIA Director Richard Helms, and
  
• On June 28, 1972—three days after Baldwin started cooperating with U.S. Attorneys—Richard Helms called L. Patrick Gray and had him squelch the FBI interview on CIA Exec Officer Europe John Caswell, and on CIA's Karl Wagner (Wagner having arranged the CIA "disguises" and phony CIA IDs for Hunt and Liddy.)
  

A fun bunch of guys, huh?

Let me tell you, this must be rocking someone's world.

When we find out where they really were and what they really were doing that Memorial Day weekend, I think it's going to rock the whole world. Hard.

Ashton Gray

Edited June 22, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Pat Speer]

Ashton, I looked at the Timeline the first time you posted it. When it started dragging the Church of Scientology into the conspiracy, I lost interest. Maybe I'll give it another shot when I have more time.

And you still haven't answered my basic questions. 1) What was the objective of this purported hoax? 2) Who was victimized by this purported hoax?

And I'll add another two: 3) Was Nixon corrupt? 4) Was he justifiably removed from office?

What bothers me most, Mr. Gray, is that you seem far more upset by what you believe Mr. Baldwin and others did, than by what we KNOW Nixon did. Or were the Watergate transcripts transcribed by Liddy as well?

You are probably aware that one of the many items on the neocon agenda has been the rehabilitation of Nixon (Karl Rove's hero) in the public eye, and the demonization of his enemies, including the Kennedys. (There I go again, mentioning those damned Kennedys!) Where do you stand on Bush? On Iraq? Who in your mind has been worse for America, John Dean or Donald Rumsfeld? James McCord or Dick Cheney?

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jun 22 2006, 10:12 AM' post='66166']

Ashton, I looked at the Timeline the first time you posted it. When it started dragging the Church of Scientology into the conspiracy, I lost interest. Maybe I'll give it another shot when I have more time.

And you still haven't answered my basic questions. 1) What was the objective of this purported hoax? 2) Who was victimized by this purported hoax?

And I'll add another two: 3) Was Nixon corrupt? 4) Was he justifiably removed from office?

What bothers me most, Mr. Gray, is that you seem far more upset by what you believe Mr. Baldwin and others did, than by what we KNOW Nixon did. Or were the Watergate transcripts transcribed by Liddy as well?

You are probably aware that one of the many items on the neocon agenda has been the rehabilitation of Nixon (Karl Rove's hero) in the public eye, and the demonization of his enemies, including the Kennedys. (There I go again, mentioning those damned Kennedys!) Where do you stand on Bush? On Iraq? Who in your mind has been worse for America, John Dean or Donald Rumsfeld? James McCord or Dick Cheney?

Pat:

I could answer all of these questions for you CORRECTLY, based upon what I have read here on these Watergate posts. But since Ashton is a far better writer than I -and after all the questions ARE addressed to him- I am sure you will receive his responses very soon.

But aren't the answers obvious? (I guess not or you would not have asked.)

Dawn

JOhn G:

I totally agree with Ashton that the MO Dean- prostitute angle is another rabbit hole.

I think like with the assassination of JFK, Watergate has to do with homicide-and I too want the truth.

I knew we were not getting it during the televised hearings and these posts have really

revived my interest in Watergate and its direct connections to the assassination of JFK AND OTHERS.

Like Hoover- I have always thought Nixon did Hoover, but now it's looking a bit different.

And everyone here knows me and that I have never been a Nixon fan!!!

[Ashton Gray]

PAT SPEER:

Ashton, I looked at the Timeline the first time you posted it.

I didn't ask if you'd looked at it. I asked you if you'd read it. There's a significant difference.

When it started dragging the Church of Scientology into the conspiracy, I lost interest.

The timeline doesn't "drag" anyone or anything anywhere, and there is no "conspiracy" concocted by the timeline. It is a dispassionate, fully cited sequential recitation of clearly related events that happened over relevant periods of time, and the events happened without regard to race, religion, creed, or national origin—or even Pat Speer's approval—and the events have everything to do with Watergate and what led to it, including Daniel Ellsberg and his "psychiatrist," Fielding, who appears at the very beginning of the timeline. If you have certain prejudices that are strong enough to prevent you from confronting actual facts and making yourself informed, then you and I have nothing to discuss—especially when it's crystal clear from the timeline that it was the CIA itself, along with the NSA, and not the timeline, that dragged Scientology and its founder into the picture.

