The "Whole Bay Of Pigs Thing"

[Shanet Clark]

QUOTING RON ECKER

There's a good summary of Watergate in the appendix ("The Key to Watergate") of Liddy's book When I Was a Kid, This Was Still a Free Country. He means "key" literally, as the key found on Watergate burglar Martinez fit one desk, that of the secretary who kept the photos of prostitutes to be shown to out-of-town guests. A compromising photo therein of Dean's fiance was what the burglars were after. Liddy, who gives credit to the book Silent Coup, is thus convinced that Dean was behind the burglary, and that Dean betrayed his client Nixon "to save his own worthless skin."

The secretary sued Liddy for defamation when he portrayed her in public appearances as a procurer of prostitutes for men who visited the DNC. The secretary lost the case. At the conclusion of the book, Liddy says, "It has taken ten years and the expenditure of great energy and treasure to crush the Watergate rat, John Dean. It is personally gratifying, of course."

UNQUOTE

Great post. The secretary lost? I guess I haven't looked at the case since it was in court. The historians at the major quarterlies take the theory very seriously.

The trickbook gives the burglary effort a focus.

The efforts of #### to heap responsibility falsely onto Haldeman shows a very cagy guy, Nixon's lawyer, #### #### also was the first to suspect that Nixon was taping the Oval Office and the Phones, and revealed this to the Senate Committee on national television. xx xxxx sat behind him on televisions across America.

About those tapes:

Nixon says he made them and kept them for his own protection, that they were to be useful in exonerating him. Now regardless of how delusional that is, the motivation may be linked to the wiretapping of Kennedy, the file that was developed and the incapacity invoked. Nixon tape recorded his behavior to protect himself, but from what?

[Tim Carroll]

The efforts of #### to heap responsibility falsely onto Haldeman shows a very cagy guy, Nixon's lawyer, ####  #### also was the first to suspect that Nixon was taping the Oval Office and the Phones, and revealed this to the Senate Committee on national television. xx  xxxx  sat behind him on televisions across America.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Respectfully, I think you are confusing #### with #### ####. Dean was the White House counsel; it was Butterfield who managed the taping system "and revealed this to the Senate Committee on national television." Dean was the one with the foxy blonde; "Mo" (xx xxxx?) was sitting "behind him on televisions across America."

Tim

Edited December 10, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Ron Ecker]

The secretary lost? I guess I haven't looked at the case since it was in court. The historians at the major quarterlies take the theory very seriously.

Here is Liddy's summary of the outcome of the defamation suit by Ida Maxwell Wells:

"In 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that there was sufficient evidence in the Wells case to warrant a jury trial. After a long trial in the United States District Court in Boston, the jury, on 1 February 2001, hung, split 7 to 2 in my favor, and Judge Motz granted judgment for me as a matter of law on the grounds that no 'reasonable jury' could have found that I 'had been negligent in making the allegedly defamatory remarks upon which Wells's suit was based" (p. 199).

Liddy also notes that the Washington Post "erupted in editorial fury" over this on February 4, given "its huge investment in the bogus Woodward and Bernstein theory of Watergate." Quoting from the Post: "The secretary, Ida Wells, is now a community college teacher in Louisiana and was understandably offended by the implication that she was somehow involved in a call girl ring. . . . (T)he majority of jurors felt that Ms. Wells's lawyers had failed to prove (Liddy's) theory wrong. They found this in spite of the fact that Mr. Liddy relies, for his theory, on a disbarred attorney with a history of mental illness. The call girl theory 'is possible,' one juror told Post staff writer Manuel Roig-Franzia. 'It sure makes me more cautious.' 'We'll never know' what happened, said another" (p. 200).

Ron

[Shanet Clark]

Very Interesting. They were looking for negligence on Liddy's part.

That's the Maxie Wells story, I thought it odd that a politically high powered woman would seek protection as someone "not a public figure" and I really

believe Liddy's winning in court here is a victory for freedom of the press and freedom of expression....I am not sure their was a trickbook, let alone a trickbook with xx xxxx's name in it in the desk...

Its funny that the Washington Post is so angry that a theory can't be bottled up with lawsuits.

Tim----

Of Course Alexander Butterfield, an Air Force man, gave up the tapes, he was the wireman for the Oval Office: but, #### #### the President's Counsel, suggested in his testimony that he began to believe that the Oval Office was being recorded and told Sam Dash "yes I think NIxon recording the Oval Office"

The secretary lost? I guess I haven't looked at the case since it was in court. The historians at the major quarterlies take the theory very seriously.

