Douglas Caddy

After reading the piece below from today's New York Times, I asked myself the question, "What role did the CIA agent(s) assigned to monitor news that might appear in the Times play in delaying publication of the disputed article in question until after the last election, thus assuring Bush's victory?" August 13, 2006 The New York Times The Public Editor Eavesdropping and the Election: An Answer on the Question of Timing By BYRON CALAME THE NEW YORK TIMES’S Dec. 16 article that disclosed the Bush administration’s warrantless eavesdropping has led to an important public debate about the once-secret program. And the decision to write about the program in the face of White House pressure deserved even more praise than I gave it in a January column, which focused on the paper’s inadequate explanation of why it had “delayed publication for a year.” The article, written by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, has been honored with a Pulitzer and other journalistic prizes. But contradictory post-publication comments by Times editors and others about just how long the article was held have left me increasingly concerned about one key question: Did The Times mislead readers by stating that any delay in publication came after the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election? In my January column, in which I refused to rely on anonymous sources, I noted that I was left “puzzled” by the election question. But I have now learned from Bill Keller, the executive editor, that The Times delayed publication of drafts of the eavesdropping article before the 2004 election. This revelation confirms what anonymous sources had told other publications such as The Los Angeles Times and The New York Observer in December. A number of readers critical of the Bush administration have remained particularly suspicious of the article’s assertion that the publication delay dated back only “a year” to Dec. 16, 2004. They contend that pre-election disclosure of the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping could have changed the outcome of the election. Since the Times article appeared, I have grown increasingly intrigued by changes in the way the delay has been described in the paper and in comments by Mr. Keller. A background paragraph in a follow-up article on Dec. 31 said, “The administration first learned that The New York Times had obtained information about the secret eavesdropping program more than a year ago.” Mr. Keller also began using the “more than a year” language. My decision to take another look at the extent of the delay came after reading Mr. Keller’s response to an online question in April during “Talk to the Newsroom,” a feature on nytimes.com. Eric Sullivan, from Waunakee, Wis., commented: “I’d like to know why you sat on the N.S.A. story. You probably changed the course of an election and likely history to come.” Mr. Keller’s rather matter-of-fact acceptance of Mr. Sullivan’s presumptions caught my eye: “Whether publishing earlier would have influenced the 2004 election is, I think, hard to say. Judging from the public reaction to the N.S.A. eavesdropping reflected in various polls, one could ask whether earlier disclosure might have helped President Bush more than hurt.” Mr. Keller, who wouldn’t answer any questions for my January column, recently agreed to an interview about the delay, although he saw it as “old business.” But he had some new things to say about the delay and the election. Internal discussions about drafts of the article had been “dragging on for weeks” before the Nov. 2 election, Mr. Keller acknowledged. That process had included talks with the Bush administration. He said a fresh draft was the subject of internal deliberations “less than a week” before the election. “The climactic discussion about whether to publish was right on the eve of the election,” Mr. Keller said. The pre-election discussions included Jill Abramson, a managing editor; Philip Taubman, the chief of the Washington bureau; Rebecca Corbett, the editor handling the story, and often Mr. Risen. Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, was briefed, but Mr. Keller said the final decision to hold the story was his. Mr. Keller declined to explain in detail his pre-election decision to hold the article, citing obligations to preserve the confidentiality of sources. He has repeatedly indicated that a major reason for the publication delays was the administration’s claim that everyone involved was satisfied with the program’s legality. Later, he has said, it became clear that questions about the program’s legality “loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood.” But last week Mr. Keller e-mailed me a description of how that picture had changed by December 2005, and it cast some new light on the pre-election situation for me. It implied that the paper’s pre-election sources hadn’t been sufficiently “well-placed and credible” to convince him that questions about the program’s legality and oversight were serious enough to make it “responsible to publish.” But by December, he wrote, “We now had some new people who could in no way be characterized as disgruntled bureaucrats or war-on-terror doves saying we should publish. That was a big deal.” Holding a fresh draft of the story just days before the election also was an issue of fairness, Mr. Keller said. I agree that candidates affected by a negative article deserve to have time — several days to a week — to get their response disseminated before voters head to the polls. So why did the Dec. 16 article say The Times had “delayed publication for a year,” specifically ruling out the possibility that the story had been held prior to the Nov. 2 election? “It was probably inelegant wording,” Mr. Keller said, who added later, “I don’t know what was in my head at the time.” Were the wording and the sensitivity of the election-day timing issue discussed internally? “I don’t remember,” Mr. Keller said in an interview. He does remember discussing that “I wanted to own up to holding it.” And The Times does deserve credit for disclosing that it had held the story. It was more than inelegant, however, to report flatly that the delay had lasted “a year.” Characterizing it as “more than a year,” as Mr. Keller and others later did, would have been technically accurate. But that phrase would have represented a fuzziness that Times readers shouldn’t have to put up with when a hotly contested presidential election is involved. Given the importance of this otherwise outstanding article on warrantless eavesdropping — and now the confirmation of pre-election decisions to delay publication — The Times owes it to readers to set the official record straight. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

When my first book, The Hundred Million Dollar Payoff, was published in 1974, I was contacted by Sid Goldberg after my appearance on NBC’s Today Show. At his invitation I met with him and his wife, Lucianne, on my next visit to Manhattan. Sid asked me to write an article comprised five parts based on the contents of my book, which was then serialized by NANA to newspapers around the country. Lucianne stayed in communication with me over the years and I conferred with her on several occasions on later trips to Manhattan. She was intensely interested in what had occurred in Watergate. When Billie Sol Estes wanted to tell the story of his relationship with LBJ in book form, I arranged for Lucianne to fly to Dallas where I met her and we drove to Abilene to meet with Billie sol regarding his proposed book. She indicated that she would serve as his literary agent when he finally decided to write his book. Lucianne was one of the few people with whom I came into contact who had actually met Malcolm “Mac” Wallace, the stone-killer retained by LBJ to do his bidding. She recounted this in an article that appeared in The Texas Observer of November 7, 1986, titled “The Killing of Henry Marshall.” This particular article, written by Bill Adler under a grant from the Texas Investigative Reporters Fund, is “must’ reading for those interested in the LBJ-Billie Sol Estate-Cliff Carter-Malcolm “Mac” Wallace relationship. [Earlier this year I sent to John Simkin a copy of the article through the postal facilities, along with other assassination materials. John has cited the article subsequently in writing in the Forum.] The key paragraphs that mention Lucianne appeared on page 18 of the Observer’s article and are as follows: “Three months after Mac Wallace walked out of the Travis County Courthouse [where he had been convicted of the killing of John Kinser, the lover of LBJ’s sister], he went to work for Temco, Inc., in its electronics and missiles plant in Garland [Texas]. Except for a short spell, he remained with the company until February of 1961. It was in January of that year, claims Billie Sol Estes, that Wallace, Billie Sol, Cliff Carter and Johnson met at Johnson’s house in Washington to discuss killing Henry Marshall. Little is known about Wallace’s whereabouts that month, other than at some point he was arrested in Dallas for public drunkenness; it cannot be confirmed that Wallace was in Washington around the time of the inauguration – when the meeting supposedly took place. “But Wallace knew Cliff Carter. The two were in Washington together the previous summer, when Johnson was making a run for the 1960 presidential nomination. Wallace was seen at least three times at campaign functions, always accompanied by Cliff Carter, according to Lucianne Goldberg, who worked in the campaign press office. Goldberg recalled that Carter introduced her to Wallace at a hospitality suite at the Mayflower Hotel. ‘I just knew him and remember him because that was sort of what we were all about – remembering everybody you meet, because you never knew where they were going to end up,’ said Goldberg, who was 23 and known as Lucy Cummings back then. ‘We were all on the make, as young people around politicians are.’ “Goldberg, now a literary agent in New York, told the Observer she noticed Wallace ‘a couple of times’ at Johnson’s campaign headquarters at the Ambassador Hotel. ‘I’d be sitting at my desk and there’d be a lot of people milling around and I’d see him with his thumbs hooked in his belt the way those [Texas] guys do.’ Goldberg could not recall any conversation she had with Wallace, ‘other than, ‘wanna have a drink,’ that kind of thing, which I never did.’”

Last night, Sunday, July 30, Dr. Steven Greer appeared on Art Bell’s international radio show, coasttocoastam. While his talk was devoted primarily to the SETI project, he did relate that his Disclosure Project had obtained an important 1991 CIA document. The document on its page 6 states that the CIA’s Public Affairs Office, "PAO now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation. This has helped us turn some intelligence failure stories into intelligence success stories, and it has contributed to the accuracy of countless others. In many instances, we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods." The CIA paper is dated 20 December 1991, during the administration of President George H. W. Bush (who was a former CIA Director), and was prepared for the then Director of Central Intelligence. To read the full document, go to the link below: http://www.disclosureproject.org/ Also noteworthy are the remarks on the PBS’ Lehrer News Hour last Thursday, July 27, by Lawrence Pintak, director of the TV journalism program at the American University in Cairo. He's a former Middle East correspondent for CBS. His recent book is "Reflections in a Bloodshot Lens: America, Islam and the War of Ideas." Mr. Pintak pointed out how the American public is denied access to major news broadcasts that are available in other parts of the world, including the Middle East, which raises the question of the role of the CIA in controlling what Americans see and hear. Mr. Pintak stated, “ You cannot overemphasize the impact that images have. American television is sanitized. We don't see the real blood and gore of war. “Now, it's a cultural thing, sure, but you turn on the television in the Arab world, you are seeing the disemboweled babies, you are seeing the burned children, you are seeing the pieces of flesh in the streets. And that has a visceral impact. “Americans, we talk about this plethora of prisms now in the Arab world with this media revolution, but Americans in many ways still live in an information ghetto, because we are not seeing the images coming out of the Arab world. “Arabs, if I stood at home in Cairo, I have 300-odd stations. I can watch Al-Jazeera. I can watch Al-Arabiya. I can watch Al-Manar. I can watch CNN, and the BBC, and FOX News, and MSNBC. So an Arab can surf across the spectrum. Americans can't. “Jamal's [Dajani’s LinkTV, also a particpant on the News Hour program] wonderful project is a drop in the budget, as I'm sure he'll agree, 100,000 people seeing it on the Web a month, something like that. It's a step in the right direction. But in general, Americans don't see what Arabs see. And so we say, ‘Why do they hate us? Why don't they like what we're doing?’ Because we're not seeing the impact of what we're doing.” To read Mr. Pintak’s remarks in full, go to: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-...isms_07-27.html

