Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Strange Case of J. Timothy Gratz


Recommended Posts

John wrote:

Deep Throat gave Woodward a great deal of information about Bremer within a couple of hours of the assassination. This included his name (at that time it had not been released to the press). This raises two questions:

(1) Why did Woodward think Deep Throat would have details about Arthur Bremer?

(2) How did Deep Throat have details of Arthur Bremer?

John, this is very interesting information and great questions!

Query if Deep Throat was trying to bring Nixon down through his revelations, wonder whether he was CIA connected?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You can find all the information I have on Arthur Bremer here:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbremer.htm

It seems to me that the removal of George Wallace from the 1972 presidential campaign was far more important than bugging Larry O’Brien’s phone. At the time Wallace was polling 21% of the vote.

I have long suspected that the Watergate break-in was not real reason why Nixon was being blackmailed. Was this just Hunt’s way of applying pressure on both Nixon and the CIA? It was only when they murdered his wife did he realize that this time he had taken on more than he could cope with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can find all the information I have on Arthur Bremer here:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbremer.htm

It seems to me that the removal of George Wallace from the 1972 presidential campaign was far more important than bugging Larry O’Brien’s phone. At the time Wallace was polling 21% of the vote.

I have long suspected that the Watergate break-in was not real reason why Nixon was being blackmailed. Was this just Hunt’s way of applying pressure on both Nixon and the CIA? It was only when they murdered his wife did he realize that this time he had taken on more than he could cope with.

Thanks John

I have long heard rumors about Artie Bremer, the Watergate characters and an illegal search/planting trip to his apartment after the near fatal shooting of George Wallace.

Reading Abuse of Power by Stanley Kutler, I noticed Nixon's principle area of concern when he talked to Dean and Haldeman in March 1973, was Colson.

Colson and Hunt had been involved in bigger things than Watergate, or Ellsburg's psychiatrist's office burglary.

And this is it. The Colson/Bremer link, known to Nixon, and that fear was

captured on tape.

Also "Tom Pappas,"" the Greeks," and a phony "Cuban Committee" was the first place Nixon suggested Dean look for hush money for Hunt and the Cuban burglars.

{And as far as Tim Gratz, this is very sad. He participated in some typical YAF gung-ho College GOP stuff thirty years ago, and maybe he's still the clip/file watchdog for the "alternative press".

TIM GRATZ theory of Castro and the KGB killing Kennedy is absurd, and his sources, Angleton and Helms via Trento are abysmal .......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pat wrote:

And now for a left-field question. In your early years as a collegiate Nixon supporter, you didn't happen to run across Karl Rove, did you?

Pat, when I was the State Chairman of the Wisconsin College Republicans,  Karl was the National Chairman of the College Republicans so indeed I knew him well.  We conducted a seminar on college political organization in Wisconsin and worked together on a project to assure passage of the constitutional amendment lowering the voting age to eighteen.

So when I needed to contact someone at the upper level of CREEP about this Simmons guy who was, in my opinion, suggesting involving college-age Republicans in inappropriate behavior, I contacted Karl and he was the person who contacted the mucky-mucks at CREEP on my behalf.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can find all the information I have on Arthur Bremer here:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbremer.htm

It seems to me that the removal of George Wallace from the 1972 presidential campaign was far more important than bugging Larry O’Brien’s phone. At the time Wallace was polling 21% of the vote.

I have long suspected that the Watergate break-in was not real reason why Nixon was being blackmailed. Was this just Hunt’s way of applying pressure on both Nixon and the CIA? It was only when they murdered his wife did he realize that this time he had taken on more than he could cope with.

Here's an image of Bremer being led from court.

James

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat wrote:

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

Pat, it was not an over-sight, of course. Just wanted to see which of the Forum members would be the first to pick up on this. Should have known it would be you! Of course, being the right-winger that I am, I am proud to have met Rove, who almost single-handedly turned the State of Texas Republican and helped elect our current President. It may amuse members of the forum to know that in the College Republicans Rove was known (heaven forbid!) as a moderate, and he was only allowed to become National Chairman upon his agreement to select as Executive Director of the College Republicans a man whose name you will be familiar: Lee Atwater (because Atwater was known to be "rock solid" conservative but Rove was reportedly "squishy" (a Nixon man after all). (The same people who mistrusted my allegiance to the conservative cause!)

