Pat Speer

On page 256 of The Senate Watergate Report (paperback edition), referring to compaints about Donald Segretti's activities, it says "Such a complaint was sent from J. Tim Gratz of Madison, Wisconsin, to Carl Rove, President-elect of the College Republicans. This complaint was eventually assigned to Anthony Ulasewicz, who flew out to Wisconsin to investigate this mysterious individual. Ulasewicz did not succeed in tracking down Segretti, but while he was out in Wisconsin, he received a call from Jack Caulfield who informed him that Segretti worked for CRP." END QUOTE As a result of his "discovery," Segretti, who'd been working for Chapin, was placed under the authority of Liddy and Hunt. After the Watergate arrests, his phone number was found in Hunt's phone book, which led to an FBI investigation. Woodward and Bernstein picked up on this and figured out what was up and wrote a story on Segretti's activities before the election. The Senate Watergate Report devotes several pages to the press releases and statements of Dwight Chapin and press secretary Ron Ziegler between the Post story and the election, and concludes that the men repeatedly flat-out lied to protect Nixon from the scandal, and that this lie was orchestrated and spread by Dean, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Clark MacGregor, and others. So, since Tim's actions led to Segretti working with Hunt, and Segretti's phone number being in Hunt's wallet led to even more White House intrigues and lies, only to be uncovered to the detriment of the President, does that mean Tim was CIA? (Just kidding.) The more I read, the more it's clear that Nixon and his boys hung themselves. By the way, Tim. the Washington Post ran a Watergate-related story on your buddy Rove, claiming he'd conducted training sessions for College Republicans on the nuance and technique of Nixon-style dirty tricks. Would you know anything about that? Evidently, Rove claimed the story was a lie planted in the Post by a College Republican rival, Terry Dolan. Did you know Dolan? Who's the xxxx? Rove or Dolan?

Actually, Tim, I have The Senate Watergate Report, and knew that Rove was the man you referred to as your superior in a previous post. I was playing Sherlock to see if you'd deny it. Now, when you recounted your story for us, why did you leave him out? If it was my story, I'd think people were interested that Karl Rove was suspicious that Segretti might be a set-up, and would tell them all about it. Were you trying to hide your relationship with him, so you'd have more credibility with those of us here in the center or on the left? Were you being protective of him, trying to keep his name separate from right-wing criminals of the past? Were you hoping to avoid having to answer annoying questions like these? Or was it just an over-sight?

Well, what about wives, Tim? Is it not a threat to national security for a President to tell something to his wife? What's the difference? I'm serious. Because I don't see it. Nancy Reagan may have had a fling with Frank Sinatra and told him a bit more than she should have. Should Ronnie have been impeached? If not, should he have been impeached because his wife was running the white house based upon a pagan belief system--astrology? What if the astrologer received a top security clearance? Would it be allright then? As Henry Hyde found out during his attempted-lynching of Clinton, when you open up these doors, you never know what will pop out.

Tim, a lot of people thought the attempt was faked, so they brought in an independent forensic pathologist to confirm he'd been grazed. The pathologist...strangely enough, Dr. Cyril Wecht.

I tried to push Nathaniel a little after reading somewhere that John Martino and William Pawley had both done extensive interviews with him. When he responded he didn't have any of those old tapes, it occurred to me for the first time that he must be pretty old. But 94!! He had a pretty good run. A few months back, I came across a book by Nathaniel from the early 60's in which he linked a lot of the African independence movements to communism. As I remember he singled out Mandela in particular as a commie. I didn't have the heart to call him on it. Farewell, Mr. Weyl.

Tim, some of the books I've read on Nixon get into the Dick Tuck thing, and how Nixon revealed his utter lack of humor by justifying his dirty tricks by recalling Dick Tuck, when Dick Tuck's style was actually very light and humorous. The classic Dick Tuck story occurred during Nixon's 62 campaign for California Governor. Nixon was campaigning in Chinatown in an assembly hall lined with Chinese banners. The way the story goes, it wasn't till after Nixon spoke that one of his Chinese supporters told him that the banners, written in Chinese, said, "Ask Nixon about the Hughes loan!" And now for a left-field question. In your early years as a collegiate Nixon supporter, you didn't happen to run across Karl Rove, did you?