Here is Liddy's summary of the outcome of the defamation suit by Ida Maxwell Wells:

"In 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that there was sufficient evidence in the Wells case to warrant a jury trial. After a long trial in the United States District Court in Boston, the jury, on 1 February 2001, hung, split 7 to 2 in my favor, and Judge Motz granted judgment for me as a matter of law on the grounds that no 'reasonable jury' could have found that I 'had been negligent in making the allegedly defamatory remarks upon which Wells's suit was based" (p. 199).

Liddy also notes that the Washington Post "erupted in editorial fury" over this on February 4, given "its huge investment in the bogus Woodward and Bernstein theory of Watergate." Quoting from the Post: "The secretary, Ida Wells, is now a community college teacher in Louisiana and was understandably offended by the implication that she was somehow involved in a call girl ring. . . . (T)he majority of jurors felt that Ms. Wells's lawyers had failed to prove (Liddy's) theory wrong. They found this in spite of the fact that Mr. Liddy relies, for his theory, on a disbarred attorney with a history of mental illness. The call girl theory 'is possible,' one juror told Post staff writer Manuel Roig-Franzia. 'It sure makes me more cautious.' 'We'll never know' what happened, said another" (p. 200).

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Carroll]

"Watergate" was about far more than the Watergate burglary, of course. It was about the burglary of Ellsberg's psychiatrist; the Plumbers; the Segretti dirty tricks operation, etc. But it was the arrest of the Watergate burglars that led to the discovery of the abuses.

Conspiracy theorists have long wondered whether McCord deliberately botched the taping of the door to sabotage the operation. But why? Perhaps it was at the behest of his former (?) employer, the CIA. Probably you are all aware of the books Secret Agenda by Hougan and Silent Coup by Colody. I recently ran accross an article that succintly summarized the thesis of Hougan's book and I was going to just type (process?) that paragraph, but I think the entire article is worth reading, and it discusses some of the same topics that have been discussed here, e.g. Bobby Baker.

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/sex.html

The paragraph about why McCord may have deliberately botched the burglary at the instructions of the CIA is in the paragraph that starts: "Briefly, Hougan's hypothesis is this:" (Quite a way into the article). The Colody book follows Hougan's and argues that John Dean orchestrated the coer-up to protect his fiancee. Both are interesting reads, although they probably do not directly relate to the topic at hand--other than, if Hougan is correct, demonstrating once more the nefarious ways of the CIA.

* * * * *

What is the famous quote about how often male members of the species think about sex? Well, I guess when members of this Forum are not thinking about sex, they are thinking about who killed Kennedy!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim Gratz:

Do you have any good Segretti stories to share that we may not have heard previously?

Tim Carroll

[Tim Carroll]

Tim----

Of Course Alexander Butterfield, an Air Force man, gave up the tapes, he was the wireman for the Oval Office: but, #### #### the President's Counsel, suggested in his testimony that he began to believe that the Oval Office was being recorded and told Sam Dash "yes I think Nixon recording the Oval Office"

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Shanet:

You previously said: "Nixon's lawyer, #### #### also was the first to suspect that Nixon was taping the Oval Office and the Phones, and revealed this to the Senate Committee on national television."

I understood the above to be a reference to the disclosure "on national television" as opposed to "Sam Dash"

Tim

Edited December 10, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Shanet Clark]

I'm not sure what was in evidence on television, (perhaps it wasn't on national tv) that Dean talked about the sense of being tape recorded, but he tipped of the Senate committee counsel and they soon asked Butterfield, who admitted changing the tapes. Haldeman also knew the Oval Office was taped. So very often Nixon lowers his voice or rattles his desk when he says sensitive phrases. Many are lost in the transcripts because of this, and this behavior gave the taping system away to Dean, who set the Committee up for the Butterfield bombshell.

[Tim Carroll]

Shanet:

You previously said: "Nixon's lawyer, #### #### also was the first to suspect that Nixon was taping the Oval Office and the Phones, and revealed this to the Senate Committee on national television."