So your oblique answer to my question is that you didn't read the timeline.

Maybe I'll give it another shot when I have more time.

Okay. Get back to me then. Because just as your time is valuable to you, I don't have time to waste with the nonsense you're generating as a result of remaining willfully uninformed because of some religious prejudices you have.

And you still haven't answered my basic questions.

Well, yes, I have—at least the relevant and sequitur questions, and I don't have any obligation whatsoever to answer the irrelevant and non-sequitur questions you keep spraying in here like buckshot. I've answered repeatedly to the best of my knowledge and ability. So listen up this time, and listen up real good, and don't ask me again:

1) What was the objective of this purported hoax?

TO PROVIDE AN ALIBI FOR HUNT, LIDDY, MCCORD, AND BALDWIN, WHO ACTUALLY WERE ON A CLANDESTINE CIA MISSION THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON, D.C. OVER MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND 1972. IT WAS A COVER-UP FOR THAT, AND IS THE REAL COVER-UP OF WATERGATE.

Am I getting through okay now? Maybe it's these damned Radio Shack walkie-talkies. You think?

2) Who was victimized by this purported hoax?

You, me, and the entire rest of the world.

And you can take the rest of your non-sequitur, irrelevant, disruptive, off-topic, red-herring bag'o'crap message and shove it anywhere you want, as long as you don't try shoving it in my face again.

I might stop being so polite. You wouldn't want that.

Ashton Gray

Edited June 22, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

Calling Pat Speer. Come in Pat. <STATIC> Are you there Pat? <STATIC>

My God! I wonder if he's been caught red-handed (or red-faced)! Or maybe the batteries are dead in my walkie-talkie. I'll have to ask Baldwin to run into the drug store and buy me some.

Meanwhile, in the last transmission I received from Pat Speer—although almost entirely static—I kept hearing "Nixon...Nixon."

I've already said emphatically that I couldn't care less about Nixon, but Speer can't seem to get the message, and doesn't even seem to know he's in a thread about Alfred Baldwin, so I'm going to lay out right here everything I have to say on the "Nixon" subject relative to the "Memorial Day weekend" hoax (which Alfred Baldwin was absolutely key to). Maybe somebody can get this retransmitted in a way that even Pat Speer can get it. Maybe not. But here is my opinion on it, and is all I have to say about it:

1) Nixon's only relevance to what went down is that CIA already had him completely set up, and had agents—in addition to Hunt, Liddy, and McCord—like NSA's David Young and probably Dean and a few key others in place around him, and CIA knew where all of Nixon's bodies were buried, and had him completely ready to take the fall for their op once re-elected. And the reason they did was specifically so Gerald Ford—who had done them many favors on the JFK assassination—could finally get his reward of a presidency he didn't have a prayer of getting otherwise. The CIA and their cronies were heavily, heavily, heavily invested in having Nixon surrounded and ready to take the fall for their very long-planned op, putting Ford into place.

2) Nixon is essentially irrelevant otherwise to me. He could just as well have been Howdy Doody, as long as Gerald Ford was there to take his place. Gerald Ford was in the intelligence loop on all of it, and the CIA had to get whoever was sitting in the Oval Office out, and their man, Ford, in. They had to make sure that the "whoever" was Nixon, at any and all cost, because they already had him in the bag.

3) J. Edgar Hoover and George Wallace were the two big thorns in CIA's side to pull the whole thing off. Even as a spoiler, Wallace had to go. CIA pulled those thorns out on May 2, 1972 and May 15, 1972, and then one week after Nixon left for Moscow on May 20, 1972, CIA launched its op with Baldwin, McCord, Hunt, and Liddy on Memorial Day weekend—May 26, 27, and 28, 1972. It all goes in a very straight line.

