Ashton Gray

I'm posting—again—the 52 questions I have asked Douglas Caddy in this thread: Who was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When? It seems clear to me that the reason Douglas Caddy keeps evading the many questions below that have to do with E. Howard Hunt's purported visit to Caddy's apartment in the early morning hours of Saturday, 17 June 1972, is because Hunt never was at Caddy's apartment at all that morning, as Caddy willfully has led the world to believe for 34 years. That would seem to me to be the most simple and obvious reason why there are so many contradictions and holes in Caddy's and Hunt's and Liddy's stories about that purported visit: it's complete fiction, beginning to end, written to give Hunt an alibi for where he really was, which was tailing Alfred Baldwin to plant incriminating "evidence" at James McCord's house. But that would mean Caddy has been selling this cooked-up alibi for Hunt as "historical events" for over a quarter of a century, and profiting from it. So naturally he can't clear up all the contradictions and holes in badly-written fiction, if it's nothing but fiction to begin with; you can't patch up holes and cracks in bad fiction. But to admit that, Caddy would have to admit that he's been running a self-serving fraud on the world. So, that would seem to me to be the blatantly obvious reason that he just endlessly evades the questions. Simple, huh? Here are the questions he won't answer. You decide. QUESTIONS FOR DOUGLAS CADDY SET I These questions arise from the article containing Douglas Caddy's own statements and accounts of events related to Watergate, in which there are contradictions and incongruous events that seem to have no explanation (such as knowing which aliases the arrested men had given to police, or knowing what Liddy's role had been in order to brief Caddy's law partner). Since the five men were using aliases with the police, and there is no record of Hunt or Liddy having given you the aliases, how did you and Rafferty know what names to look for on the arraignment sheet, and which names to use when making phone calls to find the men? How were you able to brief Robert Scott on Liddy's role in the break-in? Did you or did you not receive a telephone call from Bernard Barker's wife asking you to represent her husband and the other men? If so, what time was it and where were you when you received the phone call? Did E. Howard Hunt tell you at your apartment that Bernard Barker's wife was going to call you? If Rafferty was the attorney of record, why were you called before the grand jury as the attorney for the men? Was Rafferty called before the grand jury, too? If not, why not? Were you in the court on June 17, 1972 as an attorney or only "as an individual"? You reportedly told Woodward at the courtroom that the men were not your clients. Was that true or false? In your 10:30 a.m. meeting with the five men inside the cell block, did you properly disclose to each of them that you were not a criminal lawyer but a corporate lawyer? Since you were not a criminal lawyer, and Rafferty was, why did you stay on the case at all? On June 17, 1972, did you subscribe any permanent record, file, pleading, notice of appearance, or any other instrument related to the case for any or all of the men? If so, what? At any relevant time, were you acting as an "Attorney in fact" on behalf of E. Howard Hunt and/or G. Gordon Liddy, and if so, did you have an instrument granting you a power of attorney for either of them or both? If Rafferty was the attorney of record and was the criminal lawyer on the case, why did he get $2,500 while you got $6,000? QUESTIONS FOR DOUGLAS CADDY SET II These questions encompass and compare Hunt's account and Mr. Caddy's own accounts and statements, addressing not only contradictions in the various accounts, but also omissions of information that reasonably would be expected to be in the record, without which certain claims, statements, and event simply make little or no sense. As in all cases, I'm not foolish or naive enough to make the rash assumption that either of two conflicting "facts" automatically is true. Nor do I assume that one has to be false. One might be true. If two or more people are lying to cover up the truth, though, obviously all "facts" they present will be false, and the truth remains an unknown. I'm trying to get to the truth. You said in your accounts that two of your law firm's partners were out of town that morning and only one was available: Robert Scott. Hunt says that you told him that one partner was out of town and that you had spoken to two partners on the phone, and that as a consequence you had said to Hunt, "I'll tell you one thing, Howard, my partners [plural] certainly don't like my being involved in this thing." Which of these mutually exclusive accounts, if any, is true? Why did you alter the time that Hunt had supplied for his phone call to you when you supposedly "quoted" Hunt at the beginning of your article, "Gay Bashing in Watergate"? Did the purported call from Hunt to you come at 2:13 a.m. or at 3:13 a.m. on the morning of June 17, 1972—if at all? Since the burglars couldn't have been "caught" unless the first wave of law enforcement had been plain-clothes men in unmarked cars, in your due diligence for your clients, what did you discover concerning this bizarre police response for a reported burglary in progress? What section, division, department, or unit of the D.C. police were these plain-clothes first responders part of? Did Hunt in fact tell you that you likely would be getting a call from Bernard Barker's wife? Did you ever receive such a call—as you told the Washington Post—and if so, where were you and what time was it? Hunt's account says not a word about any conversation with G. Gordon Liddy during his entire time at your apartment, and implies very strongly that neither he nor you had any contact at all with Liddy at all the entire time that Hunt was at your apartment, going so far as to say: "Thinking of Liddy, I said [to Douglas Caddy], 'There may be some calls for me tonight, and home is the only place I could be reached.'" You claim contrarily that both you and Hunt spoke to Liddy at some length on the telephone between 4:45 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., during which conversation you claim that Liddy told you that he wanted you to represent him. Which of these contradictory accounts, if any, is true? Hunt only claims to have given you aliases used by only two men: Bernard Barker, and another (McCord) who Hunt purportedly only described to you as "another man-who works for CREP." How did you get the aliases that the other men were using in order that you and Rafferty could locate them downtown? How were you able to do legal work for John Dean and G. Gordon Liddy beginning in March 1972 without ever encountering, meeting, or knowing of the Chief of Security for CREEP, James McCord? Hunt purportedly gave you the name "George Leonard" as the alias being used by McCord. That is the alias that had been used by G. Gordon Liddy at all other relevant times. When doing what you have described as minor legal research for Liddy beginning in March 1972, did you know Liddy as G. Gordon Liddy or as George Leonard? (Note: this question is asked despite Hunt's own self-conflicting accounts of who had which aliases.) Referring to your due diligence for your clients, what had Hunt done with the antenna he purportedly had stuffed down his pants leg? Referring to your due diligence for your clients, why was there purported "surplus electronic gear" in the temporary "command post" room with Hunt and Liddy? Referring to your due diligence for your clients, when did you learn that Hunt had stashed incriminating "surplus electronic gear" in his White House safe, and did you advise him to leave it there? Given that you had worked for John Dean beginning in March 1972; given that as an extension of that work did work for Liddy; given that you purportedly had been advised that Liddy was involved; given that Hunt says that Dean was in town at the time, did you contact John Dean that morning, and if not, why not? Referring to your due diligence for your clients, isn't it true that all "documentation" for every one of the aliases for every one of the participants had originated at CIA? Did you at any time put into the record the origins of the fake I.D.s used by the participants? Isn't it true the fake I.D.s supplied by Hunt to certain participants included not one, but two, different I.D.s that CIA had supplied to Hunt (in addition to a separate one that had been supplied by CIA to Liddy)? Can you list the exact aliases that the participants had supplied to the police that morning, linking each to the real names? Did you wait for Rafferty to come to your apartment, or did you meet Rafferty elsewhere? Had you ever seen or met James McCord prior to seeing him in the cell block? If so, when, where, and under what circumstances? What became of the tapes from the recording system that had been installed in Hunt's White House office on or about July 9, 1971? Had you ever met with Hunt in that office? Hunt, in telling you the men had been arrested, claims to have said to you: "You know one of them, Bernie Barker." Is that how it happened? Hunt says he never saw you again after he left your apartment. How did you manage to avoid ever encountering him throughout all the subsequent legal actions? Exactly when and under what circumstances did you stop representing each of the seven people that you have both claimed, and denied to the press, as having represented? QUESTIONS FOR DOUGLAS CADDY SET III The questions below arise out of comparisons of all three accounts—Caddy's, Hunt's, and Liddy's. See also questions posed above. While these questions address some inconsitencies and contradictions, they also address omissions in the record related to crucially important issues. Liddy is very specific about the time of a purported call to him from your apartment, Mr. Caddy: 5:00 a.m. He says that he made a point of the time to Hunt. You have said the call took place 15 minutes earlier, around 4:45, and that Hunt left your apartment right around 5:00 a.m., just when Liddy says Hunt was placing a call to Liddy. Hunt mentions nothing about any call at all to Liddy from your apartment, and implies strongly that he wasn't in touch with Liddy at all that morning at your apartment. Did such a call actually take place, and if you say it did, which time is correct? Liddy claims that Hunt asked Liddy's permission after 5:00 a.m., on the phone, to give you the $8,500. Hunt claims that he gave you the $8,500 just after arriving at your apartment, which you say happened at 3:35 a.m.—well before either the disputed 4:45 or 5:00 a.m. time of a purported phone call to Liddy. Hunt says nothing about any call at all to Liddy, much less about asking Liddy's permission to give you that fee. Yet according to Liddy's appelate court ruling, you testified that Hunt gave you the money only after talking to Liddy and getting approval. Which, if any, of these contrary accounts is true? The appelate court ruling says Hunt called you from room 723 of the Howard Johnson's motel. Hunt says he called you from his White House office. You testified that the call came about a half hour before Hunt arrived at your apartment, which you say happened at 3:35 a.m., placing the phone call at approximately 3:05 a.m. You also say that your apartment was only about a mile away from the Watergate. Where did Hunt call you from, and can you account for why it took Hunt half an hour to get there? Why did you allow your clients, the break-in team, to incriminate themselves and each other on additional counts for a purported "first break-in," when there was no physical evidence that could have incriminated them for additional counts, or even have made anybody aware that any purported "first break-in" had occurred at all? Did you advise your clients to so incriminate themselves and each other by telling the "first break-in" stories? If so, why? Going to your due diligence, did you advise your clients of a sweep by the phone company that had been done just days before they were "caught" inside the Watergate, evidence that would have exculpated them from self-incrimination and mutual incrimination on additional criminal liability for any such "first break-in" and planting of alleged "bugs" that were not present? If not, why not? Given that G. Gordon Liddy was your client, and that he personally had destroyed the physical evidence that might, or might not, have incriminated your other clients for any such purported "first break-in," did you advise the "break-in team" that Liddy had destroyed that evidence? If not, why not? Did you establish beyond a reasonable doubt, to your own satisfaction, that any purported "first break-in" had taken place at all over Memorial Day weekend? If you did, how did you? Did you actually know, at any relevant time, that no such "first break-in" had occurred at all? Are you currently participating in a continuing, knowing cover-up of the fact that there was no "first break-in" at the Watergate? Do you have any actual proof or physical evidence of the whereabouts and activities of E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, James McCord, and Alfred Baldwin, III over Memorial Day weekend—May 26, 27, and 28 1972? Was there a fraud upon the courts, upon Congress, and upon the people of the United States with the knowing intent to deceive regarding a purported "first break-in"? If there was such a fraud, given its consequences on the Office of the President—who is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces—and given its consequences on the Congress—who has war powers—and given that the United States actively was engaged in war at the time, does this rise to USC 18 §2381, Treason? If you know. UPDATE: Given that the resident Questions Exorcist is an attorney and I am not, and given that he has invoked the Great Gods of Privilege with his mystic incantations on behalf of Mr. Caddy (which he has no standing to do), I am including below several points from my entirely lay understanding of the subject as they may or may not be relevant to all the foregoing, with the express caveat that this doesn't remotely pretend to be legal advice or opinion, but only my own personal opinion from my limited lay knowledge: The party seeking the protection of the privilege must be an actual or prospective client. The purported early-morning discussions between Hunt, Liddy, and Caddy therefore invoked no privilege vis a vis the five burglars unless Hunt and/or Liddy already, themselves, were legally established as agents for any or all of them. Even then, see "disclosure to third parties," below. The communication must be between the client and an attorney acting as counsel for the client. The communication must be made in confidence, outside the presence of third parties. "Public" communications are not protected. Every question I have asked is pursuant to public communications from Caddy, Hunt, and Liddy. The purpose of the communication must be to secure or provide an opinion of law or legal assistance. The privilege does not protect the underlying facts, general legal discussions, business or other non-legal advice. Please note that during the afternoon of June 17, 1972, Caddy is on public record saying that the burglars are "not my clients." I'm even trying to ascertain, first, whether that was true or an extraordinary public lie. If it were true, then there is no privilege to claim. The privilege must be asserted. The privilege does not automatically attach, and it must be claimed at the time of demand by a third party. Pretty much all of the questions I've asked have not been asked before, and no privilege has been asserted for them. The privilege is easily lost or "waived" by disclosures to third parties. The privilege can be lost by voluntary disclosure. Also, involuntary or accidental disclosure may destroy the privilege. Everything I've asked about is pursuant to exactly such public disclosures. The privilege does not attach to communications in furtherance of an ongoing or prospective illegal activity. In addition, the privilege does not apply when an attorney defends himself or herself against charges of wrongful conduct. There is ample suggestion in the record, to me, of wrongful and even incompetent conduct, and I'm trying to get those impressions cleared away. I would think Mr. Caddy would be enthusiastically helpful in doing just that. Ashton Gray