John Dean derides 'imperial presidency' July 27, 2006 MICHAEL R. BLOOD Associated Press LOS ANGELES - John Dean, the White House lawyer who famously helped blow the whistle on the Watergate scandal that drove Richard Nixon from office, says the country has returned to an "imperial presidency" that is putting the United States and the world at risk. In his new book, "Conservatives Without Conscience," Dean looks at Republican-controlled Washington and sees a bullying, manipulative, prejudiced leadership edging the nation toward a dark era. "Are we on the road to fascism?" he writes. "Clearly, we are not on that road yet. But it would not take much more misguided authoritarian leadership, or thoughtless following of such leaders, to find ourselves there. "I am not sure which is more frightening," he adds, "another major terror attack or the response of authoritarian conservatives to that attack." Dean, who served 127 days in prison for his part in the Nixon administration's Watergate cover-up, recently talked to The Associated Press about the ascendancy of the conservative right and the two-fisted style of political leadership he says was central to its rise. "We have returned to the imperial presidency," he said. "We have an unchecked presidency." More than three decades ago, the 67-year-old Dean was a young White House lawyer when he warned President Richard M. Nixon that the cover-up of a break-in at Democratic national headquarters in Washington's Watergate complex was "a cancer growing on the presidency." Dean, who later pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, went on to become the star witness at the congressional Watergate hearings, implicating several high-ranking administration officials. His book is anchored to a discussion of authoritarianism, a school of thought that, in the simplest terms, tries to explain why some people lead and others follow. The classic authoritarian personality - mostly found in men - thirsts for power, is exploitive, cheats to win, opposes equality, intimidates and is mean-spirited. This headstrong leadership style marks the current Republican right in varying degrees, he says, starting with President Bush and moving on down through the leadership ranks. The Bush White House, Dean says, has "given authoritarianism a new legitimacy," the same legitimacy he says it enjoyed before Nixon's presidency unraveled. Authoritarian thinking, Dean writes, "was the principal force behind almost everything that went wrong with Nixon's presidency." For anyone familiar with Dean's writing, the sharp stabs at the Bush administration will come as no surprise. His latest book is a sequel of sorts to his 2004 best seller, "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush." Dean's current book has been steadily climbing best-seller lists, with publisher Viking ordering a second run for a total of 180,000 copies. Booksellers pointed to Dean's prominence and his engaging writing style for the book's success despite a flood of political commentaries in recent years. "Books like this one, whether they be on one side or the other, there is a lot of interest from consumers," said Bill Nasshan, senior vice president of books for Borders Group, Inc. Booksellers also are not concerned about oversaturation in the current events section. " We expect a lot more of these books to be published. With the coming midterm election, the country is more divided than it's ever been," said Bob Wietrak, vice president of merchandising at Barnes & Noble Inc. In "Conservatives Without Conscience," Dean pays Bush a backhanded compliment, saying that while the president is "not a puppet" it is Vice President Dick Cheney who is the White House's dominant authoritarian. " Cheney has swallowed the presidency," Dean says. While his journey from Nixon White House insider to Bush administration antagonist has evolved over the years, Dean told the AP that his politics haven't changed drastically during that time. He still sees himself as a defender of the conservative values championed by the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, the Republican icon to whom his latest book is dedicated. But Dean says his version of Republicanism doesn't square with the authoritarians who have dominated his former party in recent years, from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to White House strategist Karl Rove. He sees them drifting from traditional conservative values, citing, among other examples, deficit spending and the federal budget debt. "My views have changed very little over the last 40 years," Dean said. "The Republican Party and conservatism have moved so far to the right that I'm now left of center. "This country works best as a centrist nation. I think, basically, the electorate is centrist. You have the debate being set by the extremes."

On July 11, I posted information in the Forum about how to get your book published by a major book publisher using a literary agent. Today I wish to call your attention to new technology that permits you to publish your book yourself or to utilize the services of an electronic publisher. No literary agent is required. These alternative means of publishing provide a way to get your book produced economically when you desire only a limited number of printed copies. Below is an article from The New York Times that summarizes the latest development using free software from the Internet. Beneath the article I have provided a link to this free software as well as links to the four major electronic publishers. July 20, 2006 The New York Times Technology Rewrites the Book By PETER WAYNER When Steve Mandel, a management trainer from Santa Cruz, Calif., wants to show his friends why he stays up late to peer through a telescope, he pulls out a copy of his latest book, “Light in the Sky,” filled with pictures he has taken of distant nebulae, star clusters and galaxies. “I consistently get a very big ‘Wow!’ The printing of my photos was spectacular — I did not really expect them to come out so well.” he said. “This is as good as any book in a bookstore.” Mr. Mandel, 56, put his book together himself with free software from Blurb.com. The 119-page edition is printed on coated paper, bound with a linen fabric hard cover, and then wrapped with a dust jacket. Anyone who wants one can buy it for $37.95, and Blurb will make a copy just for that buyer. The print-on-demand business is gradually moving toward the center of the marketplace. What began as a way for publishers to reduce their inventory and stop wasting paper is becoming a tool for anyone who needs a bound document. Short-run presses can turn out books economically in small quantities or singly, and new software simplifies the process of designing a book. As the technology becomes simpler, the market is expanding beyond the earliest adopters, the aspiring authors. The first companies like AuthorHouse, Xlibris, iUniverse and others pushed themselves as new models of publishing, with an eye on shaking up the dusty book business. They aimed at authors looking for someone to edit a manuscript, lay out the book and bring it to market. The newer ventures also produce bound books, but they do not offer the same hand-holding or the same drive for the best-seller list. Blurb’s product will appeal to people searching for a publisher, but its business is aimed at anyone who needs a professional-looking book, from architects with plans to present to clients, to travelers looking to immortalize a trip. Blurb.com’s design software, which is still in beta testing, comes with a number of templates for different genres like cookbooks, photo collections and poetry books. Once one is chosen, it automatically lays out the page and lets the designer fill in the photographs and text by cutting and pasting. If the designer wants to tweak some details of the template — say, the position of a page number or a background color — the changes affect all the pages. The software is markedly easier to use — although less capable — than InDesign from Adobe or Quark XPress, professional publishing packages that cost around $700. It is also free because Blurb expects to make money from printing the book. Prices start at $29.95 for books of 1 to 40 pages and rise to $79.95 for books of 301 to 440 pages. Blurb, based in San Francisco, has many plans for expanding its software. Eileen Gittins, the chief executive, said the company would push new tools for “bookifying” data, beginning with a tool that “slurps” the entries from a blog and places them into the appropriate templates. The potential market for these books is attracting a number of start-ups and established companies, most of them focusing on producing bound photo albums. Online photo processing sites like Kodak Gallery (formerly Ofoto), Snapfish and Shutterfly and popular packages like the iPhoto software from Apple let their customers order bound volumes of their prints. These companies offer a wide variety of binding fabrics, papers, templates and background images, although the styles are dominated by pink and blue pastels. Snapfish offers wire-bound “flipbooks” that begin at $4.99. Kodak Gallery offers a “Legacy Photo Book” made with heavier paper and bound in either linen or leather. It starts at $69.99. Apple makes a tiny 2.6-by-3.5-inch softbound book that costs $3.99 for 20 pages and 29 cents for each additional page. The nature and style of these options are changing as customers develop new applications. “Most of the people who use our products are moms with kids,” says Kevin McCurdy, a co-founder of Picaboo.com in Palo Alto, Calif. But he said there had been hundreds of applications the company never anticipated: teachers who make a yearbook for their class, people who want to commemorate a party and businesses that just want a high-end brochure or catalog. Picaboo, like Blurb, distributes a free copy of its book design software, which runs on the user’s computer. Mr. McCurdy said that running the software on the user’s machine saves users the time and trouble of uploading pictures. The companies that offer Web-based design packages, however, point out that their systems do not require installing any software and also offer a backup for the user’s photos. As more companies enter the market, they are searching for niches. One small shop in Duvall, Wash., called SharedInk.com, emphasizes its traditional production techniques and the quality of its product. Chris Hickman, the founder, said that each of his books was printed and stitched together by “two bookbinders who’ve been in the industry for 30 or 40 years.” The result, he said, is a higher level of quality that appeals to professional photographers and others willing to pay a bit more. Books of 20 pages start at $39.95. Some companies continue to produce black-and-white books. Lulu.com is a combination printer and order-fulfillment house that prints both color and black-and-white books, takes orders for them and places them with bookstores like Amazon.com. Lulu works from a PDF file, an approach that forces users to rely on basic word processors or professional design packages. If this is too complex, Lulu offers a marketplace where book designers offer their services. Lulu does offer a special cover design package that will create a book’s cover from an image and handle the specialized calculations that compute the size of the spine from the number of pages and the weight of the paper. A 6-by-9-inch softcover book with 150 black-and-white pages from Lulu would cost $7.53 per single copy. These packages are adding features that stretch the concept of a book, in some cases undermining the permanent, fixed nature that has been part of a book’s appeal. The software from SharedInk.com, for instance, lets a user leave out pages from some versions of the book. If Chris does not like Pat, for instance, then the copy going to Chris could be missing the pages with Pat’s pictures. Blurb is expanding its software to let a community build a book. Soon, it plans to introduce a tool that would allow group projects, like a Junior League recipe book, to be created through Blurb’s Web site. The project leader would send out an e-mail message inviting people to visit the site and add their contributions to customized templates, which would then be converted into book pages. “Books are breaking wide open,” Ms. Gittins said. “Books are becoming vehicles that aren’t static things.” http://www.blurb.com/ http://www.infinitypublishing.com/about_us.htm http://www2.xlibris.com/ http://www.authorhouse.com/ http://www.iuniverse.com/

From what you know, why was the Watergte broken into? Steve Thomas Liddy deposition on how the Watergate break-in came about: On December 6, 1996, G. Gordon Liddy gave a sworn deposition in Washington, D.C. in which he described the origins of the Watergate scandal. The deposition was given in the following styled lawsuit: In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Maureen K. Dean and John W. Dean, Plaintiffs v. No. 92-1807 St. Martin’s Press, Inc., (HHG)(AK) Len Colodny, Robert Gettlin, G. Gordon Liddy, and Phillip Mackin Bailley, Defendants The 148 page deposition presents an encompassing summary from the viewpoint of Mr. Liddy. There are many highlights in the deposition. Attention is called especially to: Pages 86 to 96: Planning and carrying out the first break-in on May 26, 27 and 28, 1972 Page 98: Planning the June 17, 1972 break-in upon instructions from Jeb Magruder. These are Liddy’s words: And that’s what he {Magruder] wanted. So that when I went back to Hunt and Hunt was upset. He said, “My God,” he said, “Do you know how much trouble it took us to get in there in the first place? All those three entries,” and this, that and the other thing, “And now this? With all the camera and all this film and all this exposure, I mean, the longer you are in there the more vulnerable you are.” I said, “Howard, that’s what wanted, so we have to do it.” So we set up to do that. Page 103: Describing the June 17, 1972 break-in Page 105: Liddy’s words again: But in any event, we held a council of war, so to speak. And the Cubans, they said, “Look, whatever the decision is, we are up to it.” Question: Where was this council of war occurring? Answer: This was in that – the room that Mr. Hunt and I had been in, the one with all the equipment that Mr. McCord had. And McCord, he was for doing it. Hunt was very, very loathe at first, but at any rate the decision was left up to me, because I was the operational chief. And I said, “Okay, we will go again.” And they went again. And the – they got in. The two links below both lead to the 148 page transcript of the Liddy deposition. If one link does not work, try the other. If you have trouble making a link work, copy it and place it in your browser. http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:x3l4K...clnk&cd=164 http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:x3l4K...clnk&cd=165

Of course, eventually there would have been a problem with multiple legal representation of all seven defendants – McCord and the four Cuban-Americans arrested at Watergate on June 17, 1972, and Hunt and Liddy who were not arrested then. After I was served with a subpoena on June 28, 1972, to appear “Forthwith” before the federal grand jury investigating the case, I had to withdraw completely from representation of any of the seven defendants as my role had been changed to being a witness. But even after this event, the four Cuban-American were represented by one attorney – Henry Rothblatt, while Hunt, Liddy and McCord each retained their own counsel. So a majority of the seven defendants were still represented by one attorney, Rothblatt, as the case went to trial in January 1973. As to the other questions you pose, I think the answers to these can be found in the sworn deposition of Gordon Liddy of December 6, 1996, that I posted in the Forum today.