I'm not sure what was in evidence on television, (perhaps it wasn't on national tv) that Dean talked about the sense of being tape recorded, but he tipped of the Senate committee counsel and they soon asked Butterfield, who admitted changing the tapes.  Haldeman also knew the Oval Office was taped. So very often Nixon lowers his voice or rattles his desk when he says sensitive phrases.  Many are lost in the transcripts because of this, and this behavior gave the taping system away to Dean, who set the Committee up for the Butterfield bombshell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is correct, now. So why the #### #### stuff in place of John Dean, counsel to the President, husband of !@#$%^&* Maureen Dean? Are we being clever now?

Tim

[Tim Gratz]

"Watergate" was about far more than the Watergate burglary, of course. It was about the burglary of Ellsberg's psychiatrist; the Plumbers; the Segretti dirty tricks operation, etc. But it was the arrest of the Watergate burglars that led to the discovery of the abuses.

Conspiracy theorists have long wondered whether McCord deliberately botched the taping of the door to sabotage the operation. But why? Perhaps it was at the behest of his former (?) employer, the CIA. Probably you are all aware of the books Secret Agenda by Hougan and Silent Coup by Colody. I recently ran accross an article that succintly summarized the thesis of Hougan's book and I was going to just type (process?) that paragraph, but I think the entire article is worth reading, and it discusses some of the same topics that have been discussed here, e.g. Bobby Baker.

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/sex.html

The paragraph about why McCord may have deliberately botched the burglary at the instructions of the CIA is in the paragraph that starts: "Briefly, Hougan's hypothesis is this:" (Quite a way into the article). The Colody book follows Hougan's and argues that John Dean orchestrated the coer-up to protect his fiancee. Both are interesting reads, although they probably do not directly relate to the topic at hand--other than, if Hougan is correct, demonstrating once more the nefarious ways of the CIA.

* * * * *

What is the famous quote about how often male members of the species think about sex? Well, I guess when members of this Forum are not thinking about sex, they are thinking about who killed Kennedy!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim Gratz:

Do you have any good Segretti stories to share that we may not have heard previously?

Tim Carroll

* * * * * * * * * * *

I do have an interesting Segretti story but it is totally unrelated to the "conspiracy theories" underlying Hogan's Secret Agenda and Colody's Silent Coup, and so is really beyond the scope of this seminar.

Parenthetical question (that does link Watergate to, at least, the events surrounding the assassination of JFK): What Washington lawyer represented the notorious CIA's Dr. Sydney Gottlieb (I believe when he testified to the Church Committee or to the HSCA) and what was that lawyer's involvement in the Watergate matter?

Edited December 12, 2004 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Carroll]

"Watergate" was about far more than the Watergate burglary, of course. It was about the burglary of Ellsberg's psychiatrist; the Plumbers; the Segretti dirty tricks operation, etc. The Colody book follows Hougan's and argues that John Dean orchestrated the cover-up to protect his fiancee. Both are interesting reads, although they probably do not directly relate to the topic at hand--other than, if Hougan is correct, demonstrating once more the nefarious ways of the CIA.

I do have an interesting Segretti story but it is totally unrelated to the "conspiracy theories" underlying Hogan's Secret Agenda and Colody's Silent Coup, and so is really beyond the scope of this seminar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim Gratz:

First you acknowledge that one of the things that "'Watergate' was about [was] the Segretti dirty tricks operation;" then you say that the "Colody" and "Hougan" books "probably do not directly relate to the topic at hand," but finally argue that you will not provide your interesting Segretti story on the basis that "it is totally unrelated to the 'conspiracy theories' underlying Hogan's Secret Agenda and Colody's Silent Coup, and so is really beyond the scope of this seminar."

That is circularly absurd. On this, my seminar, you admit that Segretti is relevant to Watergate and the Colody and Hougan books are not, then dismiss the relevance of Segretti to the aforementioned irrelevant books as a basis to claim the Segretti story as being "really beyond the scope of this [my] seminar." This double-talking evasion is reminiscent of your continued failure to respond to my numerous questions to you on the "Hall Threatens JFK" thread.

Tim Carroll

Edited December 13, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Tim Gratz]

"Watergate" was about far more than the Watergate burglary, of course. It was about the burglary of Ellsberg's psychiatrist; the Plumbers; the Segretti dirty tricks operation, etc. The Colody book follows Hougan's and argues that John Dean orchestrated the cover-up to protect his fiancee. Both are interesting reads, although they probably do not directly relate to the topic at hand--other than, if Hougan is correct, demonstrating once more the nefarious ways of the CIA.