Sort of like E. Howard Hunt was a no-show at your apartment in the early morning hours of Saturday, June 17, 1972, right Doug? Stood up again? Hunt was tailing Baldwin to go plant the "evidence" at McCord's house, instead of being at your apartment that morning, as you've been leading the world to believe for 34 years, isn't that true? You were, and are, his alibi, isn't that true? The thing that I find so fascinating is that so many people have actually been conned into believing all this time that E. Howard Hunt would be so flamingly idiotic as to entrust the disposal of the elecronic "evidence" from the "listening post" to somebody who Hunt claims that he never even met until after the arrests, and who he claims to have had a three-minute encounter with, and whose name he claims not even to have known. And there's the unfortunate detail that Baldwin didn't have any White House credentials, as Hunt did, and there wasn't a chance in hell that they were going to run the risk of Baldwin getting stopped with all that very important equipment that had been bought to incriminate the White House. Hunt had White House credentials and could easily dispense with any problem that might arise en route to McCord's house. Once you get enough cold water splashed on your face and wake up and actually look at Hunt's and Baldwin's van-load of manure, the entire concept that Hunt would just tell some stranger to ditch the "evidence" and then walk away to go to your apartment is so ludicrous that you laugh till you cry. (Well, I don't mean "you" literally—you are one of chief salesmen for this load of crap.) Then you sit and laugh some more at his ridiculous story of going across the street to his Mullen office, calling Mrs. Barker and telling her to call you, when supposedly he just had called you and said he was coming over to your place. All he had to do was go to your apartment, call her from there, and put you on the phone with her. You just laugh till you cry. (Well, I don't mean "you" literally—you are one of chief salesmen for this load of crap.) It's all just more of Hunt's utterly atrocious pulp spy fiction, peddled by a pack of con men as being "historical events." "Hysterical events" is more like it. His writing is like teeth scraping across a blackboard. (Wait—I think you have a different opinion of his writing, don't you? What was it? Oh, that's right: you said he is a "very gifted writer." Don't quit your day job to take up literary criticism.) I guess, though, you are obliged to give a glowing endorsement to Hunt's fiction writing, because you've spent half of your life going around selling that bag'o'crap as "historical events," haven't you? When you know damned well he wasn't at your apartment at all that morning, don't you? And that's the one and only reason you've been evading my questions about all the contradictions and holes in yours and Hunt's pure fiction about that morning, isn't it? So I guess that makes you something of a resident forum expert on "no-shows." Can't wait to see your new book. Ashton Gray

As I've posted in the "Alfred C. Baldwin" thread, and in the "Questions for Douglas Caddy" thread in the JFK Assassination forum, I think it's become very clear why Douglas Caddy will not answer any of my questions going to the extraordinary number of contradictions between his, Hunt's, and Liddy's stories about Hunt's visit to Caddy's apartment in the early morning hours of 17 June 1972. The reason is just too simple: It's all fiction. It's pure fiction. It's Caddy trying to provide an alibi for Hunt, and just doing a real "Phyllis Diller does Ophelia" job of it. The performance just stinks. It reeks. Of course what it reeks of just as much is Hunt's hack spy fiction writing. So between them, it's a disaster of contradictions and completely non-sensical "historical events" (as Caddy likes to call his fiction in order to puff himself up). I pointed out the contradictions and holes in their stories with my questions to him about that morning. Of course he wouldn't answer the questions. Why? Oh, I'm a big bad bully he says, and I'm an infiltrator he says, and I'm a saboteur he says, and I'm a fifth-columnist he says, and I'm here to disrupt the board he says. Worm, worm, worm. Anything and everything to worm out of answering the questions. And all it ever was is exactly what you'd expect, given that I exposed his and Hunt's really catastrophically gruesome attempt at doing a little one-act play to give Hunt an alibi for his whereabouts during those hours. So where was Hunt, really, that Caddy is covering up for (and has been for 34 years)? With Alfred Baldwin, planting "evidence" at James McCord's house to incriminate the White House, Hunt being Baldwin's ride to where he needed to go. It's just too damned simple. And there couldn't possibly be anybody else but Hunt to be the driver for Baldwin. All the other actors were in jail except Liddy, and Liddy's role didn't have to do with planting "evidence" like Hunt's and Baldwin's roles both did. Liddy also had to be on deck early in the morning for another part of the op. So now you know what all the writhing and "chaos" Caddy complains about really was: Caddy's flailing and moaning about having been caught in his fiction, and nothing else. Problem is, this brings up a whole other set of questions, then, about Caddy. I think that when those start getting asked of Caddy, they're going to be being asked by properly constituted authorities who will make me look like Mother Theresa. Doug may soon be longing and pining for these nice, friendly, chummy forum moments with me. Ashton Gray

Mr. Baldwin, isn't it true that E. Howard Hunt followed you in the early morning hours of June 17, 1972 as you drove the van full of incriminating "evidence" to McCord's house and planted it there, Hunt having already planted his set of incriminating "evidence" at the White House? And isn't it true that Douglas Caddy knows this completely, that Hunt never went to Caddy's apartment, and that Caddy has been providing an alibi for Hunt for 34 years to cover this up—which accounts entirely for all the contradictions in their stories? Ashton Gray

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

_______________________________ My God! Ash, you wanna take this? Take it? I don't even read it any more. I've been reading the same old crap in the newspapers for 40+ years. It's just the same old propaganda line. It doesn't change. Take it? I might print it out if I needed to wrap some fish. I wouldn't take it, though, to the dump. Ashton