On December 6, 1996, G. Gordon Liddy gave a sworn deposition in Washington, D.C. in which he described the origins of the Watergate scandal. The deposition was given in the following styled lawsuit: In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Maureen K. Dean and John W. Dean, Plaintiffs v. No. 92-1807 St. Martin’s Press, Inc., (HHG)(AK) Len Colodny, Robert Gettlin, G. Gordon Liddy, and Phillip Mackin Bailley, Defendants The 148 page deposition presents an encompassing summary from the viewpoint of Mr. Liddy. There are many highlights in the deposition. Attention is called especially to: Pages 86 to 96: Planning and carrying out the first break-in on May 26, 27 and 28, 1972 Page 98: Planning the June 17, 1972 break-in upon instructions from Jeb Magruder. These are Liddy’s words: And that’s what he [Magruder] wanted. So that when I went back to Hunt and Hunt was upset. He said, “My God,” he said, “Do you know how much trouble it took us to get in there in the first place? All those three entries,” and this, that and the other thing, “And now this? With all the camera and all this film and all this exposure, I mean, the longer you are in there the more vulnerable you are.” I said, “Howard, that’s what wanted, so we have to do it.” So we set up to do that. Page 103: Describing the June 17, 1972 break-in Page 105: Liddy’s words again: But in any event, we held a council of war, so to speak. And the Cubans, they said, “Look, whatever the decision is, we are up to it.” Question: Where was this council of war occurring? Answer: This was in that – the room that Mr. Hunt and I had been in, the one with all the equipment that Mr. McCord had. And McCord, he was for doing it. Hunt was very, very loathe at first, but at any rate the decision was left up to me, because I was the operational chief. And I said, “Okay, we will go again.” And they went again. And the – they got in. The two links below both lead to the 148 page transcript of the Liddy deposition. If one link does not work, try the other. If you have trouble making a link work, copy it and place it in your browser. http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:x3l4K...clnk&cd=164 http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:x3l4K...clnk&cd=165

The following is excerpted from the 1974 hearings of the U.S. Committee on the Judiciary on the Nomination of Earl J. Silbert to be United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. Silbert was the original Watergate prosecutor: Senator Hart: Now, by the middle of July [1972], wasn’t the bulk of the case presented in the indictment known to you? Mr. Silbert: No, sir. Senator Hart: Let me make the record a little fuller. The July 21, 1972, FBI summary memorandum, which if there is no objection we will have printed at this point in the record, indicates fairly fully the evidence of the conspiracy of the seven, their actions, even the financial trail of the money. The so-called Mexican and Dahlberg checks which came into CREEP were cashed in the bank of Mr Barker and later were traced when some of the bills were found on the defendants. [The summary memorandum referred to follows:] U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington, D.C., July 21, 1972 JAMES WALTER McCORD, Jr. Burglary of the Democratic Party National Headquarters Washington, D.C. There follows a summary of pertinent investigation conducted of the captioned matter through July 20, 1972: Burglary and Arrests: At approximately 2:30 a.m., June 17, 1972, officers of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) apprehended five individuals in an executive conference room of the Democratic Party National Headquarters located on the 6th floor of the Watergate Apartments, 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. At the time of the arrest, the subjects had in their possession burglary tools, electronic and photographic equipment and were wearing surgical-type plastic gloves. Those arrested were identified as James Walter McCord, Jr., using the alias Richard Warren; Bernard Barker, using the alias Frank Carter; Eugenio Rolando Martinez y Creaga, using the alias Gene Valdes; Frank Anthony Sturgis, also known as Frank Anthony Fiorini, using the aliases Joseph Di Alberto and Edward Hamilton; and Virgirio Gonzales, using the alias Raoul Godoy. All subjects refused to be interviewed, refused to state for whom they were working, from where they came or their purpose for being in the building. They were all charged with Burglary, Section 1801, Title 22, District of Columbia Code, and were held on $50,000 bond except for McCord, a Rockville, Maryland resident, whose bond was set at $30,000. All but Sturgis have since been released from District of Columbia jail on bond. McCord, who appears to be the leader of this group, retired from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on August 31, 1970, and at the time of his arrest he was Chief of Security for the Committee to Reelect the President. The remaining subjects are all known to have Cuban backgrounds and either worked with or participated in CIA activities against the Castro Government. Note: The remainder of the lengthy summary memorandum is omitted here but can be read in its entirety on page 83-89 of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. The summary memorandum firmly establishes for the legal and historical record the approximate time of the arrests of the five individuals in the Watergate building.

Triumph of the Authoritarians By John W. Dean The Boston Globe Friday 14 July 2006 Contemporary conservatism and its influence on the Republican Party was, until recently, a mystery to me. The practitioners' bludgeoning style of politics, their self-serving manipulation of the political processes, and their policies that focus narrowly on perceived self-interest - none of this struck me as based on anything related to traditional conservatism. Rather, truth be told, today's so-called conservatives are quite radical. For more than 40 years I have considered myself a "Goldwater conservative," and am thoroughly familiar with the movement's canon. But I can find nothing conservative about the Bush/Cheney White House, which has created a Nixon "imperial presidency" on steroids, while acting as if being tutored by the best and brightest of the Cosa Nostra. What true conservative calls for packing the courts to politicize the federal judiciary to the degree that it is now possible to determine the outcome of cases by looking at the prior politics of judges? Where is the conservative precedent for the monocratic leadership style that conservative Republicans imposed on the US House when they took control in 1994, a style that seeks primarily to perfect fund-raising skills while outsourcing the writing of legislation to special interests and freezing Democrats out of the legislative process? How can those who claim themselves conservatives seek to destroy the deliberative nature of the US Senate by eliminating its extended-debate tradition, which has been the institution's distinctive contribution to our democracy? Yet that is precisely what Republican Senate leaders want to do by eliminating the filibuster when dealing with executive business (namely judicial appointments). Today's Republican policies are antithetical to bedrock conservative fundamentals. There is nothing conservative about preemptive wars or disregarding international law by condoning torture. Abandoning fiscal responsibility is now standard operating procedure. Bible-thumping, finger-pointing, tongue-lashing attacks on homosexuals are not found in Russell Krik's classic conservative canons, nor in James Burham's guides to conservative governing. Conservatives in the tradition of former senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan believed in "conserving" this planet, not relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business. And neither man would have considered employing Christian evangelical criteria in federal programs, ranging from restricting stem cell research to fighting AIDs through abstinence. Candid and knowledgeable Republicans on the far right concede - usually only when not speaking for attribution - that they are not truly conservative. They do not like to talk about why they behave as they do, or even to reflect on it. Nonetheless, their leaders admit they like being in charge, and their followers grant they find comfort in strong leaders who make them feel safe. This is what I gleaned from discussions with countless conservative leaders and followers, over a decade of questioning. I started my inquiry in the mid-1990s, after a series of conversations with Goldwater, whom I had known for more than 40 years. Goldwater was also mystified (when not miffed) by the direction of today's professed conservatives - their growing incivility, pugnacious attitudes, and arrogant and antagonistic style, along with a narrow outlook intolerant of those who challenge their thinking. He worried that the Republican Party had sold its soul to Christian fundamentalists, whose divisive social values would polarize the nation. From those conversations, Goldwater and I planned to study why these people behave as they do, and to author a book laying out what we found. Sadly, the senator's declining health soon precluded his continuing on the project, so I put it on the shelf. But I kept digging until I found some answers, and here are my thoughts. For almost half a century, social scientists have been exploring authoritarianism. We do not typically associate authoritarianism with our democracy, but as I discovered while examining decades of empirical research, we ignore some findings at our risk. Unfortunately, the social scientists who have studied these issues report their findings in monographs and professional journals written for their peers, not for general readers. With the help of a leading researcher and others, I waded into this massive body of work. What I found provided a personal epiphany. Authoritarian conservatives are, as a researcher told me, "enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral." And that's not just his view. To the contrary, this is how these people have consistently described themselves when being anonymously tested, by the tens of thousands over the past several decades. Authoritarianism's impact on contemporary conservatism is beyond question. Because this impact is still growing and has troubling (if not actually evil) implications, I hope that social scientists will begin to write about this issue for general readers. It is long past time to bring the telling results of their empirical work into the public square and to the attention of American voters. No less than the health of our democracy may depend on this being done. We need to stop thinking we are dealing with traditional conservatives on the modern stage, and instead recognize that they've often been supplanted by authoritarians. John W. Dean, former Nixon White House counsel, just published his seventh nonfiction book, Conservatives Without Conscience.

Bush: Worse Than Nixon The writer was on Richard Nixon's "enemies list," but Bush's power grab has him really worried. By Morton H. Halperin MORTON H. HALPERIN served in the administrations of presidents Johnson, Nixon and Clinton. He is a senior fellow of the Center for American Progress and the director of U.S. Advocacy for the Open Society Los Angeles Times July 16, 2006 THE BUSH administration's warrantless wiretapping program may have shocked and surprised many Americans when it was revealed in December, but to me, it provoked a case of deja vu. The Nixon administration bugged my home phone — without a warrant — beginning in 1973, when I was on the staff of the National Security Council, and kept the wiretap on for 21 months. Why? My boss, national security advisor Henry Kissinger, and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover believed that I might have leaked some information to the New York Times. When I left the government a few months later and went to work on Edmund Muskie's presidential campaign (and began actively working to end the war in Vietnam), the FBI continued to listen in and made periodic reports on everything it heard to President Nixon and his closest associates in the White House. Recent reports that the Bush administration is monitoring political opponents who belong to antiwar groups also sounded familiar to me. I was, after all, No. 8 on Nixon's "enemies list" — a curious compilation of 20 people about whom the White House was unhappy because they had disagreed in some way with the administration. The list, compiled by presidential aide Charles Colson, included union leaders, journalists, Democratic fundraisers and me, among others, and was part of a plan to "use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies," as presidential counsel John Dean explained it in a 1971 memo. I always suspected that I made the list because of my active opposition to the war, though no one ever said for sure (and I never understood what led Colson to write next to my name the provocative words, "a scandal would be helpful here"). As I watch the Bush administration these days, it's hard not to notice the clear similarities between then and now. Both the Nixon and Bush presidencies rely heavily on the use of national security as a pretext for the usurpation of unprecedented executive power. Now, just as in Nixon's day, a president mired in an increasingly unpopular war is taking extreme steps, including warrantless surveillance, that many people believe threaten American civil liberties and violate the Constitution. Both administrations shroud their actions in secrecy and attack the media for publishing what they learn about those activities. But there also are important differences, and at first blush, it is hard to say which administration's policies are worse. Much of what the Nixon administration did was clearly illegal and in violation of the Constitution. Nixon and his colleagues seemed to understand that and worked hard to keep their activities secret. On the occasions when their actions became public, administration officials tried to blame others for them. These actions were not limited to its warrantless wiretap program and the investigation of political opponents by the IRS and other agencies. They also included, among other things, the burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist (to find evidence discrediting Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times) and the effort to have the CIA persuade the FBI to call off the investigation of the Watergate burglary (by asserting that it threatened national security). Although the Nixon administration did argue (like the Bush administration) that virtually anything the president did to promote national security was lawful, it never presented an argument to justify these particular transgressions. By contrast, as far as we know, the Bush administration has not engaged in any such inherently illegal activities. Nor has it, to our knowledge, specifically targeted its political opponents (aside from the outing of Joseph Wilson's wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame). But even though Nixon's specific actions might have been more obviously illegal and more "corrupt" (in the sense that they were designed to advance his own career over his rivals), President Bush's claim of nearly limitless power — including the ability to engage in a range of activities that pose a fundamental threat to the constitutional order and to our civil liberties — overshadows all comparisons. Among the many such activities are the seizure of U.S. citizens and their indefinite detention without charge or access to lawyers; warrantless wiretaps of citizens in violation of procedures mandated by Congress; and the seizing of individuals in foreign countries and their movement to third countries, where they have been subjected to torture in violation of U.S. laws and treaty obligations. When these activities have leaked out, the president has not sought to deny them but has publicly defended them (and attacked the press for printing the information). The administration has vigorously opposed all efforts to have the courts review its actions, and when the Supreme Court has overruled the president, as it has several times now, the administration has given the court holdings the narrowest possible interpretation. Congress has been treated with equal disdain. When the Senate voted overwhelmingly to prohibit torture and cruel and degrading treatment by all agencies, including the CIA, Vice President Dick Cheney warned lawmakers that they were overstepping their bounds and threatening national security. When Congress persisted and attached the language to a defense appropriations bill, the president signed the law with an accompanying statement declaring his right to disobey the anti-torture provisions. The administration has repeatedly failed to inform Congress or its committees of what it was doing, or has told only a few selected members in a truncated way, preventing real oversight. Even leading Republicans, such as Michigan's Rep. Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have voiced strong concerns. During the Nixon years, the laws governing what the president could do and under what circumstances he needed to inform Congress were murky. There were no intelligence committees in Congress, and there was no Intelligence Oversight Act. There was no legislated prohibition on national security surveillance. In response to Watergate and the related scandals of the Nixon years, however, Congress constructed a careful set of prohibitions, guidelines and requirements for congressional reporting. Bush's systematic and defiant violation of these rules, as well as of the mandates of the Constitution and international law, pose a challenge to our constitutional order and civil liberties that, in the end, constitutes a far greater threat than the lawlessness of Richard Nixon.