Pat, would you mind posting the brief sentence or two from the Watergate Committee Report that refers to me and Rove? Thanks!

By the way, when I knew Rove, he was as skinny as a pencil. After I graduated from college, I only saw him once when he flew to Wisconsin to try to solicit business for his direct mail business. Sometime I'll tell you how I, as a prank, almost scared Karl to death on a cold Wisconsin night!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites

On page 256 of The Senate Watergate Report (paperback edition), referring to compaints about Donald Segretti's activities, it says "Such a complaint was sent from J. Tim Gratz of Madison, Wisconsin, to Carl Rove, President-elect of the College Republicans. This complaint was eventually assigned to Anthony Ulasewicz, who flew out to Wisconsin to investigate this mysterious individual. Ulasewicz did not succeed in tracking down Segretti, but while he was out in Wisconsin, he received a call from Jack Caulfield who informed him that Segretti worked for CRP." END QUOTE

As a result of his "discovery," Segretti, who'd been working for Chapin, was placed under the authority of Liddy and Hunt. After the Watergate arrests, his phone number was found in Hunt's phone book, which led to an FBI investigation. Woodward and Bernstein picked up on this and figured out what was up and wrote a story on Segretti's activities before the election. The Senate Watergate Report devotes several pages to the press releases and statements of Dwight Chapin and press secretary Ron Ziegler between the Post story and the election, and concludes that the men repeatedly flat-out lied to protect Nixon from the scandal, and that this lie was orchestrated and spread by Dean, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Clark MacGregor, and others.

So, since Tim's actions led to Segretti working with Hunt, and Segretti's phone number being in Hunt's wallet led to even more White House intrigues and lies, only to be uncovered to the detriment of the President, does that mean Tim was CIA? (Just kidding.) The more I read, the more it's clear that Nixon and his boys hung themselves.

By the way, Tim. the Washington Post ran a Watergate-related story on your buddy Rove, claiming he'd conducted training sessions for College Republicans on the nuance and technique of Nixon-style dirty tricks. Would you know anything about that? Evidently, Rove claimed the story was a lie planted in the Post by a College Republican rival, Terry Dolan. Did you know Dolan? Who's the xxxx? Rove or Dolan?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, as I understand it Segretti was being run out of the WH and with the compartmentalization of such operations, even the big mucky-mucks at CREEP were unaware of him when I first complained to CREEP about him. I think what happened was during its investigation of Segretti, someone at CREEP contacted the White House and that was when CREEP found out who Segretti really was. This comports with Ulasewicz's memoirs.

At the time Segretti was almost frantic to get a spy in the Muskie campaign. Muskie was seen as a threat to Nixon. As you know, it is POSSIBLE that some of Segretti's "tricks" may have doomed the Muskie campaign.

Had Segretti's operation been discovered at the right time in 1972, it is possible it might have doomed Nixon's campaign. For instance, Segretti's violation of the campaign finance laws and his distribution of campaign literature attributed to false sponsors. Had it become known that the person engaging in such tactics was being run out of the White House, is it not likely that information might have cost Nixon the election?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat wrote:

By the way, Tim. the Washington Post ran a Watergate-related story on your buddy Rove, claiming he'd conducted training sessions for College Republicans on the nuance and technique of Nixon-style dirty tricks. Would you know anything about that? Evidently, Rove claimed the story was a lie planted in the Post by a College Republican rival, Terry Dolan. Did you know Dolan? Who's the xxxx? Rove or Dolan?

Pat, that is an interesting story. Dolan was a rival for Rove's job as Chairman of the College Republicans and a bitter fight was waged over who was properly elected. As I recall, the fight was finally resolved by the then-Chairman of the Republican National Committee, a gentleman named George H. W. Bush.

Funny you raise the point about the seminars. The lady I married was raised in Wisconsin Dells and just tonight I was showing our daughter a booklet I found about Wisconsin Dells. It is a great tourist location for families. Well, what brought on the memories was that Rove and I had sponsored a seminar on college organization at a resort in Wisconsin Dells. I can tell you that at that seminar there was nothing about dirty tricks. Of course, I cannot speak about any seminars Rove may have conducted in other states. We essentially discussed basic political organization.

