Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tim Gratz and Donald Segretti


John Simkin

Recommended Posts

John, why do you not post the entire memorandum I wrote so I can see that you are not taking anything out of context?

Re dirty tricks, without looking at the memorandum, I do not recall ever writing a memorandum. I had told you that before, in a private e-mail. This is not to say I had not written a memorandum to anyone about Segretti's approach to me, and if I saw the entire memorandum I might be able to determine from the verbiage whether I actually wrote it.

(For the benefit of other Forum members, John is refering to a memorandum that is an appendix in Unlasewicz's book.)

I was concerned about much of what Segretti was proposing, which, of course, was why I reported him. As I said before (and is the truth) I was concerned that Segretti (who I knew as "Simmons") was being funded by a well-meaning but ill-informed rich Republican (perhaps W. Clement Stone) or by a Democrat or by the Democratic Party as an agent provocateur. I wanted to report Segretti's activities to the highest level of the Committee to Re-Elect the President which is why I contacted Karl Rove (who was then the Chairman of the College Republican National Committee). I asked him to contact a high official in CREEP for me.

I cannot remember all of the things that Segretti suggested doing. Some were clearly objectionable, which is why I reported him of course. Some I thought were probably not only objectionable but also illegal (e.g. printing bogus tickets to Democratic fund-raising dinners). Whether or not campaign espionage, that does not involve an illegal activity such as wiretapping, is unethical, is, I submit, a close question, in part because both parties do it. (As you are probably aware, LBJ assigned Howard Hunt to spy on the Goldwater campaign.)

Also, to the extent Segretti proposed distributing literature truthfully exposing "issues" with the Democratic candidates, I clearly would have approved of that idea, but if it was to be done, thought that CREEP ought to know WHO was doing it.

Why did I not report Segretti to the police? Well, he had not at that time suggested any specific ILLEGAL activities. What he was trying to get me to do at the outset was to get a college student to volunteer for the Muskie campaign so the student could spy on the Muskie campaign. I thought it more appropriate for CREEP to find out who he was and close down his operation.

And by the way John, as a result of CREEP finding out that Segretti was working for the WH due to my complaints, it is NOT true that Segretti was "shut down" because he was becoming careless. Segretti continued to perform his dirty tricks right up until the election.

But I would request that you post the entire memorandum in part so I can evaluate whether I in fact wrote it. (Since you claim Ulasewicz was involved in "dirty tricks" it might have been "invented", although I cannot say that until I see it.)

Re "strange behaviour" on the Forum, what I think is bizarre is to claim that the left-wing "The Nation" magazine is part of a "criminal conspiracy" merely because some of its contributors do not subscribe to Salandria's views on the assassination. Or to claim that Dillon did it. You see, I object when false charges are made against far-left magazines as well as when they are made against Republicans.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...if I saw the entire memorandum I might be able to determine from the verbiage whether I actually wrote it.

(For the benefit of other Forum members, John is refering to a memorandum that is an appendix in Unlasewicz's book.)

Tim, perhaps you should take the advice you give to others on the forum: acquire the book and read it.

Seems so obvious to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, you are, of course, right! Sorry, I should say "correct" so we stand no risk of thinking I was refering to your political ideology.

Didja ever consider that "right" can mean both "correct" and "conservative?

I used to tell people that the forerunners of the American political parties existed even in Jesus' day. You see when the Bible says that Jesus ate with the "publicans and sinners" the 'publicans" must refer to 'Republicans' and the 'sinners' to . . . well, you catch my drift.

But you are correct. I should get Ulasewicz's book for sake of my personal history. Gordon Winslow once suggested I ought to get a copy of the reports the FBI agents made when they interviewed me.

Now to use the Watergate matter to make an argument from analogy, Watergate came apart in fact because someone (Felt) talked. That is one reason why I disbelieve in a LARGE conspiracy. The greater number of conspirators, the more likely someone would have talked. Like me reporting Segretti as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So TIM GRATZ is an unindicted co-conspirator from the Watergate Era !

This would explain his attack on Mark Felt, his sympathy with COLSON,

and his ability to accept the theories of ANGLETON and HELMS.

Why does he try to take over every legitimate thread?

What is his motivation to say "Castro did it"?