Do you make John Dean's decisions for him about where to participate or not? (Now that's 64 questions. Ka-ching!) Regardless of whether you answer or not, it's good to know that you and ol' John Wesley are in touch with each other. If you do talk to him, please pass on my regards, and let him know I'm doing a small series in the Watergate forum, growing his legend. Significantly. By all means, I'd love for there to be two Watergate-related attornies here running from me. Do you think you could get Liddy and Hunt to join the game? Hell, I'll type with only one hand if I could get all four of you here, and especially if Alfred Baldwin would come back out from under the porch. Come on, Doug. If you could drag Colson away from the pulpit long enough, bring him along, too! Let's all play Question-and-Evade! I'm ready. Six against one. You can't beat those odds! Oh! While we're on the subject of Hunt and Baldwin, and since Baldwin has lost his voice, and since you apparently are close to him, too: I don't think Hunt came to your apartment at all on the morning of June 17, 1972, but instead followed Baldwin, who was driving the van to McCord's house, then took Baldwin where he needed to be taken after Baldwin had planted the "evidence" there. And I think you know, too. I think you were and are Hunt's alibi for being in knowing collusion with Baldwin on planting the "evidence" at McCord's house, after Hunt had planted his "evidence" in the White House, which is precisely why you're avoiding all my questions about that. Did I ring the bell, Doug? Do I win a kewpie doll? Please see if you can round up all your Watergate pals. Bring 'em on. Ashton Gray UNITED STATES v. GEORGE GORDON LIDDY United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 509 F.2d 428 Before: BAZELON, Chief Judge, WRIGHT, McGOWAN, LEVENTHAL, ROBINSON, MacKINNON, and WILKEY, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc. LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge. Appellant Liddy seeks reversal of his conviction on charges relating to the burglary and wiretapping of the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate apartment-office building complex in the early morning hours of Saturday, June 17, 1972. Appellant was named in six counts of an eight count indictment returned against seven defendants1 on September 15, 1972. On January 8, 1973, jury selection began before then Chief Judge John J. Sirica of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Shortly after the trial commenced, five defendants changed their pleas to guilty. On January 30, 1973, the remaining defendants, appellant Liddy and James W. McCord, Jr., were found guilty by the jury. Appellant was convicted of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (count 1), burglary in violation of 22 D.C. Code § 1801( (counts 2 and 3), and unlawful endeavor to intercept oral and wire communications and interception of communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) (counts 4, 5, and 8). * * * * * * IV. INSTRUCTION REGARDING RETAINING OF COUNSEL On direct examination, attorney Michael Douglas Caddy testified as follows: At approximately 3:40 a.m. Saturday morning, June 17, 1972, Howard Hunt arrived at his apartment and arranged with him to secure counsel for the five men arrested in the Democratic National Committee’s offices an hour and a half earlier. At about 4:45 a.m. Hunt called Liddy and both Hunt and Caddy explained to Liddy the steps that had been taken to retain an attorney for those men. During this conversation, Liddy indicated that he desired to have Caddy represent him in this matter. Appellant assigns as error the trial judge’s instruction that the jury could draw no adverse inferences from the fact that Liddy retained counsel but could consider the time and other surrounding circumstances at which Mr. Liddy retained Mr. Caddy with respect to the state of mind of Mr. Liddy only. Appellant claims that allowing the jury to draw inferences of guilty knowledge from his efforts to obtain counsel imposes a penalty on the exercise of his Sixth Amendment rights.40 Liddy cites the Government’s emphasis in closing argument on the unusual hour at which he retained counsel as evidence of the prejudicial nature of the alleged error. Appellant bases his Sixth Amendment claim on Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965). In that case the Court held that comment on the defendant’s failure to testify was forbidden by the Fifth Amendment, because it was tantamount to a penalty for exercising a constitutional right. Id. at 614-15. A number of courts, including this court, have extended the principle announced in Griffin to prohibit comment on the defendant’s failure to make an exculpatory statement upon arrest. There is disagreement as to whether a defendant’s silence at the time of arrest can be used to impeach his testimony at trial. Compare United States v. Hale, 498 F.2d 1038 (D.C. Cir. 1974); Johnson v. Patterson, 475 F.2d 1066 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 878 (1973) with United States v. Ramirez, 441 F.2d 950 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 869 (1971). This disagreement appears to be grounded primarily on diverse conclusions reached in attempts to harmonize the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971), and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). There is only scant law on the applicability of the penalty analysis employed in Griffin to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Some courts have found reversible error in circumstances in which the prosecutor has commented on the defendant’s silence and request for counsel upon arrest. Those cases, though containing language referring generally to the right to counsel, appear to be bottomed on considerations involving the rights of an accused facing police interrogation - a context in which the right to counsel is intimately bound up with the privilege against self-incrimination. They are thus of marginal value in ascertaining the applicability of Griffin to the Sixth Amendment claim raised in the present case. In the present case, the trial judge instructed the jury that no adverse inferences could be drawn from the fact that appellant Liddy exercised his constitutional right to counsel. The trial judge, however, drew a distinction between the fact of hiring counsel and the time and circumstances under which an attorney was retained by the defendant. Although it is the latter action of the trial judge that is contested on this appeal, we may usefully begin our discussion by approval of his instruction prohibiting the drawing of an adverse inference from the mere fact of hiring an attorney, at least when the circumstances are such that admission of evidence of such a request provokes the possibility that it will be taken as self-incriminatory. This prohibition of adverse inference from the fact of hiring an attorney seems to us to be a fair corollary to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Griffin. We should, perhaps, refer to our opinion in Jones v. United States, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 276, 296 F.2d 398 (en banc 1961), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 913 (1962), although it was not cited by parties. Insofar as Jones, which rejects a Sixth Amendment claim, uses the broad principle that the expression of a desire to have a lawyer never impinges on the right to have one, we think it is superseded by the reasoning of Griffin. * * * In view of the peculiarities of the fact situation in Jones, we see no point in speculating on the result that would and should have ensued if it had been decided after Griffin. Certainly, the broadside rejection of the Sixth Amendment contention was not sound. The trial judge erred, however, in limiting the application of the principle of Griffin with a ruling that apparently considered that it is generally proper to take into account the time and circumstances of retaining an attorney, and to draw whatever inferences as seem appropriate. Such a distinction generally raises problems that hobble the right to seek counsel. To the extent that an inference of criminality is operative, it invites probing of the very process of selection of counsel - who, why, when and where - and pressing the defendant to come forward with evidence concerning this process. The mischief of the approach is underlined by its semantic subtleties, which opens the door to maneuver and misunderstanding. It would be a rare case indeed where the prosecutor could not point out that the incriminating feature of the employment of counsel - in the absence of explanation - rests not in the employment as such but in the time and circumstances surrounding that event, and inferences therefrom that reflect adversely on the defendant.45 The Third Circuit recently examined the application of Griffin to a Sixth Amendment contention in United States ex rel Macon v. Yeager, 476 F.2d 613 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 855 (1973). In that case the prosecutor in his summation to the jury commented upon the fact that the defendant called an attorney the morning after the alleged crime and argued that this action cast doubt on the defendant’s claim that the shooting was an accident. Id. at 614. Although the defendant neither objected to the comment nor requested an instruction, the court held that there was plain error that required a reversal of the conviction. The court read Griffin as an absolute prohibition against the imposition of any penalty for the exercise of a constitutional right in a criminal law context. Id. at 615-16. We agree with the Third Circuit’s analysis that the admission of a request for counsel raises Sixth Amendment problems under Griffin. We are not called upon in this case to determine whether the Third Circuit was correct in treating Griffin as a bar that is absolute - whether, for example, it would apply where the request for or retainer of counsel was part of the actions constituting the offense, sometimes called the res gestae, so that omission of the request or retainer would distort the underlying account of the witnesses or undercut the likelihood that it would be considered reasonable or natural. In the present case, even if it be assumed that there was error in the admission of evidence, the prosecutor’s summation, or the instruction, or all of these, the error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In Macon, where the Third Circuit found reversible error, the prosecutor’s comment was directed at the credibility of the accused’s story which was a central issue in the case. 476 F.2d at 616. Here, the time at which Liddy retained counsel was but one of a number of factors that linked him to Hunt and the five defendants apprehended a couple of hours earlier. Moreover, the effect of the error was mitigated by the fact that evidence of part of Liddy’s 5:00 a.m. conversation with Caddy was clearly admissible to show Liddy’s involvement in his action of retaining counsel for those arrested during the break-in. His assertion of a right to Sixth Amendment protection against any use of his statements to obtain counsel for himself certainly does not prohibit inquiry into portions of his conversation with Caddy relating to his action in obtaining counsel for others. This evidence of Liddy’s efforts on behalf of the five defendants only a few hours after their arrest was probative of his involvement in their venture. The evidence against the appellant, summarized at the outset of the opinion, was so overwhelming that even if there were constitutional error in the comment of the prosecutor and the instruction of the trial judge there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction. * * * Affirmed. -------------------------------------------- This 1998 article by me from the Wall Street Journal puts in perspective the 1974 U.S. Court of Appeals Decision in U.S. v. Liddy: The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page March 24, 1998 WHAT IF JUDGE SIRICA WERE WITH US TODAY? By Douglas Caddy (Mr. Caddy is a Houston lawyer) The Clinton scandals, with all the claims of coverup and executive privilege, are certainly reminiscent of Watergate. But there is a crucial difference: This case lacks a John Sirica, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia who played such a crucial role in Watergate. The untold historical record reveals that the early actions of Sirica, who assigned the Watergate case to himself, helped spur the subsequent coverup and obstruction of justice that ultimately led to the resignation of President Nixon and the criminal convictions of many Watergate figures. The Watergate scandal began at 2:30 a.m. on June 17, 1972, when Washington, D.C. police arrested five men on burglary charges at the Watergate office building. At 3:05 a.m. E. Howard Hunt phoned me from his White House office and asked if he could come immediately to my Washington residence. I had been Hunt’s personal attorney for several years. Hunt arrived half an hour later and informed me what had transpired earlier at the Watergate. He retained me to represent him in the case and then called G. Gordon Liddy, who also hired me. At that time, about two hours after the burglary, both Hunt and Liddy requested I also represent the five people arrested, four Cuban-Americans and James McCord, who were then incarcerated in the D.C. jail. On June 28 – 11 days later – while working on the case in the federal courthouse in Washington, I was served with a subpoena bearing the name of Chief Judge Sirica, to appear “forthwith” before the federal grand jury investigating the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Donald Campbell grabbed me by the arm and pulled me into the grand jury room. From June 28 until July 19 I was to appear before the grand jury on six occasions and answer hundreds of questions. I drew the line, however, on the advice of my own legal counsel, at answering 38 questions we felt invaded my clients’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the attorney-client privilege. A typical question: “Between the hours of Friday at midnight, June 16, and 8:30 a.m. Saturday, June 17, did you receive a visit from Mr. Everett Howard Hunt?” We believed answering such questions would incriminate Hunt and Liddy, who had not been arrested, and would violate their constitutional rights. Judge Sirica, rejecting such arguments out of hand, threatened to jail me for contempt of court. When I went before the grand jury on July 13, I refused to answer the 38 questions. Within an hour I was back before Judge Sircia, who immediately held me in contempt of court and ordered me to jail. Five days later, on July 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the contempt citation and ordered me to testify under threat of being jailed again. The opinion, which I found gratuitously insulting, declared: “Even if such a relationship does exist, certain communications, such as consultation in furtherance of a crime, are not within the privilege.” In his July 19, 1972, Oval Office tape, Nixon is recorded as expressing dismay to John Ehrlichman: “Do you mean the circuit court ordered an attorney to testify?” Ehrlichman replied, “It [unintelligible] me, except that this damn circuit that we’ve got here, with [Judge David] Bazelon and so on, it surprises me every time they do something.” Nixon then asked, “Why didn’t he appeal to the Supreme Court?” The answer is that my attorneys and I believe we had built a strong enough court record that if Hunt, Liddy and the five arrested individuals were found guilty, their convictions could be overturned on appeal because of Sirica’s and the appeals court’s abuse of me as their attorney. However, Judge Sirica’s actions had an unintended consequence. Hunt and Liddy, seeing their attorney falsely accused by Judge Sirica of being a participant in their crime, realized early on that they were not going to get a fair trail, so they embarked on a coverup involving “hush money.” As Hunt has written: “If Sirica was treating Caddy – an Officer of the Court – so summarily, and Caddy was completely uninvolved in Watergate – then those of us who were involved could expect neither fairness nor understanding from him. As events unfolded, this conclusion became tragically accurate.” Liddy appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals, claiming that my being forced to testify denied him his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court upheld his conviction: “The evidence against appellant...was so overwhelming that even if there were constitutional error in the comment of the prosecutor and the instruction of the trial judge, there is no reasonable possibility it contributed to the conviction.” Neither Judge Sirica nor the appeals court acknowledged that their assault on the attorney-client privilege helped spur the ensuing coverup and obstruction of justice. I was never indicted, named an unindicted co-conspirator, disciplined by the Bar or even contacted by the Senate Watergate Committee or the House Judiciary Committee, whose staff included a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham. Now the issue of the attorney-client privilege is again being raised, this time by Monica Lewinsky’s first lawyer, Francis D. Carter, who has been subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury and bring the notes he took while representing Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Carter got involved when Vernon Jordan referred Ms. Lewinsky to him in January. On March 4, Mr. Carter’s attorney, Charles Ogletree, argued before Chief Judge Norma Hollaway Johnson that the subpoena should be quashed: “Once you start to allow the government to intrude on the attorney-client relationship and allow them to pierce the attorney-client privilege, clients will no longer have a sense of confidence and respect that lawyers should have.” Coming days will reveal how Mr. Carter fares in his fight to protect Ms. Lewinsky’s constitutional rights and what effect this will have on the case’s ultimate outcome. To date, at least, Judge Johnson has shown a restraint that her predecessor Judge Sirica did not.