A couple of points on this issue. 1. While I have respect for Tim and have no reason to doubt his sincerity, I think it would prove helpful if he were to tell us the whole story of his relationship with Segretti and the Nixon campaign. After all, if it turned out I was a former publicist for the Kennedy family, I wouldn't expect anyone here to take me seriously unless I was willing to disclose my experiences working for them, good and bad. Specifically, I think Tim should come clean on what kind of "rat-xxxxing" he was asked to perform by Segretti, and what kind of "rat-xxxxing" he did perform on behalf of the GOP, before and after meeting Segretti. 2. A few years back, I had dinner with my best friends' relatives from Maryland, including his cousin and her husband. Over random discussion, I discovered that the husband worked at the State hospital where Bremer was kept, and that Bremer had been considered sane for years and had been elevated to the position of trustee, whereby he was basically an un-paid orderly. He told me that Bremer was only kept locked up for political purposes. Since Bremer didn't actually kill anyone, this seemed a bit strange. The thought occurred: was Bremer kept locked up to keep him away from the U.S. public, or to keep the U.S. public away from what Bremer might have to say? I'm still wondering. 3. At one point, while looking through old magazines to read contemporaneous articles on Watergate, I came across the curious fact that Maryland Congressman William Mills killed himself in a neighbor's barn within a year or so of the Wallace shooting. I suspected a connection between the two shootings, but was unable to come up with anything concrete. Of course, Agnew was also from Maryland. If anyone knows of any connection, or of any book that examines the Maryland connection to Agnew, the Wallace shooting, and the Mills shooting, I'd be appreciative of the tip.

Just to keep our marginal attorneys general straight, it was the other K, Kleindienst. Katzenbach was Johnson' stooge.

Tim, my understanding is that the CIA resented the heck out of Bobby's influence and interference. It seems clear, based on the articles he wrote after the Bay of Pigs, that Dulles was especially resentful to JFK loyalists who sought to blame the CIA for the BOP. RFK and Dulles did work together on the post-BOP report, the Taylor Report, and it's possible they gained some mutual respect at that time. But as far as long-time political associates, Dulles was firmly GOP, Eisenhower, Rockefeller, Bush, Nixon, and NOT Kennedy. I think you could benefit from reading some of the psychological analyses of Nixon; one, in particular, gets into Nixon's discredited fixation that Dulles fully briefed Kennedy about the BOP, and that Kennedy violated national security by talking tough in the debate. This book analyzed Nixon's article and chapter in Six Crises, and compared it against what Kennedy really said and did, and demonstrated quite clearly that Nixon was totally paranoid, and that his bending over backwards to pretend we had no plans against Castro fooled no one, and only demonstrated Nixon's self-pitying martyr complex. As with LBJ, you have to take everything Nixon said with a grain of salt.

Why are you so convinced that Bob Woodward and Ben Bradlee are telling the truth about this. Why has his name remained a secret? He is seen as a hero of open government. The man who revealed corruption in high places. Why did he not come forward to receive the praise that was due to him? What is more, he could have made a fortune from writing his story of the scandal? His identity is of prime importance. Without Deep Throat the exposure and resignation of Nixon would never have taken place. His identity would also help to explain his motive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John, you may not realize this, but there are many loyal Republicans who view Deep Throat as a rat bastard traitor. There's your answer. If Deep Throat remained in Republican politics after Nixon, he would not have wanted his identity revealed. Which is yet another reason to suspect Fred Fielding.

I don't think Bobby picked anybody to be on the Warren Commission; the only source we have that Bobby picked Dulles and McCloy is Johnson, and Johnson also claimed it was Bobby's idea he be sworn in in Dallas, when all the evidence points to that as a lie. I suspect Johnson picked Dulles and McCloy and ran them by Bobby, same as he did with Hoover, and Bobby said something like "I respect their integrity" or some such thing, and thereafter Johnson told everyone they were Bobby's choices. There is no evidence that either man had private dealings with RFK or even discussed the assassination with him. There is no evidence they were covering anything up under Bobby's orders. The only man involved in the WC who had a personal relationship with Bobby was Katzenbach, and his testimony reflects that Bobby was totally depressed and completely removed from the investigation, numb. My 6 year old nephew had a heart attack and died on a playground in front of his friends, so I've spent time around people numbed by pain. Those who think Bobby was in any shape to conduct any kind of cover-up should understand this; the man could barely function. He never even read the Warren Report.

