Watergate doc. From New release

[Michael Clark]

This Document shows how llittle was known by people in power, way back when

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10135-10047.pdf

 

To*: Teheran

Routine Plargyle

For Ambassador Helms from Maury

Refs:

A. Dir 477397

B. (redact) 17-8 21979

 C. (Redact) 21990

1. At Senate armed services committee party 13 December, I asked Tom Korologos, Deputy Assistant for Legislative affairs, if he could throw light on bigger problem. He said in confidence Baker had discussed agency/Watergate matter with him and made clear that Bakers central hang up is thesis advanced by Copeland and St. George that agency staged Watergate in order to entrap plumbers. Korologos indicated Baker may have been particularly influenced by Copeland allegations. 

2. On December 13, Lyle Miller, with Baker's permission, received 190 page transcript of Martinez testimony before Baker. In general, Martinez account of significant developments consistent with agency testimony and records available to Baker. Moreover, Martinez said Sturges denied allegations which St. George attributes to him. However, Martinez did state to Baker that he consider tradecraft of plumbers unbelievably faulty. From this Baker apparently infers that his faulty tradecraft was deliberate on part of at least one of participants who sought thereby to lead other participants into trap. Martinez flatly denied St. George allegation that he was "anyone's double agent."

3. Understand another advocate of the "Entrapment" theory, (not necessarily entrapment by CIA, but merely entrapment by a mysterious "third force") is Ed Henley, former OGC staffer and more recently senior official with Mobile Oil and known to be on close terms with Baker.

4. Several days ago in response to your query from Tom Braden we sent Braden a copy of the memo given Symington and 7 November and quoted in reference A., paragraph 4. On 13 December we received from Braden, without covering comment, a copy of the "Tom Braden Report", (apparently a newsletter, understand he is no longer associated with Los Angeles Times although they syndicate his material) of 11 December entitled "Can He Blame it on CIA?",  full text, which has not yet appeared in any publication we know of, as follows:

"Washington – the last turn in the defense of Richard Nixon will be to blame the Watergate on the Central intelligence Agency. Such is the view of former CIA director Richard Helms, and such is the direction in which senator Howard Baker (R. Tennessee) and his minority staff on the Ervin Comittee, are now proceeding. It is not a very salable theory, but it's about all that's left;  and if it could be made sellable, it might get Richard Nixon off the hook. Consider: if CIA accomplished the break-in, the subsequent White House cover up might be excused on the grounds that the president had to protect this secret intelligence agency. And if the cover-up could be excused on that ground, unrelated crimes such as illegal contributions, forgeries and alleged extortions might be pardoned as mistakes of judgment arising from excessive political zeal. Thus, "some sinister force" General Alexander Haig put it to Judge J Sirica the other day, might eventually be used to explain it all. Three recent magazine articles – two published in the National Review by a former CIA employee named miles Copeland, The other published in Harpers by Andrew Saint George – suggest the President' last stand. Senator Baker has called the attention of all three articles to his colleagues on the Ervin committee.  Copeland alleges that the Watergate operation was CIA's is retaliation against the White House for setting up the plumbers as a rival apparatus. "McCord took Liddy into the trap," he writes, "and after all, the CIA specialists in operations of the plumbers's kind had a lot to gain by putting the White House clowns out of business. "St. George makes a similar allegation and adds detail worthy of 007 and a Fleming novel: "Ha, well," he quotes Helms as telling the young watch officer he telephoned him to report the break-in, "they finally did it… A pity; they really blew it… If the White House tries to ring me,… Just tell them you reported McCord's arrest already. Said I was very surprised." Senator Baker has also asked his colleagues to view an 38 page memorandum prepared by one of his investigators name George Murphy. Murphy's findings, Baker hints, implicate the CIA. Does the theory that the CIA is at the bottom of the Watergate makes sense? Is it a reasonable Presidential deffence? Richard helms has testified as follows: "I am prepared to swear that no such conversation with the CIA watch officer ever took place... The quotations attributed to me… We're never said by me. Of this I am certain". From the time he first learned of the Watergate break-in, Helms has been afraid that it would be blamed on him. Put yourself for a moment in his shoes. You're a career servant. You join the Office of Strategic Services during the war and you stayed on to help a series of directors build the first US intelligence service.President Lyndon Johnson has made you it's director. You feel the responsibility keenly. Now consider what happens to you in the subsequent administration. First, an old friend of the president, Patrick Gray, is appointed to be chief of your major rival agency. One month later, you are told by H. R. Haldeman that the President has appointed another old friend, George Vernon Walters, to be your deputy. Another month later, and just after the break in, you and your new deputy are summoned to the White House. You listen while Haldeman tells your deputy that "it has been decided " that he should go to Gray and ask him not to investigate the money found on the burglars because it might expose your operations.  For the next few days, the White House calls to discuss the break-in and to suggest that you pay money to the families of those arrested. 11 days after the break-in and on the eve of your departure for a long scheduled trip, Gray calls to cancel an appointment you had made with him. With this sequence of events in mind, what would you suppose? That people at the White House might be trying to blame the Watergate on you? That's what Helms supposed and supposes still."

5. On 14 December Baker met with Robert Bennett, of Mullen company, his father Senator Wallace Bennet and George Murphy to review agency memos covering our relationships with Mullen Company.after meeting, which lasted two hours, bakery emerged and told Lila Miller for everything Ben it said was consistent with what we had told bigger and it was becoming clearer that agency not involved but Baker reserves option to pursue matter furthersince he doesn't want to go to his grave without having gotten to the bottom of it. Indicating he is still receiving information implicating agency, he asked Fred Thompson, minority Council of Ervin committee, if you should tell Miller "about the money".Thompson advised him not to, remarking he was not sure of his source. We have no idea what this refers to.

6. Many thanks to reference C, which has been discussed with Colby, who is commenting to you there on directly.

7. Warmest regards and seasons greetings

EEIMPDET

Date 17 Dec., 73

Orig. J. M Maury

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by Michael Clark