These media accounts so rarely get around to saying who put the copies of the report into Ellsberg's hands to begin with. I'm not shy: it was Harry Rowan, president of the Rand Corporation, who kept himself 3,000 miles away while the dirty work was being done in the Rand D.C. offices on Tuesday, 4 March 1969. Here's a Phun Phact: that was just a little over a month after Nixon's inauguration. Ellsberg was "sworn in as a top secret courier," and ordered by Rowan over the phone not to let anyone, including security officers at Rand, know that he had it. Also in the loop were Leslie Gelb, Paul Warneke, and Morton Halperin, and it's Gelb and Halperin who later deposit copies in the National Archives the day before the first New York Times release. It's so in-your-face that it's suffocating. The surface hasn't even been scratched on Ellsberg and Rand yet. Ellsberg is the boy who—while in the bosom of Rand—more than anyone else gave the world the gift of M.A.D.: Mutually Assured Destruction. Like venereal disease, it's the gift that keeps on giving. And it took a madman to spawn it. This is the Great Saint of Eternal Peacedom. This is the Great Ally of Love and Brotherhood. As these layers continue to peel back, they're going to peel back to what "think tank" means. In another level of "in your faceness," it is the hidden mind. It's where all these black ops are hatched. All of them. It's where the "brightest and best" go—as long as they wipe their morality off on the door mat before they enter. It's where six-figure salaries are paid to people who spend their day with their heels on their desk, gazing at the ceiling. It's where all the dirty details are worked out. It's where all the lies are manufactured. It's where psy-ops are honed to utter perfection. They plan decades in advance. Literally. That's why Ellsberg was handed the documents just a little over a month after Nixon was inaugurated. Ellsberg, with his Rand buddies, wrote himself a big, glorious starring role in the script. CIA is an execution arm made up of amoral thugs who will do anything. Anything. Tell any lie. They are professional deceivers, and their purpose is to deceive. That's what they do. They are the slickest con artists in history, with an almost unlimited budget. At some point somebody's going to pull the string on Daniel Ellsberg and Rand and the JFK assassination. Ashton

I've updated the opening article to correct an important omission about Alfred Baldwin's planting of "evidence" to incriminate the White House. The text which inadvertently was omitted earlier by the posting of a wrong version is this, concerning events happening simultaneously with Hunt planting "evidence" in his White House safe: At essentially the same time, Alfred Baldwin, "the forgotten man" of Watergate, was driving a van James McCord had bought with tax dollars that was full of incriminating electronic equipment McCord had bought with tax dollars to park it at James McCord's house. (Baldwin testified Hunt had instructed him to do just that, Hunt testified that Hunt had instructed Baldwin to do anything but that. These violent contradictions in testimony are nothing at all but CIA psy-ops to generate maximum confusion.) So CIA's Hunt has planted his "evidence" to incriminate the White House. Baldwin has planted his "evidence" to incrimnate the White House. (No one bothers to explain how Baldwin left McCord's house after driving the van there. No one bothers to ask.) The corrected article also corrects a misspelling. Ashton Gray

And of course the overriding consideration is: They always play both sides of the game. Ashton

It created the exact intended effect: unrest approaching near civil war in the United States, which allowed the Communist reps to make a mockery of "peace talks" from there on out. Just a total, seditious game of cat-and-mouse, and why not: the Commander in Chief of the United States was under seige and relentless timed public scandals and attacks originating from his own covert forces from 13 June 1971 straight through to the resignation. He was a fatally wounded animal the entire time and never had a clue. The Paris "peace talks" broke down on 13 December 1972 (these worms love 13) while "Watergate" was taking the White House apart brick-by-brick. The only war that mattered to CIA and their minions was the one they were waging on the United States themselves, without the slightest regard for casualties anywhere in the world. And ultimately it increased their power, funding, and control, no matter how many lies their minions come in here and tell to the contrary. AFTERTHOUGHT UPDATE For the love of Christ (almost literally), they worked together to make Ellsberg a big, holy martyr right up to the moment the hammer was lifted to drive in the nails. And the whole time CIA had his "salvation" sitting in their files, because CIA, with Hunt and Liddy, had created the death's-door reprieve with the staged photos, taken with a CIA camera, and developed in CIA's own labs! Then the very same day that Ellsberg's "trial" started, CIA sent a CIA agent to hand-courier the photos to Watergate prosecutors! Then they still had St. Ellsberg drag his cross through the streets and wear a crown of thorns, and suffer mightily the slings and arrows of outrageous martyrdom, right up until the nails and hammer were taken out of the tool box, and then...Oh! Wait! John Dean and E. Howard Hunt suddenly get that ol' time religion, and "confess" their guts out about the "fun at Dr. Fielding's office" CIA op Hunt and Liddy had done, and the CIA says, "Oh, well we have already delivered some photos of that tax-funded Beverly Hills vacation the boys took," and the martyr Ellsberg is saved! Hallelujah! Hosanas! Hose the world: there's a new Christ! You know, at some point, it's time to check in to the actual universe of reality and see if it's even still there. Ashton

Helms was "at least quite aware of Hunt's existence"? What the hell was he smoking? I keep posting this, and nobody seems to get it, but it was Helms himself who primarily closed the deal on Hunt getting taken on as a "consultant" at the White House, and there was no other purpose than to get Hunt inside to do CIA's dirty work with White House credentials. Here's Helms, through Haldeman, practically licking Hunt: Friday, 2 July 1971 CIA Director Richard Helms is pushing behind the scenes to get E. Howard Hunt into a position connected with the White House in response to the Pentagon Papers having been leaked. H. R. Haldeman tells Nixon that Helms has described Hunt: "Ruthless, quiet and careful, low profile. He gets things done. He will work well with all of us. He's very concerned about the health of the administration. His concern, he thinks, is they're out to get us and all that, but he's not a fanatic. We could be absolutely certain it'll involve secrecy... ." Now here's what the vampire said in "sworn" testimony, having to admit he knew Hunt, but, of course, distancing himself from Hunt: SENATOR MONTOYA: And what can you say about Mr. Hunt? Did you know him? RICHARD HELMS: Yes, I did know him. SENATOR MONTOYA: What was his reputation? RICHARD HELMS: Well, Mr. Hunt was, ah— had a— Well, he had a good reputation. There were some questions at various times during his employment about how well he had carried out certain assignments. But there was nothing with malign about this; it was just a question of his effectiveness. Uh, Mr. Hunt was a bit of a romantic. He used to write books in his spare time, and I think there was a tendency, sometimes, for him to get a little bit carried away with some of the things he was involved in. But he'd never done anything illegal or nefarious that anybody was aware of, and when he left the Agency [CIA], he left a rec— a decent record behind him. SENATOR MONTOYA: What would you say about his reputation for veracity? RICHARD HELMS: [Long pause] Well, I said, sir, that he was a romantic. I think that, uh— uh— I just don't have any way of being able to answer that. I would have assumed that in any matters of importance he would tell the truth. <SPIT!> None of these lying CIA scum know what "truth" is other than what suits their criminal purposes at any given moment. That's what they call "truth." Whatever suits them. There is no truth with any of them. Of course Bennett was "fine" about Hunt working both places. It was an integral part of the entire CIA op, being right across the street from the White House, and for "Bennett" you might as well write "CIA." What in God's name is it going to take to throw enough ice water in people's faces to get them to wake up out of the CIA trance they've been in for 34 years? You've got to be almost completely hypnotized to believe anything about the CIA fairy tale the world has been living in that long. There aren't words in any language that adequately can embrace these CIA scum, and if there were, they couldn't be used more than once. They'd have to be incinerated after that by a HazMat team. Ashton

Second in a series on "Helms the Perverse Perjurer," which also currently contains these articles: Helms Directed CIA to Supply Hunt Helms the Perverse Perjurer Series #1 How Helms Supposedly Learned About the "Break-In" Helms the Perverse Perjurer Series #3 The Perverse Perjurer, Richard the Lie-Hearted Helms, went into Congress and swore to tell the truth, and spewed lie after lie after lie across the world covering up his own crime of HIGH TREASON against the people of the United States, and his knowing masterminding and command of a willful covert black op against the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States during time of war. As has already been proven in the first of this series, Helms Directed the CIA to Supply Hunt, Richard Helms personally was in direct command and control of everything the CIA supplied to E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy to spring Ellsberg from any and all criminal liability for "The Pentagon Papers" (part of the same black op as "Watergate"), and to use, as well, in their later "Watergate" black operations. Here, using some of the same testimony, is the same pathological xxxx claiming that "Ehrlichman" and "the White House" had requested the CIA "help" for Hunt (who Helms, himself, had shoehorned into the White House), giving that as his whining excuse for his Deputy CIA Director to have rushed to Hunt's aid in secret CIA "safe houses." SENATOR GURNEY: How often does the CIA help out former employees in the loan of equipment as in the case of Mr. Hunt? RICHARD HELMS: Well, I can only say, Senator Gurney, that this was an extraordinary exception. And it was done because we had been asked to do it by the White House. SENATOR GURNEY: ...Well, since this was such an unusual request, why did the CIA go ahead and cooperate with Hunt? RICHARD HELMS: Well, General Cushman [Deputy Director of CIA] had already authorized this, as I understood it at the time, on the basis of Mr. Ehrlichman having asked that the Agency [CIA] help. He's a sick, twisted, perverse, treasonous xxxx. Helms, himself issued the "White House request" through E. Howard Hunt, as Hunt exposes in his "autobiography." To sell the con, Hunt uses the transparent excuse of a completely worthless "interview with Clifton De Motte"—which, like all of Hunt's asinine cover stories for his real covert operations, went absolutely nowhere. But it sure provided the excuse for him to carry out Helms's con job with the help of the other CIA water-carrier (or sewage carrier), Charles Colson: Colson said, "You must have done these things before in CIA, Howard." "I have, but when you're uncertain of a man—as we are of De Motte—you take precautions. In some cases that means disguise and certainly false documentation." Colson leaned back in his chair. "You've got friends over at CIA. Couldn't they get you what you need?" "They could," I said, "but they wouldn't. It would be too risky for them." "What would it take to get the things you need?" "It's been my CIA experience that a call from the White House always produced whatever the White House wanted." Really, Howard? But what did your boss, Helms, say on that very subject? SENATOR GURNEY: ...Has it ever been done before, to your knowledge? RICHARD HELMS: Not to my knowledge. And you can figure out the rest. If you can't, have somebody check for a pulse. Stat. Here's the actual chart, just for those having their pulse checked: Richard Helms tells Hunt to tell the total lie that a White House request gets CIA cooperation in this sort of thing (never been done before is the testimony) Hunt tells this complete fiction to Colson (or says he did in his fictional "autobiography," even though Colson was totally in on it anyway) Colson tells Ehrlichman this cock-and-bull, all of which originated solely from Richard Helms at CIA Ehrlichman calls CIA Deputy Director Cushman to "request the help for Hunt" (Cushman having absolutely no authority to act without Helms's direction anyway, as proven in the first article of this series, linked to above) Cushman notifies Helms that the CIA op with Hunt is a "go" Helms orders Cushman to give Hunt everything that's already been prearranged with Hunt long since, later to deny that Helms had any knowledge In other words, Helms issued a request to himself and ran it through FOUR other people to launder it back to himself. It was entirely a CIA order to itself—only one step in the CIA black op against the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States during time of war. And while these pin worms, these sewage insects, were playing their treasonous domestic spy games using nothing but tax dollars, more body bags were loaded on planes every day bringing the victims of their malicious murdering HIGH TREASON back home to be buried in the ground they walked over. And at this moment CIA and its army of golems are still conspiring to cover up this TREASON, and there are perpetrators of it not only walking around free today, but capitalizing on the putrid "fame" they earned with these inconceivable acts of sedition that constituted wholesale war against the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and caused the continued murder of untold numbers in southeast Asia. And I've hardly warmed up. Ashton Gray