I came across a book on the Polk case in a used bookstore and I suspect it may tie in with some of the characters you've been looking at. Polk was an American journalist critical of the right wing who was murdered in 1948 in Greece. Ultimately, a Greek journalist confessed to leading Polk into a trap, whereby Polk was murdered by communist rebels. The man who confessed cried in court. After his release a decade later, he claimed he'd been beaten and co-erced into his confession, and was widely believed. Donovan had been hired by a group of newsmen, including Walter Lippman and William Paley, to investigate the murder. The author of the book The Polk Conspiracy, Kati Marton, gained access to some of Donovan's papers on his investigation, and was able to conclude from them that Polk had been murdered by the Greek right-wing, and that Donovan, true to his old CIA buddies, pretended not to find anything. Anyhow, was Walker in Greece in May, 1948? If so, the blame the commie scam may have received a test-run on Polk. (and a second test during the Acardi trial, and a third test with the assassination of Castillo-Armas.)

Jim, I know this is off-topic, but has your investigation of Walker and pals in Greece bled into the murder of George Polk in 1948?

That was what I meant about protecting the CIA from embarrassment While it's true that knowing of the CIA plots would have changed the course of the WC's investigation, it's also understandable how Dulles and Helms might wish to sit back and wait and see if the assassination attempts were actually relevant. That Al Rosen of the FBI, in charge of the basic facts of the case for the FBI's investigation, expressed no interest in the autopsy report or the autopsy photos, and that Earl Warren, after okaying Dr. Humes' inspection of the autopsy photos in Executive Session, changed his mind without discussing it with the other members...now THAT's what I find suspicious. Despite the built-in excuse that they were afraid of Bobby blah blah blah, the testimony of Katzenbach and the memos of Specter reveal that Bobby had no problem with anyone viewing the photos if it helped with the case. That the Kennedy family deeded the materials to the National Archives along with other WC evidence, even though the photos were never officially part of its investigation, is indicative that the Kennedy family NEVER actively fought the use of the photos, and that Rosen/Hoover and Warren were either being OVERLY OVERLY sensitive, or were using .the Kennedy family's tragedy as a means to avoid uncomfortable facts. There is reason to suspect the latter.

Having recently read McCloy's HSCA testimony, along with much of the Executive Session testimony, I must admit I now believe that McCloy and Dulles were both committed patriots trying to do a good job. They may have been wrong, and Dulles may have tried to save the CIA some embarrassment, but I don't think they set out to frame Oswald from the get-go. The same can not be said for the supposedly liberal and just Earl Warren, who believed Oswald was guilty until proven innocent and was undeserving of the best evidence one would expect to be used at trial. This switch in attention on my part from Dulles and McCloy over to Warren accompanies my switch from suspecting a right-wing establishment cabal was behind the assassination, to thinking it was just dirty politics as usual. I now suspect LBJ was somehow involved, and Warren was his man on the Commission. The behavior of Hoover and the FBI is also suspect, particularly in their reluctance to read the autopsy report or inspect the autopsy photos before writing a report which they'd hoped the WC would rubber stamp. When one remembers that the Katzenbach memo was written after he'd had a long discussion with Hoover, and this was written before Oswald's ties to Ruby were even investigated, it becomes clear the FBI planned on convicting the dead Oswald in the eyes of the American people, without actually doing an investigation. In short, while I believe there's substantial evidence for a deliberate cover-up perpetrated by Johnson and Hoover, this cover-up did not necessarily extend into the WC beyond Warren. McCloy may have been alright.

Maybe Meatloaf and Woody Harrelson can get together and make a movie about their dads' role in the assassination, with a cameo by Ricky White.