UNITED STATES v. GEORGE GORDON LIDDY United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 509 F.2d 428 Before: BAZELON, Chief Judge, WRIGHT, McGOWAN, LEVENTHAL, ROBINSON, MacKINNON, and WILKEY, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc. LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge. Appellant Liddy seeks reversal of his conviction on charges relating to the burglary and wiretapping of the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate apartment-office building complex in the early morning hours of Saturday, June 17, 1972. Appellant was named in six counts of an eight count indictment returned against seven defendants1 on September 15, 1972. On January 8, 1973, jury selection began before then Chief Judge John J. Sirica of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Shortly after the trial commenced, five defendants changed their pleas to guilty. On January 30, 1973, the remaining defendants, appellant Liddy and James W. McCord, Jr., were found guilty by the jury. Appellant was convicted of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (count 1), burglary in violation of 22 D.C. Code § 1801( (counts 2 and 3), and unlawful endeavor to intercept oral and wire communications and interception of communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) (counts 4, 5, and 8). * * * * * * IV. INSTRUCTION REGARDING RETAINING OF COUNSEL On direct examination, attorney Michael Douglas Caddy testified as follows: At approximately 3:40 a.m. Saturday morning, June 17, 1972, Howard Hunt arrived at his apartment and arranged with him to secure counsel for the five men arrested in the Democratic National Committee’s offices an hour and a half earlier. At about 4:45 a.m. Hunt called Liddy and both Hunt and Caddy explained to Liddy the steps that had been taken to retain an attorney for those men. During this conversation, Liddy indicated that he desired to have Caddy represent him in this matter. Appellant assigns as error the trial judge’s instruction that the jury could draw no adverse inferences from the fact that Liddy retained counsel but could consider the time and other surrounding circumstances at which Mr. Liddy retained Mr. Caddy with respect to the state of mind of Mr. Liddy only. Appellant claims that allowing the jury to draw inferences of guilty knowledge from his efforts to obtain counsel imposes a penalty on the exercise of his Sixth Amendment rights.40 Liddy cites the Government’s emphasis in closing argument on the unusual hour at which he retained counsel as evidence of the prejudicial nature of the alleged error. Appellant bases his Sixth Amendment claim on Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965). In that case the Court held that comment on the defendant’s failure to testify was forbidden by the Fifth Amendment, because it was tantamount to a penalty for exercising a constitutional right. Id. at 614-15. A number of courts, including this court, have extended the principle announced in Griffin to prohibit comment on the defendant’s failure to make an exculpatory statement upon arrest. There is disagreement as to whether a defendant’s silence at the time of arrest can be used to impeach his testimony at trial. Compare United States v. Hale, 498 F.2d 1038 (D.C. Cir. 1974); Johnson v. Patterson, 475 F.2d 1066 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 878 (1973) with United States v. Ramirez, 441 F.2d 950 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 869 (1971). This disagreement appears to be grounded primarily on diverse conclusions reached in attempts to harmonize the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971), and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). There is only scant law on the applicability of the penalty analysis employed in Griffin to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Some courts have found reversible error in circumstances in which the prosecutor has commented on the defendant’s silence and request for counsel upon arrest. Those cases, though containing language referring generally to the right to counsel, appear to be bottomed on considerations involving the rights of an accused facing police interrogation - a context in which the right to counsel is intimately bound up with the privilege against self-incrimination. They are thus of marginal value in ascertaining the applicability of Griffin to the Sixth Amendment claim raised in the present case. In the present case, the trial judge instructed the jury that no adverse inferences could be drawn from the fact that appellant Liddy exercised his constitutional right to counsel. The trial judge, however, drew a distinction between the fact of hiring counsel and the time and circumstances under which an attorney was retained by the defendant. Although it is the latter action of the trial judge that is contested on this appeal, we may usefully begin our discussion by approval of his instruction prohibiting the drawing of an adverse inference from the mere fact of hiring an attorney, at least when the circumstances are such that admission of evidence of such a request provokes the possibility that it will be taken as self-incriminatory. This prohibition of adverse inference from the fact of hiring an attorney seems to us to be a fair corollary to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Griffin. We should, perhaps, refer to our opinion in Jones v. United States, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 276, 296 F.2d 398 (en banc 1961), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 913 (1962), although it was not cited by parties. Insofar as Jones, which rejects a Sixth Amendment claim, uses the broad principle that the expression of a desire to have a lawyer never impinges on the right to have one, we think it is superseded by the reasoning of Griffin. * * * In view of the peculiarities of the fact situation in Jones, we see no point in speculating on the result that would and should have ensued if it had been decided after Griffin. Certainly, the broadside rejection of the Sixth Amendment contention was not sound. The trial judge erred, however, in limiting the application of the principle of Griffin with a ruling that apparently considered that it is generally proper to take into account the time and circumstances of retaining an attorney, and to draw whatever inferences as seem appropriate. Such a distinction generally raises problems that hobble the right to seek counsel. To the extent that an inference of criminality is operative, it invites probing of the very process of selection of counsel - who, why, when and where - and pressing the defendant to come forward with evidence concerning this process. The mischief of the approach is underlined by its semantic subtleties, which opens the door to maneuver and misunderstanding. It would be a rare case indeed where the prosecutor could not point out that the incriminating feature of the employment of counsel - in the absence of explanation - rests not in the employment as such but in the time and circumstances surrounding that event, and inferences therefrom that reflect adversely on the defendant.45 The Third Circuit recently examined the application of Griffin to a Sixth Amendment contention in United States ex rel Macon v. Yeager, 476 F.2d 613 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 855 (1973). In that case the prosecutor in his summation to the jury commented upon the fact that the defendant called an attorney the morning after the alleged crime and argued that this action cast doubt on the defendant’s claim that the shooting was an accident. Id. at 614. Although the defendant neither objected to the comment nor requested an instruction, the court held that there was plain error that required a reversal of the conviction. The court read Griffin as an absolute prohibition against the imposition of any penalty for the exercise of a constitutional right in a criminal law context. Id. at 615-16. We agree with the Third Circuit’s analysis that the admission of a request for counsel raises Sixth Amendment problems under Griffin. We are not called upon in this case to determine whether the Third Circuit was correct in treating Griffin as a bar that is absolute - whether, for example, it would apply where the request for or retainer of counsel was part of the actions constituting the offense, sometimes called the res gestae, so that omission of the request or retainer would distort the underlying account of the witnesses or undercut the likelihood that it would be considered reasonable or natural. In the present case, even if it be assumed that there was error in the admission of evidence, the prosecutor’s summation, or the instruction, or all of these, the error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In Macon, where the Third Circuit found reversible error, the prosecutor’s comment was directed at the credibility of the accused’s story which was a central issue in the case. 476 F.2d at 616. Here, the time at which Liddy retained counsel was but one of a number of factors that linked him to Hunt and the five defendants apprehended a couple of hours earlier. Moreover, the effect of the error was mitigated by the fact that evidence of part of Liddy’s 5:00 a.m. conversation with Caddy was clearly admissible to show Liddy’s involvement in his action of retaining counsel for those arrested during the break-in. His assertion of a right to Sixth Amendment protection against any use of his statements to obtain counsel for himself certainly does not prohibit inquiry into portions of his conversation with Caddy relating to his action in obtaining counsel for others. This evidence of Liddy’s efforts on behalf of the five defendants only a few hours after their arrest was probative of his involvement in their venture. The evidence against the appellant, summarized at the outset of the opinion, was so overwhelming that even if there were constitutional error in the comment of the prosecutor and the instruction of the trial judge there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction. * * * Affirmed. ---------------------------------------- This 1998 article by me from The Wall Street Journal puts in perspective the 1974 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in U.S. v. Liddy. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page March 24, 1998 WHAT IF JUDGE SIRICA WERE WITH US TODAY? By Douglas Caddy (Mr. Caddy is a Houston lawyer) The Clinton scandals, with all the claims of coverup and executive privilege, are certainly reminiscent of Watergate. But there is a crucial difference: This case lacks a John Sirica, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia who played such a crucial role in Watergate. The untold historical record reveals that the early actions of Sirica, who assigned the Watergate case to himself, helped spur the subsequent coverup and obstruction of justice that ultimately led to the resignation of President Nixon and the criminal convictions of many Watergate figures. The Watergate scandal began at 2:30 a.m. on June 17, 1972, when Washington, D.C. police arrested five men on burglary charges at the Watergate office building. At 3:05 a.m. E. Howard Hunt phoned me from his White House office and asked if he could come immediately to my Washington residence. I had been Hunt’s personal attorney for several years. Hunt arrived half an hour later and informed me what had transpired earlier at the Watergate. He retained me to represent him in the case and then called G. Gordon Liddy, who also hired me. At that time, about two hours after the burglary, both Hunt and Liddy requested I also represent the five people arrested, four Cuban-Americans and James McCord, who were then incarcerated in the D.C. jail. On June 28 – 11 days later – while working on the case in the federal courthouse in Washington, I was served with a subpoena bearing the name of Chief Judge Sirica, to appear “forthwith” before the federal grand jury investigating the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Donald Campbell grabbed me by the arm and pulled me into the grand jury room. From June 28 until July 19 I was to appear before the grand jury on six occasions and answer hundreds of questions. I drew the line, however, on the advice of my own legal counsel, at answering 38 questions we felt invaded my clients’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the attorney-client privilege. A typical question: “Between the hours of Friday at midnight, June 16, and 8:30 a.m. Saturday, June 17, did you receive a visit from Mr. Everett Howard Hunt?” We believed answering such questions would incriminate Hunt and Liddy, who had not been arrested, and would violate their constitutional rights. Judge Sirica, rejecting such arguments out of hand, threatened to jail me for contempt of court. When I went before the grand jury on July 13, I refused to answer the 38 questions. Within an hour I was back before Judge Sircia, who immediately held me in contempt of court and ordered me to jail. Five days later, on July 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the contempt citation and ordered me to testify under threat of being jailed again. The opinion, which I found gratuitously insulting, declared: “Even if such a relationship does exist, certain communications, such as consultation in furtherance of a crime, are not within the privilege.” In his July 19, 1972, Oval Office tape, Nixon is recorded as expressing dismay to John Ehrlichman: “Do you mean the circuit court ordered an attorney to testify?” Ehrlichman replied, “It [unintelligible] me, except that this damn circuit that we’ve got here, with [Judge David] Bazelon and so on, it surprises me every time they do something.” Nixon then asked, “Why didn’t he appeal to the Supreme Court?” The answer is that my attorneys and I believe we had built a strong enough court record that if Hunt, Liddy and the five arrested individuals were found guilty, their convictions could be overturned on appeal because of Sirica’s and the appeals court’s abuse of me as their attorney. However, Judge Sirica’s actions had an unintended consequence. Hunt and Liddy, seeing their attorney falsely accused by Judge Sirica of being a participant in their crime, realized early on that they were not going to get a fair trail, so they embarked on a coverup involving “hush money.” As Hunt has written: “If Sirica was treating Caddy – an Officer of the Court – so summarily, and Caddy was completely uninvolved in Watergate – then those of us who were involved could expect neither fairness nor understanding from him. As events unfolded, this conclusion became tragically accurate.” Liddy appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals, claiming that my being forced to testify denied him his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court upheld his conviction: “The evidence against appellant...was so overwhelming that even if there were constitutional error in the comment of the prosecutor and the instruction of the trial judge, there is no reasonable possibility it contributed to the conviction.” Neither Judge Sirica nor the appeals court acknowledged that their assault on the attorney-client privilege helped spur the ensuing coverup and obstruction of justice. I was never indicted, named an unindicted co-conspirator, disciplined by the Bar or even contacted by the Senate Watergate Committee or the House Judiciary Committee, whose staff included a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham. Now the issue of the attorney-client privilege is again being raised, this time by Monica Lewinsky’s first lawyer, Francis D. Carter, who has been subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury and bring the notes he took while representing Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Carter got involved when Vernon Jordan referred Ms. Lewinsky to him in January. On March 4, Mr. Carter’s attorney, Charles Ogletree, argued before Chief Judge Norma Hollaway Johnson that the subpoena should be quashed: “Once you start to allow the government to intrude on the attorney-client relationship and allow them to pierce the attorney-client privilege, clients will no longer have a sense of confidence and respect that lawyers should have.” Coming days will reveal how Mr. Carter fares in his fight to protect Ms. Lewinsky’s constitutional rights and what effect this will have on the case’s ultimate outcome. To date, at least, Judge Johnson has shown a restraint that her predecessor Judge Sirica did not.