By my count I have 63 pertinent and relevant questions in this thread for Mr. Caddy. There is no hostility in them. There is no antagonism. There is no attempted character assassination, as he has accused me of. Yet this very day he found time to go over to the Watergate forum and post a very clear and unmistakable attempt at character assassination against me, one which has absolutely nothing to do with Watergate and has absolutely no relevance to the purposes of these forums at all. Just innuendo, smear, privacy invasion, coy suggestions, smear, smear, smear. While finding time to attempt to smear me, he can't find time to answer any of 63 questions going directly to contradictions in his own statements and claims and testimony concerning Watergate, all of which actually is relevant to the purposes of these forums, and directly relevant to and on-topic for the subject title of this thread. So it isn't that he's gone away. He's just busy trying to get me to go away. I find that a very peculiar use of his time when 63 questions have been presented to him. The questions aren't going away. The questions are valid. The questions are waiting for answers. Why won't you answer them, Mr. Caddy? Why are you doing everything you possibly can dream up to get rid of me and evade the questions? Ashton Gray

First in a series on "Helms the Perverse Perjurer," which currently contains the following other articles: White House "Request" for CIA Help Was a Helms Con Helms the Perverse Perjurer Series #2 How Helms Supposedly Learned About the "Break-In" Helms the Perverse Perjurer Series #3 Here is pathological xxxx and CIA Director (but I repeat myself) Richard Helms in "sworn" testimony before the Watergate Committee, lying about not having been informed concerning CIA supplying E. Howard Hunt with equipment (and also disguises and false ID, plus same for Liddy) until after the fact: DAVID DORSON: Did you have a conversation with [Deputy Director CIA] General Cushman concerning Howard Hunt in the summer of 1971? RICHARD HELMS: Yes, I recall that General Cushman informed me that he had authorized giving to Howard Hunt a tape recorder and a camera [Hunt had also been supplied disguises and false ID by then].... DAVID DORSON: And what was General Cushman's position at that time? RICHARD HELMS: ...He was the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence. ... SENATOR ERVIN: Well, now here is a wig— Ah, that— You didn't think that the wig was to improve the appearance or the pulchritude of Mr. Hunt, did you? RICHARD HELMS: [Doesn't laugh with others] I assume, in retrospect—because I didn't remember [sic] about the wig at the time, Mr. Chairman, as I have testified—but I presume, in retrospect, that Mr. Hunt wanted to conduct this interview disguising himself as someone else. You'd have— But we didn't know that at the time. SENATOR ERVIN: ...Yeah. Well, you didn't think that he got— applied for this voice-alteration device in order to sing a different part in the choir, did you? RICHARD HELMS: [Helms again finds no humor as others laugh] Mr. Chairman, my problem here is that at the time that this was going on, uh, I do not recall having been told that he'd been given a wig and a voice alteration device. I found that out in May of this year [1973], so that, uh, this business of however one interprets undercover work, however one defines it, no intimation was given to me at that time that Hunt was involved in undercover work. ... SENATOR GURNEY: How often does the CIA help out former employees in the loan of equipment as in the case of Mr. Hunt? RICHARD HELMS: Well, I can only say, Senator Gurney, that this was an extraordinary exception... SENATOR GURNEY: Has it ever been done before, to your knowledge? RICHARD HELMS: Not to my knowledge. ... SENATOR GURNEY: Well, since this was such an unusual request, why did the CIA go ahead and cooperate with Hunt? RICHARD HELMS: Well, [Deputy Director of CIA] General Cushman had already authorized this... . It had already been done by the time I learned about it, and, uh— The, uh— You can stop stuttering and lying, Mr. Helms, you CIA scum (but I repeat myself). Because General Vernon Walters—that "other general" who you made Deputy Director CIA as part of your Watergate shell game—just put your lying head on a pike to draw flies for all to see while he was running yet another part of your black ops in "sworn" Watergate testimony: CIA DEPUTY DIRECTOR VERNON WALTERS: Dean then asked hopefully whether I could do anything or had any suggestions. I repeated that as Deputy Director, I had no independent authority. I was not in the channel of command and had no authority other than that given me by the Director [RICHARD HELMS]. The idea that I could act independently was a delusion and had no basis in fact. So Richard Helms, the Perverse Perjurer, was at all relevant times in direct command and control of everything the CIA provided to Liddy and Hunt, which was used not only in Hunt and Liddy's Dr. Fielding office photo-op (that gave Ellsberg his "Get Out of Jail Free" card), but also in the Watergate CIA ops. And that's because: The "Pentagon Papers leak" was a CIA op And: There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate And: The so-called "fabricated Diem cables" were complete CIA fiction The entirety of "the Pentagon Papers" and its bastard child, "Watergate," was a CIA black op, start to finish, on the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States during wartime, and was HIGH TREASON against the people of the United States, and every person who knowingly cooperated on any basis should be called to account before duly constituted authority. It all fits together like Legos. It clicks. There are no holes. The entire thing is CIA twist, CIA slink, CIA crawl, CIA slither, and their run of serpent's luck has just run out. Now we'll see how long it takes for Douglas Caddy to launch more attempted smear campaigns on me with his twin magpies, Heckel and Jeckel. The magpies will be swarming on this topic to explain how this simply can't apply to their favorite Perverse Perjurer, Richard the Lie-Hearted Helms, and flapping around that there must have been some mistake or mix-up in CIA command channels just that one time they helped Hunt. Or was it two times? No, it was three. No, it had to have been four. And then there's that really ugly Nicaragua pearl that Caddy dropped, pinning Hunt to working directly for the CIA when he was supposed to be completely cut off. Maybe at some point Caddy and his minions are going have a wake-up call and it figure out: that by the time I post anything here, it's already been thoroughly processed elsewhere, and that I'm the least of their worries. The least of their worries. But I doubt it. Certainly not in time. It's already too late. Ashton Gray