Pat, I agree with some, but certainly not all, of your comments. You are correct that one of the reasons the Soviet Union fell was because of economic pressure. That pressure was deliberately applied by President Reagan. It is one of the reasons why a great amount of credit for the fall of communism rightly belongs to Ronald Reagan, and one of the reasons why he was one of our greatest presidents (comparing favorably, in my opinion, with Lincoln and Roosevelt). Unlike other Cold War presidents who were satisfied with detente or peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union, Reagan recognized it as an "evil empire" that had to be defeated. The atrocities commited by the Soviet Union were as bad as the atrocities of Hitler's Germany. I disagree about Reagan, although we've certainly had worse Presidents. The current one, for example. There were signs of Soviet Collapse going back to the 70's. If you read former CIA Director Robert Gates' book you'll see that he makes the case that the fall of communism came not from one Big Heroic President, but from the consistent cold war tactics of every president from Truman to Bush. While I believe Reagan's build-up was in large part well-intentioned, I also believe that SDI is the biggest scam played on the American people probably ever. A trillion dollars and counting spent on an ineffective weapons plan to fight above board enemies that don't exist, when all our real enemies would need to bring us down is a couple of box-cutters at the neck of the right person or a couple of cargo holds full of Pakistan's left-over nukes. That trillion dollars could have and should have been spent on other more important things, like developing solar and wind energy for example, or on universal health care. If Star Wars had been proposed by a Dem it would have been shut down a long time ago. But there's just too much PORK and the Defense Department just can't let go. Have you read "Victory" by Peter Schweitzer? If not, I would commend it to you, and other membes of the Forum. It was not just coincidence that the Soviet Union collapsed shortly after the end pf Reagan's presidency. I also think the recently deceased Pope deserves much credit for the defeat of Communism. I do agree with you that the cause of freedom was assisted when the US stopped supporting the "dictator of the month" merely because they were anti-Communists and instead is concentrating on spreading democracy. I would also submit (not an original point with me by any means) that the increase in worldwide communications assisted in the fall of communism when people behind the "Iron Curtain" could observe the economic success and liberties of the West. But that was not sufficient in itself to defeat Communism. It took courageous leaders such as Ronald Reagan and the Pope. I do believe you as wrong as can be that the US drove Castro to Communism. Castro may have been "the will of the people" when he promised to bring freedom to Cuba, but he lost that when he turned to Communism, suppression of the press, cancellation of elections, mass executions, etc. Do you have any understanding of how many people have lost their lives trying to cross the straits of Florida to escape Castro's paradise? Not having spent as much time in Florida as yourself, I have a different perspective on Castro. From where I sit I see a man who made overtures to the U.S. from early on in his regime, only to be rejected in part because of Nixon's fear of the Big C. If the U.S. had quietly supported him I believe he would have been OUR communist, and under our influence, instead of the Russians. Over the course of time, after Castro had implimented some of the much-needed changes he implemented, including education and health care reform, I believe it's logical to believe a form of limited capitalism, something akin to what's going on in China, would have come to pass. But that's impossible to prove. What isn't impossible to prove is that U.S. policy towards Cuba has done almost nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Cuban people and has only made matters worse. I think there is probably truth in your comment that some of our country's leaders did not have faith in the strength of the ideals of freedom and democracy because they themselves were corrupt. I agree with you that Nixon may have had no intention of "winning" the war in Vietnam, any more than LBJ did. There is no question in my mind the US could have won the war if there had not been political restraints imposed on the military. It was a war of aggression from the North but our military leaders were never able to take the war to Hanoi. I am not sure what would have happened on Vietnam had JFK not been assassinated but I do bot think he would have abandoned Vietnam to the Communists--in part because he was influenced by the thoughts of Tom Dooley. And, of course, what happened in Vietnam after the US abdicated proved that Dooley was correct in his denunciations of the Vietcong. Whatever excesses the Vietnamese Government have performed pale in comparison to the excesses we performed in the name of preventing their excesses. How many My Lai Massacres have occurred since we left?? How many napalm strikes on old women and young children? My last post was extra harsh because this topic just grates on me, having been raised by a series of surrogate big brother marines, many of them just back from Nam. If McNamara, who was only the damned architect of the war, now admits it was a mistake, why is it so hard for others who only saw it from a distance to admit as much? What would it have taken to win the war? The North Vietnamese were never going to quit, any more than the U.S. would quit if the western United States was invaded by Japan. It just was not going to happen. How many would have had to die?? And to what end? So we could put in place a puppet regime which would fall in 30 or 40 years like the Shah? M-I-S-T-A-K-E. By the way, Pat, the article that I posted about Dooley did discuss his homosexuality. I do not agree with the homosexual life style as you can imagine but are you aware that Cuba (and other Communist systems) often repress and persecute homosexuals as much as they do religion? Believe it or not I don't particularly like communists or communist regimes. Most of them have done horrible things. I just have a stronger dislike for the excesses the U.S. has undertaken to kill and defeat them. And why do I hold us to a higher standard? Because we're supposed to be the good guys. It's as simple as that. I grew up watching cowboy movies and learning the American code of ethics, and in that code the good guy leads by example. That code is also in the Bible, for those who actually read it, and is what supposedly lifts America above the fray. I just despise our hypocrisy. When the Communists murder their enemies we call it a purge or a slaughter, but when we sponsor the cold blooded murder of thousands we call it "Operation Phoenix" or something equally contrived to disguise from ourselves what we are sponsoring. We know what we do is wrong. We just have to stop doing it. How does a bully stop bullying when it's so easy to get one's way?