Why does he cry crocodile tears over C.D. DILLON being suspect in 1963?

Some say TIM GRATZ has no job, but I say he is WORKING ..........

END OF STORY !

YOU ARE OUT OF THE GAME !

B):tomatoes:tomatoes:lol::tomatoes:tomatoes:tomatoes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hahaha...Tim, you psychic. I woke up thinking, honest to Goddess, the Republicans think right is "right" and Left is...what, "left" out? Then I saw your post.

Here's the truth: we're both wrong. Time for a paradigm shift.

You have to have known the WG thing was going to dazzle us forum 'sperts. Rove too in story? You have audience cut out for you.

Read Tony Summers again. Arrogance of Power. I picked it up and realized that I'd missed so much and now this thread.

The part about the military ready to gun down war protesters is esp. chilling. It brings the time back into perspective for me. Right or Left got dirty laundry, but the deck was stacked against amateurs. The Cold War gave us the experts.

BTW, are you law grad, Tim? I saw a case on net, maybe it was discussed here and I missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So TIM GRATZ is an unindicted co-conspirator from the Watergate Era !

This would explain his attack on Mark Felt, his sympathy with COLSON,

and his ability to accept the theories of ANGLETON and HELMS.

Why does he try to take over every legitimate thread?

What is his motivation to say "Castro did it"?

Why does he cry crocodile tears over C.D. DILLON being suspect in 1963?

Some say TIM GRATZ has no job, but I say he is WORKING ..........

END OF STORY !

YOU ARE OUT OF THE GAME !

:rolleyes:  :tomatoes  :tomatoes  :lol:  :tomatoes  :tomatoes  :tomatoes

Tim says he reported Sengretti but it appears he still hung on to the fifty bucks. How much is he getting for his disinformation efforts here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, why do you not post the entire memorandum I wrote so I can see that you are not taking anything out of context?

So you admit that you wrote a memorandum?  One notes the absence of qualifiers such as "I may have written" or "that was attributed to me."  You would like to see it here in its entirety, only to ensure it is taken in proper context?  Fair and reasonable enough.

Re dirty tricks, without looking at the memorandum, I do not recall ever writing a memorandum.  I had told you that before, in a private e-mail.  This is not to say I had not written a memorandum to anyone about Segretti's approach to me, and if I saw the entire memorandum I might be able to determine from the verbiage whether I actually wrote it.

But counsellor, in your very first sentence you admitted having written a memo, and wish only that it be reproduced here in its entirety to ensure proper context.  I know that certain memories may fade with time, but just how many memos must one write on just how many political scandals, before one fails to recall their own footnote to political sleaze culture history?  Geez, Tim; you're the good guy in this tale... can't you remember what you did to earn that qualification? 

Or perhaps you are suggesting that the hierarchy of your own Republican party would forge a memo and falsely attribute it to you?  If so, why do you remain a member of so corrupt and despicable a party? 

(For the benefit of other Forum members, John is refering to a memorandum that is an appendix in Unlasewicz's book.)

I was concerned about much of what Segretti was proposing, which, of course, was why I reported him.  As I said before (and is the truth) I was concerned that Segretti (who I knew as "Simmons") was being funded by a well-meaning but ill-informed rich Republican (perhaps W. Clement Stone) or by a Democrat or by the Democratic Party as an agent provocateur. 

Your mind works in interesting ways.  You can actually envision a scenario in which the Democrats would recruit a young Republican to spy on the Democrats' own campaign for the Democrats?  Couldn't Democrats simply spy on their own campaign?  It seems much simpler.  I don't know which is odder: that you believed that then, or that you think we will now.  Your elaborately byzantine Castro-did-it nonsense pales by comparison.

I wanted to report Segretti's activities to the highest level of the Committee to Re-Elect the President which is why I contacted Karl Rove (who was then the Chairman of the College Republican National Committee).  I asked him to contact a high official in CREEP for me.