The second I read of his death, my first thought was "how convenient." My second thought was "did he fake his death? I wonder if they'll show his body on TV like Zarqawi's?" My third thought was "maybe he was murdered." The next couple days should be interesting. Detroit News July 13, 2006 by Marney Rich Keenan Conspiracy theories surround Ken Lay's untimely death I 'll be the first to admit, I'm a sucker for conspiracy theories, my mistrust dating as far back as the discrepancy between John F. Kennedy's head flying backward when Lee Harvey Oswald's fatal shot was fired from behind the president. So, it was entirely in character for me, upon hearing of Kenneth Lay's death, to immediately surmise that his sudden exit was an arranged Kevorkian-like suicide, a simple injection that triggered a "massive heart attack." After all, his convenient timing (Lay's sentencing for his role in the corporate fraud was scheduled for Sept. 11.), coupled with his disregard for all those retirees' lost life savings and broken dreams, makes it difficult, as Tom Zeller Jr. wrote in the New York Times, "to expect that ordinary Americans would trust much of anything involving Mr. Lay unless they could poke it with a stick." Think about it: A coroner could be bought. It was reported that Lay had requested cremation. The site -- a small, rented house in the idyllic mountain resort town of Aspen where friends remained loyal -- was aptly chosen over the family home in Houston where he'd become quite a spectacle of derision. And, too, Lay was no dummy. He had a Ph.D. in economics and orchestrated the rise of the seventh largest company in the nation. After such a steep fall from grace and likely facing the rest of his life behind bars, why wouldn't he consider his life already over? And so it has been with some delight (albeit morbid) that I took a spin in the blog-o-sphere. Not surprisingly, the perverse shenanigans are up and running full steam ahead, like www.kenlaylives.com, a domain where "reports of Ken Lay sightings worldwide continue to roll in." You can also order Ken Lay Lives T-shirts for $14.95 each. (Or not.) I also found other conspiracy theorists, some who seriously questioned whether Lay even died at all. Posted on the blog Metafilter are the comments: "Death schmeath, he's sippin' martinis on a private jet to his off-shore tax shelter/vacation home on a remote island shaped like an E." "I want to see a (expletive) body. I want an autopsy. I wasn't involved at all in Enron and still I want to see these things -- I can't imagine what they would want." "I'm sure the investors he defrauded and the workers whose lives he ruined would love to die in a vacation home." Just when I thought I'd seen it all, I came across the Houston Chronicle's report of the memorial service last Sunday in which Lay's hometown pastor, the Rev. Bill Lawson, eulogized the former Enron CEO. Lawson compared Lay to Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus Christ, saying that often those who are vilified in life become heroes in death. (I'm not making this up.) I don't know about you, but the conspiracy theories seem a little closer to the truth. Marney Rich Keenan's column runs in The Detroit News Features section on Thursdays and in Homestyle on Saturdays.

Ashton Gray, a/k/a the Great Fake/the Great Flake, seems to be avoiding meeting you. One can only wonder why. If such a meeting does take place, which is very unlikely as it would blow Ashton Gray's false cover, you might ask him why he poses unprofessional questions in the Forum that are based on false premises and are designed to mislead the reader. You might also ask him if he is actually Huntley Troth. See below: Forum members and readers of this thread are invited to contrast what Ashton Gray has written about the first break-in at Watergate and the document below from Wikipedia. The dates of Huntley Troth writing on this topic in Wikipedia and those of Ashton Gray in our Watergate Forum appear to be suspiciously aligned. Huntley Troth even makes note in Wikipedia of the virus that appeared in the Spartacus Forum on virtually the same day of its appearance. In Wikipedia an alert observer who apparently can spot a phony writes about Huntley Troth: “What I forgot to mention: The already dubiously looking name given by the original author is nothing but an unimaginative anagram of "Only the Truth". I leave it to others to check out how reliable Wikipedia contributions are whose authors claim that they possess the truth.” In the Watergate forum reference has been made that Ashton Gray is the name of Canadian porn star. I leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions of whether Ashton Gray may actually be Huntley Troth or whether both of these are made-up names for someone who actually may be an undisclosed third party. Or whatever or however the bizarre case may be. In any event the credibility of Ashton Gray and Huntley Troth is being questioned in the Watergate Forum and in Wikipedia. From Wikipedia:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/Huntley_Troth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Watergate_first_break-in

Pat -- It looks as though Ashton Gray is going to be a no show. So it turns out that not only is he a Great Fake but also a Great Flake.

Dawn: Thank you for asking these questions that are framed in a professional manner. I am pleased to answer them to the best of my ability. (1) Taken as a whole, I think that much of the truth about Watergate was aired during the Watergate Committee hearings. However, two subjects that should have been covered but were omitted were (i) the alterations of my grand jury testimony and the sworn testimony of Alfred Baldwin by the original prosecutors; and (ii) Robert "Butch" Merritt's allegations about how the FBI and the Washington, D.C. police department recruited him as an informant on the activities of the New Left and the gay community and of me as an attorney in Watergate. The lengthy article about Merritt published in the Advocate in 1977 reproduced a photograph of a signed receipt of money given to Merritt by the Washington, D.C. police to cover costs of his role as an informant. So the story he told was not something that he made up out of thin air. (2) All I can say about the death of Dorothy Hunt in the plane crash in 1972 is that the circumstances of the crash remain highly suspicious. (3) I do not believe that we have a free press in the U.S. today. Operation Mockingbird may not be in place at the present time but instead the mass media is controlled by a small number of corporations. These corporations bend when the government asks them to do in curtailing the dissemination of news. The most encouraging develop in the last year has been the rise of the bloggers, who are like bloodhounds on the scent of government corruption and controlled news. The biggest challenge facing the successors of Operation Mockingbird is how to control the Internet (which they are now trying to do through proposed legislation) and rein in the bloggers. (4) Bob Woodward is known to have had close ties to the Pentagon even before Watergate. His role in trying to downplay the Plame investigation has led to allegations that he engaged in some sort of coverup. Woodward today gives the appearance of someone heavily influenced by government authorities. Contrast him with Seymour Hersh and the difference between a controlled newsman and a free one becomes quite evident. Thank you very much Mr. Caddy. I think I have another question or two for you, and some thoughts on what you posted, but have to get out the door for a trial. (Fortunately for me it will be short: a parole revocation hearing with a mentally ill inmate. ) Sometime perhaps we can discuss the legal bus...off this forum... I know that you and Barr are close as are Barr and I. (email daily, of late, re Nathan Darby's death, and the work he is doing now, about which I will PM you, later.) Dawn Thank you again Doug. As you know from my prior questions to you my interest is in the JFk assassination. Not to say I am not deply interested in Watergate, but I want to go back to 11/22/63. I believe I may have already asked you this, so forgive me if I did, but 1. How did Billie sol Estes come to pick you to rep. him? (Or at least to write to AG Trott). 2. (If you know) how did Trott become the person to whom you wrote? I ask this because as soon as HSCA ended and it got turned over to the Justice Dept. I began calling and called every year on 11/22 . The name of the AG in charge - or so I was told- was Cubbage. I spoke with him several years in a row. Not that I ever thought under Reagan there was a prayer that Justice WOULD follow-up, I called none the less. Got nowhere. 3.Do you have an opinion on who killed JFk? 4. Do you have an opinion as to why he was killed? 5. I am curious as to what lead you here. The why of it? (I got here by goglging a name of one of my favorite researchers (also probably the nicest): -Atty Vince Salandria in 10/04- and life has not ever been the same:)) Again, with much appreciation. I also have some comment re your answers above but want to just check in here, then have a ton of legal work to get done....Do you ever miss practicing law? I doubt I will ever retire as I love it still, after now 21 years. Dawn ps Your answer re the Mac Wallace press conference is the same as Barr's. It's J who had it wrong then. J -God rest his soul- thought/told me- there was to be a joint press conf in DC with you and Barr. Guess Barr did not get around to asking you til later. Sounds like Barr! I am mailing him a picture packet today, of different times we were all here in Austin. The town where Mac Wallace's first murder was fixed. JFK's next stop if Dallas did not "work out". Dawn: In answer to your questions:: (1) As I have recounted previously, Billie Sol was in federal prison in Big Spring, Texas. He telephoned Shearn Moody, Jr., one of the three trustees of the billion-dollar Moody Foundation of Galveston, Texas, upon the advice of one of the inmates, a former Austin, Texas lobbyist for Moody who had committed a federal crime after he moved to Washington that was unrelated to any work that he had done for Moody. Billie Sol asked Moody for a Moody Foundation grant in order to tell what he knew about LBJ. Moody, who was a history buff, was enthusiastic and asked me to go the prison where Billie Sol was incarcerated and talk to him. I advised Billie Sol that the best way to get his story out was by writing a book. Billie Sol upon his release from prison in December 1983 again contacted Moody and said that he wanted to write the book and needed a Moody Foundation grant to do it. I visited Billie Sol in Abilene, Texas and we went together to see the president of Abilene Christian University, a Church of Christ institution. Billie Sol was a life-long member of that church. The university president was receptive to the idea of a Moody Foundation grant to assist Billie Sol to tell his story as the university had previously received grants from the Foundation. It was both Shearn Moody’s and Billie Sol’s decision that I represent him in getting his proposed book published. Billie Sol’s first needed to get both federal and state immunity before he could tell his story. (2) Edward Miller, a former Assistant Director of the FBI, was already working with me on another Moody Foundation grant. Miller and Mark Felt had both convicted and then pardoned by President Reagan for engaging in “black bag” jobs against the New Left in the early 1970's. Miller knew Stephen Trott, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, in the U.S. Dept. Of Justice, who had arranged for the presidential pardon. This led to my writing Trott and visiting him several times in the U.S. Dept. of Justice, accompanied by Miller in order to obtain immunity for Billie Sol so that he could tell his story. (3) My personal opinion as to who killed JFK counts for nothing. If one is to believe Billie Sol, Mac Wallace was instrumental in doing it upon the orders of LBJ. (4) Who stood the most to gain by JFK’s murder? LBJ. The historical record shows that LBJ was facing a potential criminal investigation and indictment for his involvement with Billie Sol Estes and Bobby Baker in their respective scandals in the months leading up to the assassination. Had JFK not been killed, LBJ’s political career at the minimum would have come to an abrupt halt. (5) As to why I joined the Forum, I would state that occasionally I google my name to see what new has been posted about me. Earlier this year I saw that John Simkin had started a thread about me, apparently as a result of the article about me that was published in the Advocate in August 2005. He noted that my name surfaced in both Watergate and the JFK assassination. I was hesitant to join at first because John’s biography of me and comments were somewhat negative. But after I saw that Alfred Baldwin had joined the forum, I decided to do so also. Until recently I thought that I might attempt to contact John Dean to see if he were interested in joining the Forum. However, in light of the destructive postings of Ashton Gray, I have decided that encouraging Dean or anyone else who has a direct knowledge to join the Forum is not a viable option. You are correct in the general assertion that grand jury testimony is secret. However, there is a recognized exception to this legal rule that permits any witness who has appeared before the grand jury to disclose publicly what transpired during that witness's appearance, including testimony and queries posed by the prosecutor and jury members. This is applicable even if the witness is a defendant, although in most cases a defendant decides not to speak out. I talked to Billie Sol within a few days following his grand jury appearance in March 1984 in Robertson County, Texas. He had received transactional immunity from the prosecutor before testifying. The grand jury appearance had been arranged with Billie Sol's consent by U.S. Marshal Clint Peoples. It was my impression in talking to Billie Sol afterwards that he wanted his testimony before the grand jury to be made public and had so authorized public discussion by the prosecutor, U.S. Marshal Peoples, and his own attorney. There were a number of press reports at the time, so it would be impossible now to state which exact source of information about Billie Sol's testimony was used by the writer of a particular press report. Billie Sol desired to set the record straight publicly about murders commissioned by LBJ and wisely employed the grand jury system to accomplish this end. Doug: Thanx for the reminder here. We discussed the highly suspicious death of the great US Marshall- (and former TX Ranger)- Clint Peoples privately, some time ago, for which I remain most appreciative. 1. What do you think of the print evidence? (Mac Wallace known prints from murder conviction of Kinsner, to latent print on 6th floor, matched by Nathan Darby and others (one wishing to remain private, and one by an expert in France). 2. Do you have a personal opinion as to why Billie sol was not killed? (Especially given that the brave men who investigated Billie sol's evidence/testimony to Grand Jury : Henry Marshall, and Clint Peoples were, in my opinion, murdered. Again I appreciate your reply. Dawn In response to your questions, (1) I have full faith in Nathan Darby’s expert analysis of Mac Wallace’s fingerprint that was left on a box on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. (2) In light of the murders of so many persons directly involved in the Billie Sol Estes –LBJ relationship, I am surprised that Billie Sol’s name has not been added to the list of those who are no longer with us. I have no personal opinion why this is the way it has turned out.