I am an amateur historian with a small research library of books on 20th Century politics, including the Watergate scandal.

In a word, "yes." While Nixon had spent more than a decade re-living his defeat by JFK, whom he strongly felt had cheated him of the election, he felt he could get revenge by "correcting" the public record and painting the Catholic JFK as the murderer of a Catholic leader. This was dynamite; that the Hunt safe's contents revealed this to be made-up dynamite meant it could blow-up in Nixon's face, confirming to the American people what they'd always sensed, that the man just could not be trusted. The forged cables were in themselves enough for Nixon to want the Hunt safe's contents destroyed. But why did Gray do it, when Dean had only asked him to hold onto them? Did he ask Nixon? Or was there something more than the Hunt cables, something that implicated Gray as well?

Tim, I know you're stuck on this idea that any war that ends in "freedom," or has "freedom" as its goal, is a good one, but you should at least acknowledge that in Vietnam the U.S. had no intentions of spreading "freedom." Ho Chi Minh was the leader of Vietnam...We CREATED DIEM and South Vietnam!!! North Vietnam was no more an invading force than the North was in Virgina during the Civil War. The Pentagon Papers were dangerous not because they revealed military secrets but because they revealed that the supposedly evil Ho Chi Minh had been our ally during WW2 and had wanted our support after the war; he had NO interest in being a Chinese or Russian satellite...WE KNEW THIS..thus, the Domino Theory was a lie from the beginning--that some believed it was undoubted, but they were WRONG. With our focus on Vietnam and incessant bombing of civilians we CAUSED Communism to spread to Cambodia; rather than being a friendly force for good, we were seen as oppressors and murderers, which we were. These millions of dead lives, and thousands of dead Iraqis, which you refuse to see, are the price others have paid for OUR failed policy; (after all, who funded Hussein's military build-up to begin with?) You seem to think if the magic DEMOCRACY appears somewhere down the road than all the dead bodies of people you never knew or loved are worthwhile. This ARROGANCE is why the rest of the world hates us. Our behavior, in fact, has been little different than the commies you so love to hate. The fall of the Soviet Union, rather than being the feather in the cap for Ronald Reagan and his fellow cold warriors, was in fact the proof that they HAD BEEN WRONG ALL ALONG. All those people need not have died in Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua,Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, etc... Communist governments do, IN FACT, FALL and get re-organized the same as other failed governments. Through diplomacy, economic pressure, and by SETTING A FINE EXAMPLE, the U.S. has accomplished more in the way of spreading democracy than in any of our wars. It is noteworthy that democracy only spread to Latin America after the U.S. stopped sponsoring the coup of the month, and recognizng dictators as legitimate governments just because they sold us cheap bananas. It is my contention that both Vietnam and Cuba would be democracies today if we hadn't tried to overthrow the will of their people, thereby spreading anti-Amercan sentiment to those previously pro-U.S. Castro and Ho Chi Minh were both friendly to the U.S. till we declared war on them. If the Cold Warriors had only had a broad view of history they would have seen that history was on the side of Democracy, and not communisim--unfortunately they had little faith in their own system...maybe because they knew how corrupt it was and how corrupt they were personally. Three other specific points 1) While Kennedy wished for a democratic Vietnam, no one who knew him, including McNamara, has ever suggested he was willing to send U.S. ground troops into action there. MacArthur had, in fact, told him it was hopeless to fight a ground war in Asia. It follows from that that the Vietnam War would have been quite different if fought at all, should Kennedy have not been murdered. Furthermore, since part of the reason LBJ got sucked in was because he was insecure and overly trusting of his advisers, and Kennedy had already crossed that hurdle with the Bay of Pigs and missile crisis, it is absolutely ridiculous to believe that the war was inevitable no matter who was President. Hogwash!! 2) Nixon interfered with the peace talks in 68 in order to get elected; he then dragged out the war to get re-elected. He and Kissinger saw the war as a way of sending a message to the Soviets and Chinese and NEVER had any intention of winning it, only in achieving a "peace with honor," which meant an agreement with the North Vietnamese to hold off for a certain period of time before invading the South after we left, so it would not be so obvious the U.S. had admitted defeat and high-tailed it outta there. Watergate only had something to do with it to those still enamored by Tricky Dick's delusions. Nixon was as outta touch with reality as LBJ. 3) I may be pre-judging you on this one, but you're so conservative in your anti-commie and anti-abortion diatribes that the thought occurs you may have a problem with homosexuality as well. So you should know your hero Tom Dooley was kicked out of the military for being gay. Evidently, there have been attempts to make a movie on his short fascinating life for years but they always hit this stumbling block, particularly since he may have been active sexually within the communites he was supposedly helping fight against communisim. Even today we don't know what to make of him.