PART I: The CIA Watergate Bait-and-Switch—17–18 June 1972 During the crucial eleven days from 17 June 1972 to 28 June 1972, E. Howard Hunt, John Dean, and L. Patrick Gray, in collusion with Director CIA Richard Helms and Deputy Director CIA General Vernon Walters, railroaded the Watergate investigation completely away from CIA, where it belonged, and onto the White House. They did far more than simply that: they also conspired to contrive false crimes with which to frame the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces during time of war, then Dean and Gray effected the CIA-engineered bait-and-switch that in one stunning day took virtually all public focus away from CIA and put it permanently onto the Committee to Re-Elect the President and the White House. It is one of the most blatant and arrogant public frauds of all time. It could not have been accomplished completely and well without the knowing cooperation of Intelligence Cult propaganda mouthpieces Ben Bradlee and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. What follows, in annotated timeline form, is damning enough in and of itself. A complete understanding of it, though, can only be realized with the primary comprehension—condensed in the articles cited below—that there never was a Watergate "first break-in" at all over Memorial Day weekend 1972: The "Pentagon Papers" Leak Was a CIA Op There Was No "First Break-In" at the Watergate Beginning with the "Pentagon Papers" leak—an act of war to throw the White House into over-reaction panic—everthing "Watergate" was a felonious domestic CIA operation being waged against the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States while hundreds or thousands of Americans continued to die and be maimed in the jungles of southeast Asia. The two articles linked to above, and their internally referenced foundational articles, detail two key campaigns of the CIA-NSA war on the United States of America that culminated in what is known as "Watergate." From 13 June 1971—the date of the first release of the "Pentagon Papers"—until the resignation of Richard Nixon, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States was under a relentless covert internal siege and assault from double agents of his own clandestine forces, while attempting to manage a war against enemies of the United States half a world away. He was brought down like a blinded wildebeast by a pack of hyenas. A year after the "Pentagon Papers" release, this war on the Presidency climaxed when five CIA operatives carefully arranged to get "caught" inside the Watergate on 17 June 1972—as planned and carried out by the two CIA double-agent "commanders," Hunt and Liddy—and the rest was dénouement. But in the crucial first few weeks that followed the arrests, it was vital for the CIA to erase all public and press interest in the countless CIA connections, and to focus a bright spotlight on the White House as the culprit. The following excerpted and annotated timeline lays out exactly how John Dean and L. Patrick Gray, in collusion with Hunt, Helms, and Walters, did exactly that. Because of the complexity of what is being reported, even though it only focuses on a few crucial days, nonetheless, it has to be broken down into a series of articles, each with its own set of contributing factors and actions by the perpetrators. Although the timeline focuses largely on the acts of Dean, Gray, and the CIA from 19 June 1972 to 28 June 1972, it really begins during the daylight hours of Saturday, 17 June 1972, after the burglars had been "caught" very early that morning. The first thing that E. Howard Hunt had done after the "arrest" was go directly to his White House office at around 3:00 a.m., and plant incriminating "evidence" consisting of what he and Liddy described as "surplus electronics equipment," most of it in two attaché cases that Hunt merely left out sitting in the open, on the floor in his White House office. At essentially the same time, Alfred Baldwin, "the forgotten man" of Watergate, was driving a van James McCord had bought with tax dollars that was full of incriminating electronic equipment McCord had bought with tax dollars to park it at James McCord's house. (Baldwin testified Hunt had instructed him to do just that, Hunt testified that Hunt had instructed Baldwin to do anything but that. These violent contradictions in testimony are nothing at all but CIA psy-ops to generate maximum confusion.) So CIA's Hunt has planted his "evidence" to incriminate the White House. Baldwin has planted his "evidence" to incrimnate the White House. (No one bothers to explain how Baldwin left McCord's house after driving the van there. No one bothers to ask.) If the above isn't preposterous enough, what you will read below about the later events of Saturday, 17 June and Sunday, 18 June 1972, alone, will be too implausible for belief, but these events carefully set up what begins on the following Monday, 19 June 1972—and it only gets worse from there. Here begins the introductory part of the timeline, with my notes below: Saturday, 17 June 1972 After having engineered the "arrests" at the Watergate, planted electronic evidence in his White House office safe, and gone home for some sleep, E. Howard Hunt is awakened at about 11:00 a.m. by his maid telling him there is a phone call. It is Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward notifying Hunt that his name has been found in the address book belonging to Bernard Barker, setting up one of the important planned links to both the White House and the CIA. (James McCord is the other.) "Toward midafternoon," two FBI agents come to Hunt's house. He refuses to talk to them without a lawyer. They go away. Reporters purportedly congregate later in the afternoon around Hunt's home, causing his children concern when they "return home." (From where, Hunt doesn't say. There is no mention of Hunt's wife at all. Note that this is a Saturday.) Hunt claims his home resembles "a fortress under seige." Television and radio reports are saying that "the name of E. Howard Hunt, a White House aide," has been found with the burglars. Sunday, 18 June 1972 The Washington Post breaks its first story on the Watergate break-in, all planned and timed to be released on Sunday, the biggest newspaper circulation day. Despite Woodward having called Hunt the morning before to tell Hunt that the trap had been set, and despite other news sources naming Hunt, there is no mention of E. Howard Hunt in their Sunday lead story. There is, though, mention of James McCord's background with CIA. And most importantly for what is to come, there is mention of the burglars having "almost $2,300 in cash, most of it in $100 bills with the serial numbers in sequence." [NOTE: The Washtington Post will incrementally build the CIA links, then will be the propaganda mouthpiece to perfect the CIA bait-and-switch.] Although his home supposedly is "under seige" by reporters, the following is what Hunt does according to his autobiography: "Sunday morning I left the house early and drove to the Old Executive Office Building [EOB—adjacent to the White House]. I entered it as before [showing his White House credentials], went to my office and opened my safe. I put the contents of the two attaché cases [that Hunt had left on the floor of the office after the "arrests", containing McCord's "surplus electronics equipment"] into my safe and locked it again, removing the two empty attaché cases from the office and taking them home. As I drove into my property, I could see television cameras stationed on River Road. Reporters followed my car up the drive on foot but I asked them to leave." For any serious student of Watergate, I could end this timeline right here on this utterly incredible note, and you would easily know or could figure out the rest. You will already know that Hunt's safe purportedly is booby-trapped at the time with the (fictional) forged "Diem cables" that supposedly have been sitting there uselessly for eight months. But these non-existent "fabricated cables" are only one more layer of the criminal CIA hoax, which later will further hobble the Presidency in riveting spotlighted melodrama. See The Diem Cables: Did They Exist or Not for full exposure of that part of the criminal CIA black operation on the Presidency. So on this date, with his name purportedly already in lights (but see Part II), Hunt goes to his White House office for no other purpose than to further "load" his White House safe with incriminating "evidence" against the White House, then walk out with two now empty briefcases that had contained that electronic "evidence" (which never existed for any other purpose than to incriminate the White House in the first place). Empty. The brazen intentional planting of the "evidence" in the safe alone is the act of the most craven criminal mind that can be conceived. The timing of the act bespeaks complete knowing "in your face" immunity being provided to Hunt by CIA. To then layer upon it the straight-razor cuts of an "admission" (made long after the fact) of having walked away with two empty briefcases that easily could have carried away all purported incriminating "evidence" against the White House simply is an act of vicious sadism. There is no other possible explanation. But Hunt still is not done. He will want to rub salt, now, into the razor cuts. And so we come to the events of Monday, 19 June 1972, and the entrance of John Dean and L. Patrick Gray into the willful sabotage of the Presidency during time of war. Continued in the next article: PART II: The CIA Watergate Bait-And-Switch—19 June 1972 Ashton Gray