Authors on Discovery Channel, July 17th at 1pm... on a documentary about the book called "Conspiracy Files: JFK Assassination," produced by NBC. Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann are featured, along with the first televised interview with ex-Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden. http://ultimatesacrificethebook.com/node/16 Many new files cited in the book are online at maryferrell.org, on a page devoted to "Ultimate Sacrifice," http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...imate_Sacrifice The web page also contains exclusive video clips of Lamar Waldron talking about the new revelations in the book. Mary Ferrell was one of the leading researchers in the field and the Foundation continuing her legacy contains a wealth of information, including a huge number of declassified files you can view online.

Some members have complained that they see this as a threat to Ashton. As I have met you I know that this is not the case. However, I can understand why they have interpreted it in that way. I think it would be a good idea to delete this comment. I would hate people to think that this is part of a strategy to drive Ashton from the Forum. After all, he has given you and Ray an intellectual beating. When Pat posted his invitation I began wondering how Ashton Gray could escape from having his fake cover blown. Now we know: John, our moderator, rushes to the rescue. It is amazing the lengths that Gray and John will go to make sure that Gray is not exposed for what he is. Why doesn’t Gray accept Pat’s invitation? Could it be that he would be shown for what he is? I guess that I shall have to take Maj. Ed Dames’ course on remote viewing to ascertain Gray’s real identity. I always listen to Dames when he is interviewed on the radio show www.coasttocoastam.com. Of course, in the age of the Internet there are other ways to trace and find a person’s true identity merely through the posting that the person has made. Law enforcement and private detectives do this all the time. So sooner or later forum members will learn the truth about Mr. X, a/k/a Ashton Gray, and exactly who is pulling his strings, John’s coverup for Gray notwithstanding. In the interim maybe the forum should sponsor a contest on who Gray really is. Could he be operating at the behest of the CIA in a disinformation program? Is he someone who is bitter for having been kicked out of the Church of Scientology for having heretical views? The possibilities are endless, based on the ravings that Gray has made in the Forum.

I have been contacted by several members of the forum who are working on manuscripts on specialized topics covered in the forum that they would like to have published in book form. I personally have been impressed, or should I say overwhelmed, by the depth of research and knowledge displayed by forum members in their postings. For this reason, as the author of five published books, I thought it might be helpful if I were to describe for all forum members on how you can get your manuscript published by a recognized publishing house. Actually, there already exists a book that provides you with everything you need to know. I cannot praise it highly enough. Its title is the “2006 Guide to Literary Agents.” It tells you everything you need to know – from A to Z - in getting your manuscript published. Selling your writing and getting a good contract often require help beyond your persistence and diligent work – you need an agent. But know how to find an appropriate person that you can trust to represent your work is the key. The 2006 Guide to Literary Agents is your essential roadmap to finding that agent – without fear of being scammed – and making a lucrative deal for your work. Each listing has been verified and updated, putting the most current information at your fingertips. Inside the 2006 Guide to Literary Agents you’ll find: 1) Comprehensive contact information for more than 600 literary and script agents – more than any other source – who adhere to the ethical guidelines established by the Association of Authors’ Representatives and the Writers Guild of America. 2) Detailed contact information for publicists, production companies, script contests and writers’ conferences. 3) Over 60 pages of exclusive articles and interviews with top agents. Nowhere else is this completely updated and reliable information available in one place. The 2006 Guide to Literary Agents will advise you on how to write a query letter and make the perfect pitch. It even covers the subject of what your contract with your publisher should contain to protect your rights. The 2006 Guide to Literary Agents is published by Writers Digest Books, in Cincinnati, Ohio. Its price is US $24.99, UK 15.99 pounds, Canada $34.99. Below are three links. The first takes you to the Writers Digest Book Club. The second takes you to the page in the Book Club’s web site that contains information on ordering the 2006 Guide to Literary Agents. The third takes you to writersmarket.com that provides you information updated almost daily on developments in the publishing field, including new agents and editors. I cannot stress enough that the 2006 Guide to Literary Agents, with its 362 pages, is indispensable in advising you how to get your book published. http://www.writersdigest.com/ http://www.writersdigest.com/store/booksea...#39;s+Reference http://writersmarket.com/index_ns.asp

Dawn: Thank you for asking these questions that are framed in a professional manner. I am pleased to answer them to the best of my ability. (1) Taken as a whole, I think that much of the truth about Watergate was aired during the Watergate Committee hearings. However, two subjects that should have been covered but were omitted were (i) the alterations of my grand jury testimony and the sworn testimony of Alfred Baldwin by the original prosecutors; and (ii) Robert "Butch" Merritt's allegations about how the FBI and the Washington, D.C. police department recruited him as an informant on the activities of the New Left and the gay community and of me as an attorney in Watergate. The lengthy article about Merritt published in the Advocate in 1977 reproduced a photograph of a signed receipt of money given to Merritt by the Washington, D.C. police to cover costs of his role as an informant. So the story he told was not something that he made up out of thin air. (2) All I can say about the death of Dorothy Hunt in the plane crash in 1972 is that the circumstances of the crash remain highly suspicious. (3) I do not believe that we have a free press in the U.S. today. Operation Mockingbird may not be in place at the present time but instead the mass media is controlled by a small number of corporations. These corporations bend when the government asks them to do in curtailing the dissemination of news. The most encouraging develop in the last year has been the rise of the bloggers, who are like bloodhounds on the scent of government corruption and controlled news. The biggest challenge facing the successors of Operation Mockingbird is how to control the Internet (which they are now trying to do through proposed legislation) and rein in the bloggers. (4) Bob Woodward is known to have had close ties to the Pentagon even before Watergate. His role in trying to downplay the Plame investigation has led to allegations that he engaged in some sort of coverup. Woodward today gives the appearance of someone heavily influenced by government authorities. Contrast him with Seymour Hersh and the difference between a controlled newsman and a free one becomes quite evident.

I appreciate your above comments. Until the arrival of Ashton Gray and the ensuing chaos in the Forum, I had attempted to answer all questions posed to me about Watergate and the Kennedy assassination to the best of my ability. Apparently Mr. Gray, with the tacit encouragement of our moderator, has seen fit the change the character of the questions posed so that they are initially framed on false premises. I have neither the time nor energy nor inclination to answer such questions, which any objective observer would readily see are unprofessional and designed to mislead the reader. I shall continue to answer questions posed by other Forum members to the best of my ability when such questions reflect an honest intention to elicit any information that I may possess about these two historical events. In case you missed the recent posting I made in the Watergate topic under the thread dealing with Ashton Gray's violations of the Board's Guidelines, I am reproducing this below. My posting reflects another reason why the questions posed by Mr. Gray are not deserved of my answers: Forum members and readers of this thread are invited to contrast what Ashton Gray has written about the first break-in at Watergate and the documents below from Wikipedia. The dates of Huntley Troth writing on this topic in Wikipedia and those of Ashton Gray in our Watergate Forum appear to be suspiciously aligned. Huntley Troth even makes note in Wikipedia of the virus that appeared in the Spartacus Forum on virtually the same day of its appearance. In Wikipedia an alert observer who apparently can spot a phony writes about Huntley Troth: “What I forgot to mention: The already dubiously looking name given by the original author is nothing but an unimaginative anagram of "Only the Truth". I leave it to others to check out how reliable Wikipedia contributions are whose authors claim that they possess the truth.” In the Watergate forum reference has been made that Ashton Gray is the name of Canadian porn star. I leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions of whether Ashton Gray may actually be Huntley Troth or whether both of these are made-up names for someone who actually may be an undisclosed third party. Or whatever or however the bizarre case may be. In any event the credibility of Ashton Gray and Huntley Troth is being questioned in the Watergate Forum and in Wikipedia. From Wikipedia:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/Huntley_Troth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Watergate_first_break-in

Forum members and readers of this thread are invited to contrast what Ashton Gray has written about the first break-in at Watergate and the document below from Wikipedia. The dates of Huntley Troth writing on this topic in Wikipedia and those of Ashton Gray in our Watergate Forum appear to be suspiciously aligned. Huntley Troth even makes note in Wikipedia of the virus that appeared in the Spartacus Forum on virtually the same day of its appearance. In Wikipedia an alert observer who apparently can spot a phony writes about Huntley Troth: “What I forgot to mention: The already dubiously looking name given by the original author is nothing but an unimaginative anagram of "Only the Truth". I leave it to others to check out how reliable Wikipedia contributions are whose authors claim that they possess the truth.” In the Watergate forum reference has been made that Ashton Gray is the name of Canadian porn star. I leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions of whether Ashton Gray may actually be Huntley Troth or whether both of these are made-up names for someone who actually may be an undisclosed third party. Or whatever or however the bizarre case may be. In any event the credibility of Ashton Gray and Huntley Troth is being questioned in the Watergate Forum and in Wikipedia. From Wikipedia:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/Huntley_Troth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Watergate_first_break-in