That's how much Nixon means to me. He could just as well have been Mae West, if she'd had Gerald Ford waiting in the wings.

Command post to Pat Speer... <STATIC>

Damn.

Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

Mr. Baldwin's role, heretofore incredibly washed-over and characterized as menial if not benign, now is shown in all its feathers

John, I know I've posted one reply to this, but I'm going to add more. I wasn't really ready to get fully into this particular aspect of the Baldwin myths, because I'm trying desperately to continue the stroll down Memory Lane with Mr. Caddy. There's so much more to see on that tour—even though Mr. Caddy seems to have lost interest at the very first stop.

But I just can't leave this thing I'm about to explore with you entirely alone—especially with some of the other things you touched on—and that's Alfred Baldwin's celebrated "tour" of DNC headquarters.

As if his other screw-ups aren't fall-down funny enough—like swearing he met Liddy and Hunt on May 26th, and the McGovern headquarters screw-up putting Hunt there when Hunt was supposed to be locked in the Continental Room of the Watergate, and the infamous "almost verbatim" fairy tale—wait until you really get a grasp on what he said in testimony about his big, startling "intelligence discovery" from his "tour." It will just put anybody on the floor in hysterical laughter if they give it two seconds thought (always a big mistake when trying to believe any of their crap).

Weicker holds Baldwin's hand and walks him through this below—and strap in so you don't fall out of your chair and hurt something. Note that when Baldwin starts this tale, Baldwin is so bollixed up trying to keep his own sworn lies straight, that he first says "McGovern headquarters" when he's trying to spread the BS with a trowel about his "tour" to DNC headquarters, and his lie-buddy Weicker has to get him back to the script. Even then, Baldwin practically ties himself into a pretzel trying to get his story straight. So here's Baldwin on his secret-agent undercover "tour" of DNC on Monday, June 12, 1972 (I've given you fair warning—strap in for what follows):

• ALFRED BALDWIN: Well, after the tour, Senator, of the McGovern [sic] headquarters, it was obvious that Mr. Lawrence O'Brien was not in the Washington area, and that he had been in Miami, and had been working in Miami, so now--
  SENATOR WEICKER: May I ask you this question, Mr. Baldwin: did you mean the McGovern headquarters or the Democratic National Committee--?
  ALFRED BALDWIN: I'm talking about the Democratic National Committee headquarters. After my tour there, part of the information I received was the fact that Mr. O'Brien had not been in Washington for the past month or so or longer. He had been in Miami, and Mr. McCord was quite pleased to hear this. And it appeared to me that it called for a rescheduling of the timetable, because he got quite upset to the fact that I would have to-- He would try to make some arrangements for me to go to Miami-- Uh, he had already discussed with me the fact that I would be appearing at-- I would be going to both the Democratic and the Republican conventions, but in view of this information that Mr. O'Brien was in Miami, uh, this seemed to change his timetable and he-- For the rest of that week-- That week, at several different points he told me he would like to get me--get my identification sewed up--and get me down to Miami. He had to confer with some other individuals regarding this, and as soon as it was approved I would be going to Miami.
  

But...

Say WHAT?!?!

Wait a minute: First, if Baldwin is about to leave for Miami, who's going to do all that "almost verbatim" typing of logs of the "bugs" that McCord is getting ready to go "back" into the Watergate to "fix" just four days later!?!?

I mean, don't even allow yourself to wonder about that for even a millisecond, or you're liable to pop a vein.

But that's not even the worst of this. I swear. You want the worst of it? I'm not sure you're ready for it. Are you ready? Don't say I didn't warn you. Follow this timeline very closely, and see if you can find "Miami" anywhere in it:

• Saturday, 17 April 1971
  E. Howard Hunt is in Miami and meets with Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez, and Felipe De Diego. Bernard Barker has a history of almost seven years with CIA. Eugenio Martinez is on "retainer" with CIA.
  Friday, 3 September 1971
  E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy are involved in a purported break-in at the office of psychiatrist Lewis J. Fielding in Beverly Hills, California with the three Cubans from Miami: Barker, Martinez, and De Diego.
  Early February 1972
  G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt fly to Miami, home of Bernard Barker and other CIA-connected Cubans.
  Thursday, 17 February 1972
  E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy again fly to Miami, ostensibly to meet with Donald Segretti (a.k.a. "Donald Simmons"). While there, Hunt is in contact with CIA's Bernard Barker.
  Saturday, 15 April 1972
  E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy fly to Miami and deliver checks drawn on a Mexico City bank to CIA's Bernard Barker.
  Monday, 24 April 1972
  CIA's Bernard Barker cashes a cashier's check for $25,000 at his bank in Miami.
  Tuesday, 25 April 1972
  Quoted from G. Gordon Liddy's account of a purported "first meeting" with Magruder on or about this date concerning breaking into the Watergate: "Larry O'Brien was by now involved in gearing up for the Democratic convention and was spending most of his time in Miami. Our Cuban agents were studying how best to bug him there, and I'd been laying out money for information, buying off hotel employees, etc."
  Tuesday, 2 May 1972
  CIA's Bernard Barker withdraws an unspecified amount of cash from his bank in Miami.
  Wednesday, 3 May 1972
  CIA's Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez, Frank Sturgis, and Filipe De Diego arrive in Washington, D.C. from Miami and meet with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt.
  Monday, 8 May 1972
  Alfred Baldwin returns to Washington, D.C. from his trip with Martha Mitchell. He is told by James McCord to keep the .38 revolver because "he might be going on another trip." G. Gordon Liddy, in D.C., calls CIA's Bernard Barker in Miami. Bernard Barker withdraws another unspecified amount of cash from his bank in Miami which, with two other transactions, now totals $114,000.
  Friday, 12 May 1972
  By this time (according to "intelligence" puportedly gathered by Alfred Baldwin a month later on a "tour") DNC Chairman Lawrence O'Brien absolutely is already based in and staying in Miami, not in Washington, D.C.—but Liddy had already known that as early as 25 April 1972 (see above).
  Wednesday, 17 May 1972
  CIA's Bernard Barker makes two calls from Miami to G. Gordon Liddy, and two calls to CIA's E. Howard Hunt.
  Friday, 19 May 1972
  E. Howard Hunt makes two calls to Bernard Barker in Miami.
  Saturday, 20 May 1972
  Richard Nixon leaves for Moscow. Alfred Baldwin goes out to Andrews Air Force base. CIA's E. Howard Hunt flies to Miami and meets with Bernard Barker.
  Monday, 22 May 1972
  Two days after Nixon has left for Moscow, the CIA "Cuban contingent" arrives in Washington, D.C. from Miami: Bernard Barker, Frank Sturgis, Eugenio Martinez, and Virgilio Gonzalez. They are in D.C. purportedly to carry out a "first break-in" the following weekend of Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate with G. Gordon Liddy, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, and CIA's James McCord.
  Sunday, 28 May 1972
  There supposedly is a "first break-in" at DNC headquarters in Washington, D.C., one key primary purported purpose of which is to plant a "bug" on the phone of DNC Chairman Lawrence O'Brien's phone in D.C.
  Monday, 12 June 1972
  Alfred Baldwin takes a clandestine "tour" of DNC headquarters at the Watergate in D.C. and comes back with BIG INTELLIGENCE NEWS! GUESS WHAT! LARRY O'BRIEN IS IN MIAMI! NO, REALLY! REALLY! THIS IS BIG NEWS! MCCORD IS SHOCKED, BUT VERY PLEASED WITH ALFIE AND HIS SUPER-SPY INTELLIGENCE MISSION. IT ONLY COST MCCORD A HUNDRED BUCKS TO DIG THIS BIG SECRET OUT! THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING. WE'LL JUST BREAK IN TO WATERGATE AGAIN, AND SEND BALDWIN TO MIAMI, AND...
  

Now I've gone and hurt myself laughing again.

These bufoons make the Keystone Cops look like Shakespearian tragedy. The only wonder is how they possibly have been able to keep everybody in a state of mass hypnosis for 30 years believing any of this crap the way they told it.

Ashton Gray

Edited June 22, 2006 by Ashton Gray