I do have an interesting Segretti story but it is totally unrelated to the "conspiracy theories" underlying Hogan's Secret Agenda and Colody's Silent Coup, and so is really beyond the scope of this seminar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim Gratz:

First you acknowledge that one of the things that "'Watergate' was about [was] the Segretti dirty tricks operation;" then you say that the "Colody" and "Hougan" books "probably do not directly relate to the topic at hand," but finally argue that you will not provide your interesting Segretti story on the basis that "it is totally unrelated to the 'conspiracy theories' underlying Hogan's Secret Agenda and Colody's Silent Coup, and so is really beyond the scope of this seminar."

That is circularly absurd. On this, my seminar, you admit that Segretti is relevant to Watergate and the Colody and Hougan books are not, then dismiss the relevance of Segretti to the aforementioned irrelevant books as a basis to claim the Segretti story as being "really beyond the scope of this [my] seminar." This double-talking evasion is reminiscent of your continued failure to respond to my numerous questions to you on the "Hall Threatens JFK" thread.

Tim Carroll

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, I'm not sure what you do not understand here. "Watergate" as it is commonly understood and as it was investigated by the Erwin Committee involved started with the Watergate burglary but evolved into an investigation of a lot of Nixon misdeeds, e.g., the Plumbers, Segretti, etc. But the premises of the books Secret Agenda and Silent Coup that CIA operatives Hunt and McCord may have deliberately sabotaged the Watergate burglary either to: 1) protect a CIA surveillance of the Democrat HQ (perhaps even directed at the call-girl ring) or 2) to bring down the Nixon presidency (Nixon and Helms were not exactly fond of each other) relate only to the Watergate burglary itself. If there was a CIA "conspiracy" to topple the Nixon presidency through this political intrigue that seems scant evidence that the CIA used assassination to topple the Kennedy presidency. Perhaps one could argue that if the CIA was willing to take these steps to try to remove Nixon from office it could be willing to even use murder to depose a different president. But it does seem a bit of a leap to me. I think there are more direct JFK matters to investigate than whether the CIA plotted to overthrow Nixon.

But my point is that, for instance, the Segretti dirty tricks operation (which was being run by Dwight Chapin (a Haldeman guy) out of the White House was totally unrelated to a CIA plot involving the Watergate burglary.

The Segretti operation had nothing to do with the Watergate burglary. I'm not trying to be "evasive" and I don't, frankly, understand why you have started to attack me personally.

My minor involvement in Watergate is an interesting story (I think) but it is beyond the scope of this forum. If you want to read about it, read the Senate Watergate Committee Report or read "The President's Private Eye" by Anthony Ulasewicz. To try to summarize it in one sentence, I was apparently one of a very few people recruited by Segretti for his dirty tricks to refuse to get involved in his operation and I tried to stop him. (If other people rejected Segretti's recruitment they did nothing to try to stop him).

I am in the process of replying to your questions on the "Hall thread." There is no reason to be antagonistic merely because we disagree on political philosophy.

(If you really want to hear my Segretti story, just call me and I'll be glad to share it with you--I just don't want to clutter this Forum with irrelevant, extraneous stuff.)

* * * * * * * * *

There is a matter relevant to this thread, however, and I pointed you (through private e-mail) in the right direction so you could add it to your seminar (I did so so you would get the "credit" for it. Since you did not follow through, I will add it now. Obviously, the revelations of the Church Committee damaged the CIA.

Ignoring the legalities of it (since when did legalities stop the CIA anyway) Helms should have taken Nixon's advise, because the Watergate investigation did lead, ultimately, to the revelations of the CIA/Mafia plots. I do not recall how it all evolved, but through the Watergate investigation something was disclosed that led the Watergate counsel to interview Rosselli. The results of the Rosseli interview (never disclosed to the public, of course) led to the investigation by the Church Committee of the CIA/Mafia plots. And that in turn led to the disclsures of the other CIA abuses.

So, if one wants to accept the "conspiracy" view of Watergate (that the CIA deliberately engineered the discovery of the Watergate burglars to topple Nixon) the CIA's tactic not only led to the fall of Nixon it also led to the exposure of the CIA misdeeds. So if the CIA "did Watergate" it became poetic justice.