Here is the relevant section of a message of mine that also is in the Who Was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When? topic. It expands upon, and asks even more specific questions about, a purported telephone call from Bernard Barker's wife to Douglas Caddy at a disputed time in the early morning hours of June 17, 1972. These are other pertinent, material questions of relevant fact concerning Mr. Caddy's claims about his participation in Watergate. He has evaded answering them for weeks. He won't answer these simple questions to clear the contradictions from the record. Maybe some of you would care to ask him why he won't address this. Although it's not thoroughly covered here, but has been elsewhere in the Wategate forum, when Mr. Caddy quoted E. Howard Hunt's biography in his own article, "Gay Bashing and Watergate," he changed Hunt's time for Hunt's purported call to Caddy on the morning of June 17, 1972 from "0213" (2:13 a.m.) to "3:15" a.m. without explanation. That's why I use the following language: "E. Howard Hunt says in your article..." regarding the purported phone call from Hunt to Caddy. Here's the message to Douglas Caddy: Actually, Mr. Caddy, I already was entirely familiar with what you had written in the thread you reference long before I posted a single question to you. The thread, by the way, is not titled "Douglas Caddy: Question and Answer." That's very imprecise language for an attorney. The thread is in the "JFK Assassination Debate" forum, and is entitled "Questions for Douglas Caddy." If you actually want people to be able to find what you said when you send them off somewhere else instead of answering a question, it might do them a considerable service to tell them the correct place to go. The one and only thing you said about Mrs. Barker in that other thread is not at all responsive to any questions I have asked about the purported phone call from Mrs. Barker that you have said you received from her shortly after 3:00 a.m. on the morning of June 17, 1972, and therefore is not responsive to Mr. Speer's civilized, reasonable suggestion that you answer a few of my questions on that specific point. In fact, not only is what you wrote there not responsive, it regretably adds yet another layer of confusion to the facts at issue. In that thread, you wrote the following: DOUGLAS CADDY: "I did talk to Mrs. Barker several times in the days immediately following her husband's arrest, primarily about providing security for bail to get him out of jail. With her permission I publicly alluded to these calls in order to provide an excuse for my showing up at the jail on the day of the arrests without having received a telephone call from any of those arrested." Thank you. The one (singular) specific call that you "publicly alluded to in order to provide an excuse" for your showing up at the jail on the day of the arrests is the one (singular) call that you told reporters from the Washington Post about on that very day, as reported in the Post, later repeated in "All the Presiden't Men." I quote: "Douglas Caddy, one of the attorneys for the five men, told a reporter that shortly after 3 a.m. yesterday [June 17, 1972], he received a call from Barker's wife. 'She said that her husband told her to call me if he hadn't called her by 3 a.m.: that it might mean he was in trouble.'" —The Washington Post June 18, 1972: "5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats' Office Here" The same thing is repeated in "All the President's Men": "Caddy said he'd gotten a call shortly after 3:00 A.M. from Barker's wife. "She said her husband had told her to call me if he hadn't called her by three, that it might mean he was in trouble." —All the Presiden't Men, Woodward and Bernstein These accounts of that one (singular) crucial phone call have stood for 34 years in these seminal references on Watergate, uncontested by you. In the post in that other thread you cited, which I have quoted above, you say that you had talked to Mrs. Barker "several times" (plural). That's fine. I have no idea what relevance the other conversations have to the one—and only one—specific phone call that you unquestionably "publicly alluded to" in order to "provide an excuse" for your having shown up "at the jail on the day of the arrests without having received a telephone call from any of those arrested." There is only one phone call anywhere in the available record that fits that description. One. That's the one I've been trying for some time now to get a few simple answers about, which even Mr. Speer has asked you to answer, and still no answers are forthcoming to the very pertinent questions that arise about that one purported phone call. The reasons the perfectly reasonable and logical questions, still unanswered, have been asked repeatedly now by several people, in many ways, is because you, yourself, told reporters that Mrs. Barker's call had come to you "shortly after 3:00 a.m." on the morning of June 17, 1972, specifically because her husband had given that time as a cut-off time by which she should become concerned, and specifically because Bernard Barker had given her your name and phone number as the person to call in that event. And very relevant to all the foregoing, there are these facts of record: You have testified under oath that you received a telephone call from E. Howard Hunt "between 3:05 a.m. and 3:15 a.m." on that same morning of June 17, 1972, and have testified that he arrived at your apartment at 3:35 a.m. that morning. E. Howard Hunt says in your article that his call to you that morning was made at 3:13 a.m. In that conversation, neither you or Hunt make any reference to any call from Mrs. Barker, and Hunt apologizes for having woken you up. In his autobiography, Hunt says that after speaking to you at 3:13 a.m. and securing his White House office, he then left his White House office and went across the street to his office at Mullen, and there placed a call to Mrs. Barker, who he says "shrieked" at the news of her husband's arrest. It had to be at least 3:20 a.m. by the time Hunt placed the call to Mrs. Barker. Hunt says that during that call he, not Bernard Barker, is the one who gave your name and phone number to Mrs. Barker. He says exactly: "I gave her Caddy's name and telephone number and asked that she phone Doug and retain him for her husband." You, on the other hand, told the Washington Post that Bernard Barker had told his wife to call you if she hadn't heard from him by 3:00 a.m., because it would "mean he was in trouble." Yet by as late as 3:20 a.m., or even later, apparently she hadn't been concerned enough to call anyone, and she got the news about the arrest delivered to her by E. Howard Hunt. According to Hunt, she had no idea that there had been any trouble. In Hunt's account of his purported conversation with Mrs. Barker, where Hunt gives her your name and number, she gives no indication at all of knowing anything about you, or of already having your name or your phone number, or of having been told to call you by her husband, Bernard Barker. Despite the above, you told the Post that she had your contact information from Bernard Barker, not Hunt. You gave that to the Post (purportedly with her permission) as your entire motive for having been present at all: an early morning call shortly after 3:00 a.m., from a concerned woman in Miami that you didn't know, telling you—a corporate attorney—that she thought her husband "might be in trouble" somewhere in Washington, D.C. What the nature of such trouble might be, or even where in Washington, D.C. he might be, presumably neither you nor she knew the slightest thing about. In your accounts, and in Hunt's accounts, there is no mention of any call from Mrs. Barker at all during the entire time Hunt was at your apartment, which you have said under oath was from 3:35 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. In Hunt's account, he says that at some unspecified time after he arrived at your apartment—which you have testified was not until 3:35 a.m.—he told you the following: "Bernie Barker's wife will probably call you and retain you officially to represent her husband and the other men." He says you didn't respond, only looked at your watch, and went off to call your law firm partner. (Or partners, since your accounts differ on that point, too, which I've covered in another thread.) Obviously, Mr. Caddy, these accounts conflict. I think any reasonable and rational person would be perfectly justified in attempting to get the conflicting accounts resolved in some direction for the sake of historical accuracy, specifically in wanting to ascertain: 1) Did Mrs. Barker actually phone you "shortly after 3:00 a.m." on the morning of June 17, 1972, as you told the Washington Post? 2) If Mrs. Barker did call you "shortly after 3:00 a.m.," did her call come before or after Hunt called you? (His call came at 3:13 a.m., according to your own article, "Gay Bashing in Watergate.") 3) If Mrs. Barker already had called you by 3:13 a.m. (when Hunt called you), why did you not tell Hunt when he called you, and why does your own article say that Hunt woke you? 4) If Mrs. Barker already had called you by the time Hunt purportedly called her and gave her your name and number—around or after 3:20 a.m.—do you have any way to account for her surprise that her husband was in trouble, or for her not telling Hunt she already had your name and number from her husband and already had called you? 5) If Mrs. Barker didn't call you until after Hunt's purported call to her at 3:20 a.m., did she tell you that Hunt had recently called her and given her your name and number and had said to call you, or did she tell you that her husband had given her your contact information and had said to call you—as you told the Washington Post? 6) E. Howard Hunt says Mrs. Barker asked him on the phone if she should call you from her home, and that he said to her: "No. Go to a pay telephone and do it." Did Mrs. Barker call you from her home, or had she gotten up, gotten dressed, and gone out to a phone booth, as Hunt says he told her to do? 7) You also said to the Washington Post that you simply had met Bernard Barker "a year ago over cocktails at the Army Navy Club in Washington." You have said this was the one and only time you had met Barker before June 17, 1972. Do you have any knowledge or understanding of why he would have had your name and number at all a year after that brief encounter, or why he would have given it to his wife as an emergency contact in a distant town without having made prior arrangements with you? 8) If Mrs. Barker called you before Hunt arrived at your apartment at 3:35 a.m., why did Hunt tell you the following when he was there with you: "Bernie Barker's wife will probably call you and retain you officially to represent her husband and the other men," and why did you say nothing in response? 9) If Mrs. Barker instead had not called you by 3:35 a.m., when Hunt arrived, did she not call you until after Hunt had left at 5:00 a.m.? If so, why did you tell the Post that her call had been received by you "shortly after 3:00 a.m."? 10) Is it, in fact, your position—as it appears—that an unknown woman called you out of the blue shortly after 3:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning, and said she was calling from Miami, and said that her husband had told her he had only met you over cocktails in a club a year before, but had told her to give you a call if she hadn't heard from him by 3:00 a.m. because he might be in some unknown kind of trouble at some unknown location in Washginton D.C., and that after hearing that at 3:00 o'clock in the morning, you did not slam down your phone and go back to sleep? These are perfectly valid and reasonable questions, Mr. Caddy. They are obvious questions arising from your own statements. They are perfectly logical questions. Some of them have already been expressed in earlier threads, some implied, but there they are. Your character isn't being assassinated by being asked straightforward questions about your own assertions of fact. Perhaps it isn't enough of the celebrity treatment to suit you, but speaking just personally, I didn't come to this forum for celebrity fawning, Mr. Caddy; I came here to read and discuss historical fact, and to sort fact from the fiction. 'Scuse me: the exact problem is that we have two completely different sets of purported "historical events" trying to occupy the same place at the same time in the instant case, Mr. Caddy: yours and Hunt's. That doesn't work in this universe. One set, or both sets, are not "historical events" at all, but "historical fictions." You have your own responsibility for both conflicting sets having equal "authority," since you have endorsed Hunt's account yourself by incorporating part of it into your own. How else can anyone hope to pull such taffy apart without asking reasonable questions? Ashton Gray