For instance, I was once the youth director of a gubernatorial campaign in Wisconsin. Every week-end we ran off on a cheap printing machine thousands of one page fliers (usually detailing my candidate's support for youth-related issues) and we would ship the material to our college organizations throughout the state. My candidate won "mock elections" on every single campus where they were held, even the more liberal campuses. (Not a dirty trick but we only organized the mock elections on those campuses we knew we could probably win.)

My candidate lost the general election to a Democrat named Pat Lucey. Lucey had an interesting background. He was an avid Kennedy supporter in 1960 when much of the Wisonsin Democrat hierarchy supported its neighbor Sen. Humphrey. (The very left-wing "Capital Times" newspaper in Madison was strongly against JFK, perhaps because it was operated by a Norwegian Lutheran.) Lucey was then as I recall state Dem chairman so his assistance in helping JFK win the 1960 Wisconsin primary was probably very instrumental in JFK's securing the nomination. So the role of Pat Lucey in electing JFK should not be minimized.

In 1980 Lucey ran for Vice-President on a third-party ticket headed by liberal Republican John Anderson. I do not recall whether the Anderson-Lucey campaign drew enough votes from Carter to help elect Reagan.

My short answer to your question then is that at least from my own experience in Wisconsin Rove's seminars did not involve dirty tricks. I am sure my answer would be confirmed by the other thirty or so collegians who attended the seminar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

. Segretti implied to me that he had authority from the very highest level but his sponsor would deny it. My suspicion was that he was in fact an agent provocateur for the Democrats manipulating to implicate Republicans in embarrassing situations or was working for a wealthy Nixon supporter who had not cleared his activities with either the WH or CREEP.

It was only after I read Ulasewicz's memoirs did I understand that, according to him Segretti was being "run" out of the WH without the knowledge of CREEP and that CREEP only discovered the Segretti operation because of my protestations.

__________________________________

Do you HONESTLY believe that Segretti was "run OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, without the KNOWLEDGE of the WH or CREEP"?????

And that the WH "found out" about Segretti because you did not wish to engage in his dirty tricks???

How quaint, or should I say naive.

Dawn

I am still amazed that Nixon and his people actually called themselves "CREEP". So utterly fitting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wondered what a "critical reporter" was doing in Madison Wisconsin back in the day....now we know.....he was a henchman of Donald Segretti, Karl Rove and various authorized dirty tricksters......Tim Gratz was the guy infiltrating a liberal college town and getting mixed up with ARTHUR BREMER.

You have definitely been tumbled, Tim.

All your bonhomie and bombast won't get you out of this one, fellow member.

You know all this along, that YOU YOURSELF was a published figure in the PLUMBERS 1972 disruptions and agents provocateur actions

{Culminating in the shooting of GEORGE WALLACE, Tim?}

You should have come clean long ago, the cover up establishes the error, once again.

No more Castro did it theories, okay?

No more KGB killed JFK windbag schemes, okay?

No more world exclusives based on the obscene ramblings of Gerry Hemmings, Okay?

Sayonara baby

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wondered what a "critical reporter" was doing in Madison Wisconsin back in the day....now we know.....he was a henchman of Donald Segretti, Karl Rove and various authorized dirty tricksters......Tim Gratz was the guy infiltrating a liberal college town and getting mixed up with ARTHUR BREMER.

You have definitely been tumbled, Tim.

I hope you're kidding, Shanet. While Tim's theories are, in my opinion, not supported by the evidence, they are, on the surface, no more wacky than body alteration theories or military coup theories. I think Tim has handled the inquistion on his Segretti and Rove connectiions about as well as could be expected. You know and I know there are right-wingers spread all over our land, who take it on faith that their government is the good guy, and are constitutionally opposed to seeing things any different. I suspect that is the case with Tim. His acknowledgement that Nixon abused his power, and was not merely set-up by the big bad evil CIA, is proof he's not a total dupe for the GOP. (I just wish he'd say ONE bad thing about Rove or Bush, so we could be sure he's not insane...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
.  Segretti implied to me that he had authority from the very highest level but his sponsor would deny it.  My suspicion was that he was in fact an agent provocateur for the Democrats manipulating to implicate Republicans in embarrassing situations or was working for a wealthy Nixon supporter who had not cleared his activities with either the WH or CREEP.