[Tim Gratz]

United States Senator (R/Utah) Robert Bennett plays a role in both the assassination and the Watergate burglary, his ties to Hunt and McCord are verified, he had a CIA front office in DC and employed the principles in the burglary.

Shanet,

Bob Bennett, with his CIA front office in DC, the Mullen Agency, including its specific employment of Hunt at the same time that Hunt had a White House office, leads me to still have the Senator from Utah at the top of my list for Deep Throat candidates.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just now getting around to this: Quite sure Robert Bennett of Mullen Company was the son of the Senator. He also shared offices at one time with Douglas Caddy (Bennett the son, that is).

[Tim Carroll]

United States Senator (R/Utah) Robert Bennett plays a role in both the assassination and the Watergate burglary, his ties to Hunt and McCord are verified, he had a CIA front office in DC and employed the principles in the burglary.

Shanet,

Bob Bennett, with his CIA front office in DC, the Mullen Agency, including its specific employment of Hunt at the same time that Hunt had a White House office, leads me to still have the Senator from Utah at the top of my list for Deep Throat candidates.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just now getting around to this: Quite sure Robert Bennett of Mullen Company was the son of the Senator. He also shared offices at one time with Douglas Caddy (Bennett the son, that is).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My guestimate of the time frame is that you are incorrect that the Robert Bennett of Mullen Co. who employed Hunt in 1972 was the son of current Utah Senator Bennett. Watergate being 32 years ago, even if Sen. Bennett is now 70, that makes him 38 at the time of Watergate, making the Robert Bennett of the Mullen Co. 20 years old, tops. Very unlikely.

Tim Carroll

[Tim Gratz]

United States Senator (R/Utah) Robert Bennett plays a role in both the assassination and the Watergate burglary, his ties to Hunt and McCord are verified, he had a CIA front office in DC and employed the principles in the burglary.

Shanet,

Bob Bennett, with his CIA front office in DC, the Mullen Agency, including its specific employment of Hunt at the same time that Hunt had a White House office, leads me to still have the Senator from Utah at the top of my list for Deep Throat candidates.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just now getting around to this: Quite sure Robert Bennett of Mullen Company was the son of the Senator. He also shared offices at one time with Douglas Caddy (Bennett the son, that is).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My guestimate of the time frame is that you are incorrect that the Robert Bennett of Mullen Co. who employed Hunt in 1972 was the son of current Utah Senator Bennett. Watergate being 32 years ago, even if Sen. Bennett is now 70, that makes him 38 at the time of Watergate, making the Robert Bennett of the Mullen Co. 20 years old, tops. Very unlikely.

Tim Carroll

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point, I'll check further, but a Watergate article vintage 1972 named Bennett of Mullen Company as son of Sen Bennett. I'll recheck though!

[Shanet Clark]

Good stuff, Tim and Tim

Colodny and Hougan, and Colodny worked with Gettlin,

these are two very important books on Watergate, both for historians and the popular culture.

David Young and John Ehrlichman, in the Appendix, get a Confession from Admiral Welander that WELANDERs agent Yeoman RADFORD was a spy who routinely rifled Kissingers burn bag at conferences and brought the results to the Joint Chiefs. A real SEVEN DAYS IN MAY system was in place around the peace talks.

Colodny and Gettlin place the emphasis on Al Haig and the Joint Chiefs spying ring, in the political context of the Nixon White House. Nixon's Chief of Staff Haig and GOP Chairman George Herbert Walker Bush were the transition officers, with Ford when Nixon resigned August 1974. Rockefeller then became Vice President under the guidelines of the 25th amendment. The call girl ring, John Paisley's role as domestic OS at CIA in these Washington crimes, the Ellsburg break-in and ultimately the release of the Pentagon Papers form the Background or Context. Cambodian incursions overseas, IRS enemies lists at home. Mr. Nixon had David Young, Egil Krogh, Fred LaRue, Herb Kleindeinst, Mr. Katzenbach, Colson, Haldeman and Ehrlichman all compromised by illlegal burglaries and dirty tricks BEFORE the 1972 election. Robert Bennett at Mullen Company shared the employment of the core people (HUNT and MCCORD) with the White House, and since they were a known (blown) CIA front/proprietary, they had to quietly disband and lay low after the failed WATERGATE burglary May 19 1972

...Chris Cox and I both believe this historical figure is the incumbent Senator, but this is old news, the R.Bennett CIA Watergate Mullen Coompany angle....