Reporting the mysterious "Simmons" to Rove only alerted Rove that his former mentor Segretti was running a non-secure operation.  Rove may assert that he didn't know "Simmons" was Segretti, but that's an obvious falsehood.  Among the things that got Segretti disbarred and sent to jail was the 1972 poaching and improper use of a rival candidate's letterhead.  Two years earlier, Karl Rove did the same thing while under Segretti's tutilege.  Rove would have recognized Segretti's modus operandi, even if Rove didn't know Segretti was using the nom de guerre "Simmons," which is itself highly questionable.  Irrespective of your claimed aims, your actions did not cause Segretti's operation to be shut down; only to be made more secure, which I suspect was your real intent.  If anything, Ulasewicz was dispatched to learn how much you knew and exercise damage control in the event that you really were a square john who'd stop at nothing to get to the truth of the matter.  No worries there, apparently.

I cannot remember all of the things that Segretti suggested doing.  Some were clearly objectionable, which is why I reported him of course.  Some I thought were probably not only objectionable but also illegal (e.g. printing bogus tickets to Democratic fund-raising dinners). 

So, you thought some of these suggested acts were "illegal," but didn't report them or "Simmons" to the police; instead you sought to protect the Republican party from its own excesses, which is precisely what informing Rove accomplished.

Whether or not campaign espionage, that does not involve an illegal activity such as wiretapping, is unethical, is, I submit, a close question, in part because both parties do it.  (As you are probably aware, LBJ assigned Howard Hunt to spy on the Goldwater campaign.)

Uh-oh.  Slippery ethical slope ahead... using somebody else's purported excesses to justify one's own real ones.

Also, to the extent Segretti proposed distributing literature truthfully exposing "issues" with the Democratic candidates, I clearly would have approved of that idea, but if it was to be done, thought that CREEP ought to know WHO was doing it.

Perhaps you could point out why you thought at the time that CREEP didn't know "who was doing it."  You may not have known, but what made you suspect they didn't?

Why did I not report Segretti to the police?  Well, he had not at that time suggested any specific ILLEGAL activities. 

Two grafs above this one, you claimed:  "Some I thought were probably not only objectionable but also illegal (e.g. printing bogus tickets to Democratic fund-raising dinners)."  Which is it, counsellor? 

What he was trying to get me to do at the outset was to get a college student to volunteer for the Muskie campaign so the student could spy on the Muskie campaign.  I thought it more appropriate for CREEP to find out who he was and close down his operation.

You just finished saying, again two grafs above this one, that you thought at the time that CREEP didn't know "who was doing it."  Now you seem to admit that CREEP had the power to "close down his operation," indicating that "Simmons" must have in some way been answerable to CREEP, and not the Democrats as per your prior fantastic assertion.  Which is it, counsellor?

And by the way John, as a result of CREEP finding out that Segretti was working for the WH due to my complaints, it is NOT true that Segretti was "shut down" because he was becoming careless.  Segretti continued to perform his dirty tricks right up until the election.

So, Rove and Ulasewicz and Caulfield didn't seem to care what Segretti did; only that he not be caught doing it.  Nice to see that your party's hierarchy took your concerns to heart. 

But I would request that you post the entire memorandum in part so I can evaluate whether I in fact wrote it.  (Since you claim Ulasewicz was involved in "dirty tricks" it might have been "invented", although I cannot say that until I see it.)

So you do suggest that your own party would "invent" a memo and falsely attribute it to you?  And yet you remain an Uber-Republican?  Apparently the 'ratxxxxers' and those who ran them weren't the only ones with extraordinarily flexible ethics. 

Re "strange behaviour" on the Forum, what I think is bizarre is to claim that the left-wing "The Nation" magazine is part of a "criminal conspiracy" merely because some of its contributors do not subscribe to Salandria's views on the assassination.  Or to claim that Dillon did it.  You see, I object when false charges are made against far-left magazines as well as when they are made against Republicans.

Whereas the rest of us merely object when false charges of assassination culpability are made against Castro, the KGB, Madame Nhu and others in an apparent bid to misdirect the gullible and under-informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So TIM GRATZ is an unindicted co-conspirator from the Watergate Era !

This would explain his attack on Mark Felt, his sympathy with COLSON,

and his ability to accept the theories of ANGLETON and HELMS.

Why does he try to take over every legitimate thread?

What is his motivation to say "Castro did it"?

Why does he cry crocodile tears over C.D. DILLON being suspect in 1963?

Some say TIM GRATZ has no job, but I say he is WORKING ..........

END OF STORY !

YOU ARE OUT OF THE GAME !