It was only after I read Ulasewicz's memoirs did I understand that, according to him Segretti was being "run" out of the WH without the knowledge of CREEP and that CREEP only discovered the Segretti operation because of my protestations.

__________________________________

Do you HONESTLY believe that Segretti was "run OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, without the KNOWLEDGE of the WH or CREEP"????? 

And that the WH "found out" about Segretti  because you did not wish to engage in  his dirty tricks???

How quaint, or should I say naive.

Dawn

I am still amazed that Nixon and his people actually called themselves "CREEP".  So utterly fitting.

Yuchh, yucch, yucch. How did I put myself in the postion of defending Tim, when a few posts ago I was trying to nail him for hiding his relationship with Rove?

Anyhow, Dawn, I think you misunderstood the story. Segretti was hired by the WH, not CRP. CRP had Liddy and Hunt working on their own dirty tricks. After Tim grew suspicious of Segretti, CRP was informed and Liddy and Ulasewicz began to investigate to find out if Segretti was working for the Dems. Somewhere someone involved in the WH and CRP, Magruder?, realized that the suspected Dem was their own man. It would be a comedy if it weren't so tragic. Anyhow, to avoid any more confusion, Segretti was moved over to CRP, which is why his phone number was in Hunt's phone book, which is why the whole thing was exposed, which is why an orchestrated cover-up took place. That this cover-up was sponsored by the President in order to prevent Segretti from becoming a campaign issue helped steer the Watergate investigation. So Tim played a role in history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confident Pat has the story right almost exactly right.

For purposes of security, the White House pesonnel running Segretti did not even let the highest officials at CREEP know of the Segretti dirty tricks operation. Of course, it is possible that Mitchell knew about Segretti but the person(s) at CREEP that Rove contacted for me were unaware of his operation. It was when CREEP became concerned about Segretti because it heard about him also operating in New Hampshire that it started a full-fledged investigation.

Although Ulasewicz writes that CREEP first found out about Segretti's WH ties while he was in Wisconsin, I have sometimes wondered whether his whole trip to Wisconsin was a ruse to get me off their case because they had discovered who Segretti was before his trip to Wisconsin.

As far as my having a (minor) role in history, I am not sure that my attempting to stop Segretti accomplished anything. Query if I had and Muskie would not have been derailed--then maybe Nixon would have still beat Muskie but perhaps by a lower margin? The question is what effect my story would have had had Segretti been caught during the campaign.

And Pat for your benefit there are in fact several matters with which I do disagee with Rove and Bush, among them their close ties to the tobacco industry and the push for tort reform.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawn wrote:

Do you HONESTLY believe that Segretti was "run OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, without the KNOWLEDGE of the WH or CREEP"?????

And that the WH "found out" about Segretti because you did not wish to engage in his dirty tricks???

How quaint, or should I say naive.

Dawn, perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote.

I thought what Segretti was proposing was stupid, unethical and probably illegal. I was in fact naive because I did not think anyone at either the White House or CREEP would engage in such activities--in part because, regardless of the ethics, if they were discovered they could cost Nixon the election. Therefore I thought Segretti was either an agent provocateur for the Democrats or his operation was being financed by a well-meaning Republican high-roller. In either case, I was convinced that CREEP had to identify Segretti and stop him.

Only after the Watergate investigation did it come out that Segretti was originally being controlled by the WH without the knowledge of most people at CREEP. My recollection is Dwight Chapin was running him but he was reporting to H. R. Haldeman. I do not recall if it was ever determined who first came up with the idea for Segretti. I suspect it was Haldeman. Whether Nixon knew about the Segretti operation is another issue.

While I believe in the "conspiratorial" view of Watergate set forth in "Silent Coup" that does not explain the Segretti operation, in my opinion. So while the Watergate burglary might have related to a CIA operation, or to the call girl ring operating out of the White House, I don't think Segretti was set up to doom the Nixon administration. If he had been, then someone would have exposed him before the election.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...