I have obviously upset you by not deleting Ashton Gray’s membership. As I have explained many times on this Forum, I am fully committed to the idea of free speech. One of the most important aspects of this is the freedom to ask questions. Ashton is not always as polite as he should be. He has apologised for this and hopefully he will adjust his style in future. However, he is clearly very knowledgeable about Watergate and has raised some very important questions. Hopefully, in time, Ashton will also be able to answer them. Just because I have not deleted his membership does not mean that I always agree with him. (I am not sure what you are implying by the comment the “John Simkin-Ashton Gray tag team”) In fact, as the threads on “What was Watergate all about?” and “John Paisley” will eventually show, we probably disagree fundamentally about several issues. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7253 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3017 You originally contacted me because you wanted me to make changes to my web page on you. It is the main reason why most of the people involved in the assassination of JFK and Watergate stories make contact with me, including Alfred Baldwin, is that anyone who does a web search for the names of these people they quickly find themselves on my website. (For example, if you do a search at Google for “Douglas Caddy” my page on you comes up 1st out of 301,000 pages.) People are understandable concerned that in future my interpretation of their life could be quite significant. In your case, you wanted me to add that you had abandoned your previous right-wing views on politics. I was quite willing to do this as it was clearly true. You also agreed to answer questions on the Forum (as did Alfred Baldwin). As people like Gerry Hemming have discovered, this is a risky strategy as members cannot control the questions they are being asked. Gerry left leaving the questions unanswered. That in itself tells members a great deal. That is why I confidently predicted on the forum, in response to Ray Carroll assertion that Alfred and you would leave the forum if I allowed Ashton to remain as a member, that you would indeed stay and answer questions. I am sure that you are right that the published documents show that you have never been an employee of the CIA. I doubt very much if you ever fell into this category. What I do believe is that William Buckley recruited you as a CIA asset in 1960 when you began to play a key role in the Young Americans for Freedom organization. Buckley had been a member of the CIA where he worked under E. Howard Hunt in Mexico. I suspect the CIA also asked you to carry out tasks for the organization. I don’t think it is a coincidence that E. Howard Hunt contacted you to help out the Watergate burglars. He did this because he knew that investigators would eventually find the links between you and the CIA via Robert Mullen. In other words, you were part of the set-up. As you rightly say, the Watergate burglars were caught because of James McCord’s tape. However, the reason that journalists connected up the burglary with the CIA was McCord’s statement in court on the morning after his arrest. McCord voluntarily told the court that he had been a former employee of the CIA. He did not need to do that. That triggered off a series of events that eventually brought down Richard Nixon. I know this is pure speculation and that we will never discovery documentary evidence that this is the case. However, unless we assume that McCord was a complete idiot (and his previous record shows this was not the case), his main role was to implicate Nixon in the break-in. The same goes for E. Howard Hunt. I think you were an innocent victim of these events. I also understand why you are unwilling to admit to being a CIA asset. John, you are right. What you have written is pure speculation. The truth is that I have never been recruited by the CIA to carry out any tasks for that organization. I was never an employee of the Mullen Company. I was a General Foods employee. As I have disclosed previously Robert Mullen did at one time approach Howard Hunt and myself about purchasing his company as he wanted to retire. But out of the blue Mullen suddenly announced that he was selling the company to Robert Bennett. One must remember that it was the CIA that incorporated the Mullen Company. While Robert Mullen had run the company for a number of years and was entitled to sell it, the CIA still had to approve the purchaser. That is why Robert Bennett chosen. He was then and is now, as the Republican U.S. Senator from Utah, a CIA asset. When he purchased the Mullen Company his father was the U.S. Senator from Utah. It was the CIA’s decision, for whatever reason, to have the Mullen Company sold to Bennett and not to Hunt and myself. As to James McCord, I was surprised at the arraignment hearing later in the day after the arrests on June 17, 1972 when he disclosed he was formerly a CIA employee. All I knew at the time was that he was the Security Director for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President. My best guess is that he chose to reveal his CIA background because he realized that it would soon become public knowledge once his name was published in the newspapers. In the succeeding days I received calls from a number of persons at the National Security Agency who knew McCord personally and wanted to help him in his time of difficulty. In short, his CIA background would have become public knowledge probably sooner than later and he may have decided to make a pre-emptive strike by announcing it at the arraignment hearing. Your statement that I am unwilling “to admit being a CIA asset” is pure McCarthyism. I have never been a CIA asset and never will be. I wholeheartedly concur with Paul Craig Roberts, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and in recent years a syndicated columnist, who wrote in his July 3, 2006 newspaper column: “It is proof of the collapse of American morals and the fallen character of the American people that the American public and its elected representatives in Congress refuse to rein in the Bush regime and to hold it responsible for its monstrous crimes. “America has become a land of evil. The rest of the world hates and despises us. And we are going to pay a terrible price for it. “Bush’s belief that our superpower status makes us immune to the opinion of others goes beyond hubris into insanity.” In short, because I hold the same opinion as Paul Craig Roberts, I would make a terrible CIA asset.

It is true that I sometimes cite my sources in my postings. On other occasions I do not do this. This is no conspiracy. It all depends on if the posting is part of a book I am writing. The story about Shofler, Chung and Merritt does appear in Jim Hougan’s Secret Agenda. In my opinion it is the best book written so far on Watergate. However, Hougan did make mistakes in the book and like other investigators was unable to fully explain what Watergate was really about. For example, on page 321 he writes that he does not believe the Merritt story because: "If we are to believe the disaffected informant, Shoffler told him to establish a homosexual relationship with Douglas Caddy, stating falsely that Caddy was gay and a supporter of Communist causes. In fact, Caddy was about as conservative as they come, and there was no reason to suspect that he was anything but heterosexual.” Hougan was wrong about your homosexuality. Those on the right would no doubt say that you are now a “supporter of Communist causes”. Maybe it is time to reassess the information supplied by Merritt. I also find Captain Edmund Chung’s testimony very interesting. Why did Sam Ervin and his committee believe Shofler over Chung? Why did they not ask any questions about Operation Sandwedge? Is it possible that like the Warren Report, Ervin was part of the cover-up? Countless books have been written about Watergate and yet, to the best of my recollection, not a single author ever contacted me to get my views on the scandal – including Jim Hougan. I was also surprised that I was never interviewed by the Senate Watergate Committee. It may have been that the Committee, as well as the Watergate Special Prosecutor, wanted to steer clear of gathering information and testimony that might have destroyed the U.S. Department of Justice and the judiciary branch of government in the eyes of the public. I refer to the alteration of my grand jury testimony, given under penalty of perjury, by the court reporter at the instigation of the original Watergate prosecutors (Silbert, et. al) and by the alteration of Alfred Baldwin’s sworn testimony. These are both discussed in my article published by the Advocate. I believe that even today in cases of paramount significance the practice of alteration of grand jury testimony still takes place. One hypothetical example that has occurred to me is the Enron case. Ken Lay was very, very close to Texas Governor George Bush and later to President George Bush. It was Lay who used Enron’s resources to help secure the victory for Bush in Florida after the voting controversy erupted there in 2000. If any grand jury testimony were taken that linked Bush to Lay in the events that led up to the collapse of Enron, I believe that such grand jury testimony would likely have been altered or even deleted to protect Bush. You write that “Maybe it is time to reassess the information supplied by Merritt.” I could not agree more. That is why I approached the Advocate to publish my Watergate article. In 1977 the Advocate published a two-part interview with Robert “Butch” Merritt that detailed the Nixon Administration’s covert war against the New Left and the gay community, which included his recounting of the role of the FBI and of Washington, D.C. police officer Carl Shoffler in targeting me because I was gay. The present editor of the Advocate, an extremely talented individual who is under 30 years of age, was unfamiliar with the 1977 article. It was only after he assigned a staff person to search the magazine’s archives, which led to the discovery of the article, that the Advocate placed great emphasis on publishing my piece. http://www.advocate.com/special_feature.asp?id=19186 I have obviously upset you by not deleting Ashton Gray’s membership. As I have explained many times on this Forum, I am fully committed to the idea of free speech. One of the most important aspects of this is the freedom to ask questions. Ashton is not always as polite as he should be. He has apologised for this and hopefully he will adjust his style in future. However, he is clearly very knowledgeable about Watergate and has raised some very important questions. Hopefully, in time, Ashton will also be able to answer them. Just because I have not deleted his membership does not mean that I always agree with him. (I am not sure what you are implying by the comment the “John Simkin-Ashton Gray tag team”) In fact, as the threads on “What was Watergate all about?” and “John Paisley” will eventually show, we probably disagree fundamentally about several issues. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7253 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3017 You originally contacted me because you wanted me to make changes to my web page on you. It is the main reason why most of the people involved in the assassination of JFK and Watergate stories make contact with me, including Alfred Baldwin, is that anyone who does a web search for the names of these people they quickly find themselves on my website. (For example, if you do a search at Google for “Douglas Caddy” my page on you comes up 1st out of 301,000 pages.) People are understandable concerned that in future my interpretation of their life could be quite significant. In your case, you wanted me to add that you had abandoned your previous right-wing views on politics. I was quite willing to do this as it was clearly true. You also agreed to answer questions on the Forum (as did Alfred Baldwin). As people like Gerry Hemming have discovered, this is a risky strategy as members cannot control the questions they are being asked. Gerry left leaving the questions unanswered. That in itself tells members a great deal. That is why I confidently predicted on the forum, in response to Ray Carroll assertion that Alfred and you would leave the forum if I allowed Ashton to remain as a member, that you would indeed stay and answer questions. I am sure that you are right that the published documents show that you have never been an employee of the CIA. I doubt very much if you ever fell into this category. What I do believe is that William Buckley recruited you as a CIA asset in 1960 when you began to play a key role in the Young Americans for Freedom organization. Buckley had been a member of the CIA where he worked under E. Howard Hunt in Mexico. I suspect the CIA also asked you to carry out tasks for the organization. I don’t think it is a coincidence that E. Howard Hunt contacted you to help out the Watergate burglars. He did this because he knew that investigators would eventually find the links between you and the CIA via Robert Mullen. In other words, you were part of the set-up. As you rightly say, the Watergate burglars were caught because of James McCord’s tape. However, the reason that journalists connected up the burglary with the CIA was McCord’s statement in court on the morning after his arrest. McCord voluntarily told the court that he had been a former employee of the CIA. He did not need to do that. That triggered off a series of events that eventually brought down Richard Nixon. I know this is pure speculation and that we will never discovery documentary evidence that this is the case. However, unless we assume that McCord was a complete idiot (and his previous record shows this was not the case), his main role was to implicate Nixon in the break-in. The same goes for E. Howard Hunt. I think you were an innocent victim of these events. I also understand why you are unwilling to admit to being a CIA asset. John, you are right. What you have written is pure speculation. The truth is that I have never been recruited by the CIA to carry out any tasks for that organization. I was never an employee of the Mullen Company. I was a General Foods employee. As I have disclosed previously Robert Mullen did at one time approach Howard Hunt and myself about purchasing his company as he wanted to retire. But out of the blue Mullen suddenly announced that he was selling the company to Robert Bennett. One must remember that it was the CIA that incorporated the Mullen Company. While Robert Mullen had run the company for a number of years and was entitled to sell it, the CIA still had to approve the purchaser. That is why Robert Bennett chosen. He was then and is now, as the Republican U.S. Senator from Utah, a CIA asset. When he purchased the Mullen Company his father was the U.S. Senator from Utah. It was the CIA’s decision, for whatever reason, to have the Mullen Company sold to Bennett and not to Hunt and myself. As to James McCord, I was surprised at the arraignment hearing later in the day after the arrests on June 17, 1972 when he disclosed he was formerly a CIA employee. All I knew at the time was his role as the Security Director for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President. My best guess is that he chose to reveal his CIA background because he realized that it would soon become public knowledge once his name was published in the newspapers. In the succeeding days I received calls from a number of persons at the National Security Agency who knew McCord personally and wanted to help him in his time of difficulty. In short, his CIA background would have become public knowledge probably sooner than later and he may have decided to make a pre-emptive strike by announcing it at the arraignment hearing. Your statement that I am unwilling “to admit being a CIA asset” is pure McCarthyism. I have never been a CIA asset and never will be. I wholeheartedly concur with Paul Craig Roberts, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and in recent years a syndicated columnist, who wrote in his July 3, 2006 newspaper column: “It is proof of the collapse of American morals and the fallen character of the American people that the American public and its elected representatives in Congress refuse to rein in the Bush regime and to hold it responsible for its monstrous crimes. “America has become a land of evil. The rest of the world hates and despises us. And we are going to pay a terrible price for it. “Bush’s belief that our superpower status makes us immune to the opinion of others goes beyond hubris into insanity.” In short, because I hold the same opinion as Paul Craig Roberts, I would make a terrible CIA asset.