I realized a marvelous oversight on my part: I have questions for Douglas Caddy lying fallow for weeks in the Watergate forum—since he is central to Watergate and was a mere apprentice to Rockefeller during the Kennedy assassination—yet the "Questions for Douglas Caddy" topic is in the JFK forum, for reasons I can't fathom. And I have never posted these questions in this most appropriately titled thread. So, on the "when in Rome" principle, I'm posting below the 52 questions I have asked Mr. Caddy in one of the topics I started in the Watergate forum: Who was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When? While many of these questions go, obviously, directly to who Mr. Caddy was representing—and, very importantly, when he was representing who—several of them also go to a possible, and in my view very likely, hidden link between Mr. Caddy and CIA—which he has steadfastly denied, which denials I understand some to accept at face value. This particular set of 52 questions have been sitting in the Watergate forum now for over two weeks, and Douglas Caddy—though central to Watergate, and central to every last one of these 52 questions—has not deigned to answer a single one. Not one. Contrary to any claims to the contrary, Mr. Caddy has not ever, in any of his scripted meanderings, answered any of these 52 specific questions. If he had, I wouldn't have asked them. He hasn't. Period. And rumors of my hostility have been greatly exaggerated. As anyone with a grain of sense or probity will see immediately, the questions below harbor no enmity. They are uncompromising. They are unvarnished. They are direct. They do not play pat-a-cake with a pat, rote script that can be regurgitated. In fact, they pierce any such pussyfooting. But they are fair questions. They are reasonable questions. They are questions that should be answered. Mr. Caddy is flanked by two magpie mouthpieces in this forum who leap, on cue, to his defense every time these and other tough questions are posed to him, and throw every deranged excuse, pretext, whitewash, and fly-blown evasion they can dream up to keep Mr. Caddy from facing the questions. The questions stand. With that: This message combines all the questions I asked Douglas Caddy in three separate messages at the beginning of the above captioned thread. The questions arise out of clear contradictions and omissions in the record regarding when and under what circumstances Mr. Caddy purportedly was hired to represent various actors in Watergate. In the original three messages where these questions reside, I include comparative testimony and accounts on these events from Douglas Caddy, E. Howard Hunt, and G. Gordon Liddy, which clearly demonstrate significant contradictions. I recommend reading those articles for a better understanding of the questions and the exact contradictions that are addressed. Quite a few of the questions below go to those contradictions. There is a fundamental principal at work: when two "facts" are contradictory, one is false, or both are false. Both can't be true. Both might be false. To assume either is true is a fool's game. (We are honored to have a grand master of that game in this thread. He also styles himself as a masterful critic of questions. And where would civilization be today without someone to keep a constant vigilant watch on questions?) On other important points, the record is silent, and I have asked some questions in an effort to solicit the cooperation of Mr. Caddy, with his unique percipient knowledge, to provide information to fill in those gaps. QUESTIONS FOR DOUGLAS CADDY SET I These questions arise from the article containing Douglas Caddy's own statements and accounts of events related to Watergate, in which there are contradictions and incongruous events that seem to have no explanation (such as knowing which aliases the arrested men had given to police, or knowing what Liddy's role had been in order to brief Caddy's law partner). Since the five men were using aliases with the police, and there is no record of Hunt or Liddy having given you the aliases, how did you and Rafferty know what names to look for on the arraignment sheet, and which names to use when making phone calls to find the men? How were you able to brief Robert Scott on Liddy's role in the break-in? Did you or did you not receive a telephone call from Bernard Barker's wife asking you to represent her husband and the other men? If so, what time was it and where were you when you received the phone call? Did E. Howard Hunt tell you at your apartment that Bernard Barker's wife was going to call you? If Rafferty was the attorney of record, why were you called before the grand jury as the attorney for the men? Was Rafferty called before the grand jury, too? If not, why not? Were you in the court on June 17, 1972 as an attorney or only "as an individual"? You reportedly told Woodward at the courtroom that the men were not your clients. Was that true or false? In your 10:30 a.m. meeting with the five men inside the cell block, did you properly disclose to each of them that you were not a criminal lawyer but a corporate lawyer? Since you were not a criminal lawyer, and Rafferty was, why did you stay on the case at all? On June 17, 1972, did you subscribe any permanent record, file, pleading, notice of appearance, or any other instrument related to the case for any or all of the men? If so, what? At any relevant time, were you acting as an "Attorney in fact" on behalf of E. Howard Hunt and/or G. Gordon Liddy, and if so, did you have an instrument granting you a power of attorney for either of them or both? If Rafferty was the attorney of record and was the criminal lawyer on the case, why did he get $2,500 while you got $6,000? QUESTIONS FOR DOUGLAS CADDY SET II These questions encompass and compare Hunt's account and Mr. Caddy's own accounts and statements, addressing not only contradictions in the various accounts, but also omissions of information that reasonably would be expected to be in the record, without which certain claims, statements, and event simply make little or no sense. As in all cases, I'm not foolish or naive enough to make the rash assumption that either of two conflicting "facts" automatically is true. Nor do I assume that one has to be false. One might be true. If two or more people are lying to cover up the truth, though, obviously all "facts" they present will be false, and the truth remains an unknown. I'm trying to get to the truth. You said in your accounts that two of your law firm's partners were out of town that morning and only one was available: Robert Scott. Hunt says that you told him that one partner was out of town and that you had spoken to two partners on the phone, and that as a consequence you had said to Hunt, "I'll tell you one thing, Howard, my partners [plural] certainly don't like my being involved in this thing." Which of these mutually exclusive accounts, if any, is true? Why did you alter the time that Hunt had supplied for his phone call to you when you supposedly "quoted" Hunt at the beginning of your article, "Gay Bashing in Watergate"? Did the purported call from Hunt to you come at 2:13 a.m. or at 3:13 a.m. on the morning of June 17, 1972—if at all? Since the burglars couldn't have been "caught" unless the first wave of law enforcement had been plain-clothes men in unmarked cars, in your due diligence for your clients, what did you discover concerning this bizarre police response for a reported burglary in progress? What section, division, department, or unit of the D.C. police were these plain-clothes first responders part of? Did Hunt in fact tell you that you likely would be getting a call from Bernard Barker's wife? Did you ever receive such a call—as you told the Washington Post—and if so, where were you and what time was it? Hunt's account says not a word about any conversation with G. Gordon Liddy during his entire time at your apartment, and implies very strongly that neither he nor you had any contact at all with Liddy at all the entire time that Hunt was at your apartment, going so far as to say: "Thinking of Liddy, I said [to Douglas Caddy], 'There may be some calls for me tonight, and home is the only place I could be reached.'" You claim contrarily that both you and Hunt spoke to Liddy at some length on the telephone between 4:45 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., during which conversation you claim that Liddy told you that he wanted you to represent him. Which of these contradictory accounts, if any, is true? Hunt only claims to have given you aliases used by only two men: Bernard Barker, and another (McCord) who Hunt purportedly only described to you as "another man-who works for CREP." How did you get the aliases that the other men were using in order that you and Rafferty could locate them downtown? How were you able to do legal work for John Dean and G. Gordon Liddy beginning in March 1972 without ever encountering, meeting, or knowing of the Chief of Security for CREEP, James McCord? Hunt purportedly gave you the name "George Leonard" as the alias being used by McCord. That is the alias that had been used by G. Gordon Liddy at all other relevant times. When doing what you have described as minor legal research for Liddy beginning in March 1972, did you know Liddy as G. Gordon Liddy or as George Leonard? (Note: this question is asked despite Hunt's own self-conflicting accounts of who had which aliases.) Referring to your due diligence for your clients, what had Hunt done with the antenna he purportedly had stuffed down his pants leg? Referring to your due diligence for your clients, why was there purported "surplus electronic gear" in the temporary "command post" room with Hunt and Liddy? Referring to your due diligence for your clients, when did you learn that Hunt had stashed incriminating "surplus electronic gear" in his White House safe, and did you advise him to leave it there? Given that you had worked for John Dean beginning in March 1972; given that as an extension of that work did work for Liddy; given that you purportedly had been advised that Liddy was involved; given that Hunt says that Dean was in town at the time, did you contact John Dean that morning, and if not, why not? Referring to your due diligence for your clients, isn't it true that all "documentation" for every one of the aliases for every one of the participants had originated at CIA? Did you at any time put into the record the origins of the fake I.D.s used by the participants? Isn't it true the fake I.D.s supplied by Hunt to certain participants included not one, but two, different I.D.s that CIA had supplied to Hunt (in addition to a separate one that had been supplied by CIA to Liddy)? Can you list the exact aliases that the participants had supplied to the police that morning, linking each to the real names? Did you wait for Rafferty to come to your apartment, or did you meet Rafferty elsewhere? Had you ever seen or met James McCord prior to seeing him in the cell block? If so, when, where, and under what circumstances? What became of the tapes from the recording system that had been installed in Hunt's White House office on or about July 9, 1971? Had you ever met with Hunt in that office? Hunt, in telling you the men had been arrested, claims to have said to you: "You know one of them, Bernie Barker." Is that how it happened? Hunt says he never saw you again after he left your apartment. How did you manage to avoid ever encountering him throughout all the subsequent legal actions? Exactly when and under what circumstances did you stop representing each of the seven people that you have both claimed, and denied to the press, as having represented? QUESTIONS FOR DOUGLAS CADDY SET III The questions below arise out of comparisons of all three accounts—Caddy's, Hunt's, and Liddy's. See also questions posed above. While these questions address some inconsitencies and contradictions, they also address omissions in the record related to crucially important issues. Liddy is very specific about the time of a purported call to him from your apartment, Mr. Caddy: 5:00 a.m. He says that he made a point of the time to Hunt. You have said the call took place 15 minutes earlier, around 4:45, and that Hunt left your apartment right around 5:00 a.m., just when Liddy says Hunt was placing a call to Liddy. Hunt mentions nothing about any call at all to Liddy from your apartment, and implies strongly that he wasn't in touch with Liddy at all that morning at your apartment. Did such a call actually take place, and if you say it did, which time is correct? Liddy claims that Hunt asked Liddy's permission after 5:00 a.m., on the phone, to give you the $8,500. Hunt claims that he gave you the $8,500 just after arriving at your apartment, which you say happened at 3:35 a.m.—well before either the disputed 4:45 or 5:00 a.m. time of a purported phone call to Liddy. Hunt says nothing about any call at all to Liddy, much less about asking Liddy's permission to give you that fee. Yet according to Liddy's appelate court ruling, you testified that Hunt gave you the money only after talking to Liddy and getting approval. Which, if any, of these contrary accounts is true? The appelate court ruling says Hunt called you from room 723 of the Howard Johnson's motel. Hunt says he called you from his White House office. You testified that the call came about a half hour before Hunt arrived at your apartment, which you say happened at 3:35 a.m., placing the phone call at approximately 3:05 a.m. You also say that your apartment was only about a mile away from the Watergate. Where did Hunt call you from, and can you account for why it took Hunt half an hour to get there? Why did you allow your clients, the break-in team, to incriminate themselves and each other on additional counts for a purported "first break-in," when there was no physical evidence that could have incriminated them for additional counts, or even have made anybody aware that any purported "first break-in" had occurred at all? Did you advise your clients to so incriminate themselves and each other by telling the "first break-in" stories? If so, why? Going to your due diligence, did you advise your clients of a sweep by the phone company that had been done just days before they were "caught" inside the Watergate, evidence that would have exculpated them from self-incrimination and mutual incrimination on additional criminal liability for any such "first break-in" and planting of alleged "bugs" that were not present? If not, why not? Given that G. Gordon Liddy was your client, and that he personally had destroyed the physical evidence that might, or might not, have incriminated your other clients for any such purported "first break-in," did you advise the "break-in team" that Liddy had destroyed that evidence? If not, why not? Did you establish beyond a reasonable doubt, to your own satisfaction, that any purported "first break-in" had taken place at all over Memorial Day weekend? If you did, how did you? Did you actually know, at any relevant time, that no such "first break-in" had occurred at all? Are you currently participating in a continuing, knowing cover-up of the fact that there was no "first break-in" at the Watergate? Do you have any actual proof or physical evidence of the whereabouts and activities of E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, James McCord, and Alfred Baldwin, III over Memorial Day weekend—May 26, 27, and 28 1972? Was there a fraud upon the courts, upon Congress, and upon the people of the United States with the knowing intent to deceive regarding a purported "first break-in"? If there was such a fraud, given its consequences on the Office of the President—who is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces—and given its consequences on the Congress—who has war powers—and given that the United States actively was engaged in war at the time, does this rise to USC 18 §2381, Treason? If you know. UPDATE: Given that the resident Questions Exorcist is an attorney and I am not, and given that he has invoked the Great Gods of Privilege with his mystic incantations on behalf of Mr. Caddy (which he has no standing to do), I am including below several points from my entirely lay understanding of the subject as they may or may not be relevant to all the foregoing, with the express caveat that this doesn't remotely pretend to be legal advice or opinion, but only my own personal opinion from my limited lay knowledge: The party seeking the protection of the privilege must be an actual or prospective client. The purported early-morning discussions between Hunt, Liddy, and Caddy therefore invoked no privilege vis a vis the five burglars unless Hunt and/or Liddy already, themselves, were legally established as agents for any or all of them. Even then, see "disclosure to third parties," below. The communication must be between the client and an attorney acting as counsel for the client. The communication must be made in confidence, outside the presence of third parties. "Public" communications are not protected. Every question I have asked is pursuant to public communications from Caddy, Hunt, and Liddy. The purpose of the communication must be to secure or provide an opinion of law or legal assistance. The privilege does not protect the underlying facts, general legal discussions, business or other non-legal advice. Please note that during the afternoon of June 17, 1972, Caddy is on public record saying that the burglars are "not my clients." I'm even trying to ascertain, first, whether that was true or an extraordinary public lie. If it were true, then there is no privilege to claim. The privilege must be asserted. The privilege does not automatically attach, and it must be claimed at the time of demand by a third party. Pretty much all of the questions I've asked have not been asked before, and no privilege has been asserted for them. The privilege is easily lost or "waived" by disclosures to third parties. The privilege can be lost by voluntary disclosure. Also, involuntary or accidental disclosure may destroy the privilege. Everything I've asked about is pursuant to exactly such public disclosures. The privilege does not attach to communications in furtherance of an ongoing or prospective illegal activity. In addition, the privilege does not apply when an attorney defends himself or herself against charges of wrongful conduct. There is ample suggestion in the record, to me, of wrongful and even incompetent conduct, and I'm trying to get those impressions cleared away. I would think Mr. Caddy would be enthusiastically helpful in doing just that. Ashton Gray