I've often wondered if within Hunt's materials there wasn't something about Hoover. The Plumbers unit was formed when Hoover stopped playing ball with Nixon. Memos by Buchanan and Liddy described how urgent it was for Nixon to have him removed. The break-in by the Committee to Investigate the FBI, in a Pennsylvania FBI office, which,amazingly has never been solved, exposed Cointelpro and other FBI shenanigans shortly thereafter. I've often wondered if this wasn't a Hunt operation. Gray would have known that his career would be over if such a thing were ever revealed. If Nixon himself didn't fire him, his closeness to Nixon would have ruined him. Perhaps Gray had provided Hunt with some info. Anyhow his knowledge of these papers insured his becoming director, but the price was he'd have to destroy them. Not sure about this but beyond something personally threatening I've wondered why Gray would have destroyed the materials. The smart move was to hold them over Nixon's head.

Thanks, Evan, for that clarification of the story. The watertight hatches makes sense, and has convinced me they very well could have found bodies. Still, wasn't the official story that they recovered no nukes? Didn't they lie about that? The CIA story as per Colby just seemed a little convenient

Glomar is still controversial. I think it was called Project Jennifer. Hughes was always pushing Maheu to try and work out a merger between Hughes Tool and the CIA, so that Hughes could hide his assets from the IRS, etc. Anyhow, supposedly it was decided by the CIA to use Hughes as a cut-out, because no one would think the better if Hughes was building some weird shaped ship to try to mine the ocean bottom. I remember seeing it when I was a kid. Well, they supposedly made one attempt on the Russian sub but it broke in half, and they couldn't get the nukes. I think this is a cover story. I believe they got the nukes they were after. I think this because they acknowledged burying at sea some Russians they found in the half a sub they did recover. They eventually sent the Russian Govt. a tape of the burial to show that we treated their dead with respect. If the sub broke in half I'm skeptical so many bodies would be found inside. After Hughes' records were subpoenaed by the Watergate Committee, due, in no small part, to Maheu's talking about the Hughes bribes to Rebozo during his breach of contract suit against Hughes after Hughes had him fired, someone broke into Hughes headquarters and stole his personal memos. The CIA got involved, wondering what happened to memos about the Glomar project, and whether their cover was broken. Well, someone in the LAPD told the L.A. Times what happened, and the Times ran the story. William Colby called up the Times and all the other papers and briefed them on the project, and told them the CIA was gonna make another run, and asked them to bury the story, to which they all agreed. Seymour Hersh and Jack Anderson broke the silence after a few days, however, when they realized that something didn't smell right. Anderson, if I remember correctly, was concerned because the CIA admitted the project cost 300 millions, and had paid Hughes a fortune just to use his name (the CIA ran the project) and had only recovered half of an obsolete submarine. He decided the American people should know about such things. Once the story broke the CIA reportedly abandoned all plans to go back and get the other half of the sub. It may be there still. When reading about the theft of Hughes' papers in Citizen Hughes, I figured out the identities of the burglars. It turned out I knew one of them. I contacted the daughter of the ring-leader and asked if I could tell the story in a screenplay. I told her I'd pay her if I sold the screenplay. I got no response. I'm still thinking about writing the screenplay, only changing the names around a little.

I've read Greenspun's autobiography and he was definitely his own man. More intriguing to me than any CIA ties are his close ties to Maheu, Morgan, Williams, and one might assume Rosselli. He teamed up with Maheu to bilk Hughes out of a bundle. I'm convinced that the dirt on Muskie line was a cover and that they were really after the dirt Maheu had on Hughes and Nixon regarding the pay-offs to Rebozo. The planned break-in fell apart when Hughes' people decided it wasn't worth the effort.

I believe Martinez was also a pal of Cubela's and had colloborated with him in the murder of Batista's top security officer. Tim Gratz oughta love those implications!