That's not inconsistent with anything I've found, but I think is a limited view—which would make sense entirely given Sturgis's place in the pecking order. The evidence suggests there also were much deeper currents—other CIA agendas—that Sturgis would have been cut off from. I'm still confident that "Deep Throat" was nothing but a nonexistent fiction, a literary device to account for information Woodward and Bradlee were getting from multiple Intelligence Cult sources—which Woodward had to account for somehow. Funneling them all into one completely impossible fiction—impossible to have that much information, and impossible ever to track down or trace—is pure CIA think-tank work product. That said, Bennett unquestionably was key to the con. In the article I've promised several times and still haven't delivered on (it's likely now going to be several separate articles, such is its scope) documents a completely stunning, astounding number of lies from Bennett in testimony covering just the morning and afternoon of Monday, June 19, 1972. In fact, it's part of what has made the article(s) so extraordinarily difficult to finish (in addition to real life interfering). Those key days of June 19, June 23, and June 28 are so jammed-packed with completely impossible time warps and contradictions in testimony that trying to lay it out so it can make any sense at all is one of the hardest jobs I've ever taken on. All of that, too, is entirely consistent with everything I've seen. I feel about 90% certain that Bennett also had been being fed information from CIA, going to Hunt, of what was being stolen through all of 1971 from Nixon's National Security Council by Admiral Moorer, using Charles E. Radford. I wrote about this somewhere else in this forum, just can't remember where right now. Thanks for this. All the ducks do line up completely. Ashton

I think you're thinking about "the other" general, Vernon Walters. This shuffling of generals in-and-out of the Deputy Director CIA post was one part of the shell game they played in their phase-over from their Pentagon Papers/Ellsberg/Fielding op to the Watergate op per se. It's confusing only because that was its design. (PARENTHETICALLY: As a matter of fact, so thoroughly integral to their con was this "double generals" psy-op, that in the July 23, 1972 meeting with Haldeman and Ehrlichman, Helms goes in and sits literally, physically between General Cushman and General Walters. Cushman does nothing. He essentially has no role in the meeting. He's just there as Tweedle Dee to Tweedle Dum. Most people don't even know or remember he was there. They did this because this meeting was their pivot point for switching the locomotive-of-destruction from CIA onto the White House Express line. I covered some of this "see everything twice" psy-op in the thread on the fantasy "Diem cables" fraud. The forum's own John Gillespie has dubbed this use of near-duplicate things to confuse a "burdensome fog." Great name for it.) Helms screwed the pooch on contradicting Walters in that testimony, then got his "memory refreshed" by an affidavit Walters had left lying around handy. (Oops.) The article I'd said I was going to post days ago (damn, I hate missing my own deadlines!) is all about the other crucial CIA bait-and-switch that was their entire key to "Watergate," and that testimony is a component of exactly how they implemented it. Exactly right. On both counts. Their own boy, Dean, is the one who sent them the completely insane "feelers" so they could crow about their moral and legal high ground in rebuffing his advances. All just part of the con. So important was it to their script, though, that they had Dean call Walters three days in a row with essentially the same idiotic "feelers." One "no," of course, might have looked like congress between consenting adults, don't you know. So they had him do it three times, on three consecutive days, so they could say they told him "No" three times, and kept their virginity intact. (If you don't laugh at this crap, you might go just as stark raving mad as the CIA itself. I don't know. I've never tried it.) I've heard he pounded his fist on the table only because he couldn't get his shoe off. (I'm joking, for those who might have missed it.) I'll let you know when I finally get that article finished and posted. Meanwhile, this Helms-Cushman-Walters-Hunt crew oozing all over Bay of Pigs, continuing in some arrangement through the Dallas/L.A. murders, and crawling all over Watergate is iridescing like a snail trail. Ashton

And thank you, James. I find it pretty curious, too. I think this is going to grow legs. This is a little off the subject (maybe—then maybe not), but in the same research, and in correspondence with someone who's helping me on it, I revisited some of Richard Helms's testimony. In one part he is discussing his reaction to Haldeman when Haldeman brought up the Bay of Pigs in the infamous 23 June 1972 meeting. And listen to these rather chilling words—particularly the last one—in this excerpt of testimony from the always (maybe a little "too"?) debonair Mr. Helms: RICHARD HELMS: I recall, as I said earlier this morning, Mr. Haldeman made some reference to the Bay of Pigs. I referred to it as an incoherent reference because it was— frankly, in my recollection, I don't know exactly what he— point he had in mind. But I reacted to that question very firmly. "The Bay of Pigs" is the rubric for a very unhappy event in the life of the CIA. It's been a dead cat that's been thrown at us over the years ever since. And therefore it's one to which I'm likely to react, and react rather quickly, for the simple reason that the Bay of Pigs was long since over; the problems arising from it had been liquidated. These unctuous vipers do like to put it in your face now and then, don't they. Ashton

Here is the link to the thread where the disputed text lies that is being lied about right in this thread by two disinformation cruds: The Diem cables—Did they exist or not? That's all that ever had to be said. Intelligent people of integrity can read all the facts in context and reach their own conclusions. Any more effluvium by babbling semi-literate pinheads telling you a dash means the same thing as a comma, or that a "typo" consists of hitting keys that are three inches apart on the keyboard, is nothing whatsoever but a transparent sabotaging attempt to keep the forum in constant foment, and to distract attention from the still burning questions in this thread waiting for Godot. I'm sorry, that was a typo: waiting for Mr. Caddy. And now that the thread is back on topic, here is the exact question I had posted for Mr. Caddy that, curiously, set off the latest round of frantic billows of smoke: I have a suggestion from a source I'm not entirely sure about that J. Edgar Hoover wasn't the only surprise package in a suit who was Director of a major national agency: that Richard McGarrah Helms also had eclectic, even exotic, interests, which were the best kept secret CIA has ever had. Do you have any similar information or knowledge? Ashton Gray

And the payment is supplied by those being lied to: us. And it is taken in from us, and paid out to the professional vandals by the people who have the most to hide, and so who, naturally, are the biggest enemies of free speech in the world. What you are seeing being done to this forum by a small few is not "free speech" at all. It is an ineffable, relentless, debased attack on open and free communication that is exposing the secrets of the paymasters. It is so far beneath contempt that it plunges below even the reach of pity. By what means does any human being reach such a level of degradation that they would write willful, vicious misstatements of evidence instead of merely posting the link to a thread that has five pages of evidentiary testimony that disproves every petty, subversive syllable they write? That very thing has just been done, just above, in this thread. It is perverse defacement of a public forum, and no other thing. Ashton Gray

Mr. Caddy, I have a suggestion from a source I'm not entirely sure about that J. Edgar Hoover wasn't the only surprise package in a suit who was Director of a major national agency: that Richard McGarrah Helms also had eclectic, even exotic, interests, which were the best kept secret CIA has ever had. Do you have any similar information or knowledge? Ashton Gray

Hey John! 'Bout time! Damn! Here I am juggling lion cubs, and you're off touring Maine? Enh. It's just the gathering of the Nazguls. They got nothing, so they post nothing. They just take up as much space as they possibly can ranting and raving about it. Same old snake oil pitch we've been hearing for 34 years. Hasn't changed a whiff. Good to have you back! Ashton

This just dropped out of research on Watergate, but I believe has significance in relation to JFK, and though it may have been done to death in this forum, if so, I can't find it with a search. According to Hunt's "Undercover" autobiography: 1) In 1950 E. Howard Hunt shares an office with "a Marine colonel who had been assigned to CIA." This is Robert Cushman, later to become Commandant of the Marine Corps, then Deputy Director CIA during Watergate. 2) Sometime in March, 1960 (reckoned from Eisenhower's trip to Montevideo 2-3 March 1960) Hunt is summoned to CIA headquarters from Montevideo and named to be "chief of political action for a project recommended by the National Security Council and just approved by President Eisenhower: to assist Cuban exiles in overthrowing Castro." V.P. Richard Nixon secretly is "White House action officer" for the covert plan to overthrow Castro. On Nixon's own trip to Montevideo, just before Eisenhower's, his interpreter has been Vernon Walters (later also Deputy Director CIA, during Watergate). Marine General Robert Cushman (same boy Hunt had shared an office with at CIA, and who will furnish Hunt with all the props involved in Watergate) is Nixon's "senior military aide" in this covert plan, and is the go-between for Nixon and Hunt, purportedly telling Hunt to "inform him of any project difficulties the Vice President might be able to resolve." 3) By July, 1960, Hunt is assigned to Mexico City to carry out his part of the operation, where he spends the summer "with my group of Cuban exile political leaders, from which I was to fashion a government-in-exile." Somewhere around the end of summer (therefore going into the election), Hunt moves his "government-in-exile" to Miami. I hope this will be of some use in analysis to people far more up to speed on the JFK assassination than I am right now, but I believe it has relevance. This bookends CIA's Cushman, Walters, and Hunt—all involved with Nixon—around the assassination: Bay of Pigs—>JFK Assassination<—Watergate. I also find Hunt's period with the Cubans in Mexico City to be of interest, but can't follow it up any further. For what it's worth. Ashton Gray