:rolleyes:  :tomatoes  :tomatoes  :lol:  :tomatoes  :tomatoes  :tomatoes

Tim says he reported Sengretti but it appears he still hung on to the fifty bucks. How much is he getting for his disinformation efforts here?

"Tim says he reported Sengretti but it appears he still hung on to the fifty bucks."

Tim! How could you cheapen yourself by accepting a rate lower than a two-bit hooker's? I'm appalled! :o Hell, if you were going to work for the bastards, you should have at least charged them through the nose, like minimum fifty grand. :lol:

But seriously now, when you go to photograph Boca Chica, try and approach it from Stock Island, preferably from the inside of the trailer park [if it's still there, which I doubt] that was on the east side of the highway that led into Key West. It was called the Stock Island Trailer or Mobile Home Park, and if you walked due east you'd come to the little inlet on the reef where you could wade out into the shallows and see directly across to the floating ammo dump. It was shaped like an upside down cake baking pan, kind of like those Pyrex or Corning shapes, it was sand colored with what looked to be pebbled ground-cover types of rocks, and had 4 to 6 tall light poles with red flashing lights that were always on. I'd like to know what they've put up in its place, because it's probably changed a whole helluvalot since 1963. Like I said, Key West 1963 = Battleship Gray.

Thanks again,

Ter :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to ensure that the post below - also accessible in the Watergate forum - doesn't escape Tim Gratz's attention, I have cross-posted it here so that we might still have the benefit of his comments, even if he doesn't post or regularly check the Watergate forum.

Tim had asked John Simkin to post the following memo in its entirety, which John has graciously done.  Perhaps by parsing the language in the memo, and comparing it to Tim's more current statements here, we can determine what was really being planned and/or accomplished by the Watergaters.

Confidential Memo of Timothy Gratz regarding Don Simmons (alias for Donald Segretti) to Tony Ulasewicz (18th December, 1972)

It is unclear to me whether the memo was written on December 18, 1972, as is suggested by John's header above. 

Clearly, the events depicted in the memo could not have taken place on the dates suggested - in December of 1972 - for by that date, Nixon had already been re-elected, making the events described wholly anachronistic, given that the primaries being discussed would have taken place far earlier in the same year.  This may well indicate that the memo wasn't written by Tim Gratz after all, as he has intimated may be the case.  Conversely, it might also be that Tim simply misstated the year in his memo, though this notion is far harder to credit. 

Even if the year is incorrect and we assume it was written very late in 1971, which comports with the facts described, the final graf of the memo indicates it must have been prepared on the following day, December 19, or thereafter.  The date it was written may prove important.  If Tim wrote it on the following day or soon thereafter, it seems that somebody - whether Karl Rove or Anthony Ulasewicz - prevailed upon Tim to record the events described in a most timely fashion, while his recall was still fresh. 

What is clear, irrespective of the date, is that Tim reported the "Simmons" episode to Karl Rove - who was senior to Tim in the Young Republican food chain, and the most sensible person to whom Tim would turn - but that rather than alert anyone inside the Republican party, Karl Rove seems to have turned the information over to the White House insider responsible for controlling the "dirty tricks" campaign being run by "Simmons."  If all this happened within only a day or so, it is highly unlikely that Rove would have had the chance to contact some unknown third party who then alerted the White House "dirty tricks" chief, Ulasewicz.  If anything, it suggests that Karl Rove was aware of and very much involved in the machinations of Watergate, the Ratxxxxers and Operation Sandwedge.  It is not an inescapable inference, but certainly must be considered possible, or even probable.  

The "Tim Gratz" memo is in blue.

I received a telephone call at my apartment on Saturday morning, December 18th, 1972, from a man who identified himself as Mr Don Simmons. He said he wanted to find a young person in Madison to do work for the reelection of the President, for about ten to fifteen hours per month, and wanted to put this individual on a retainer basis. He said the work involved opposition research, etc.

He said he was from a political consultant firm in New York. He said he received my name from Randy Knox. We set up a meeting in the Park Motor Inn Lounge for that afternoon.

We must question why "Simmons" placed a called to Knox, and why Knox suggested Tim Gratz was the man with whom "Simmons" would wish to speak.  Given the planned agenda of disrupting and sabotaging rival political candidates, surely "Simmons" was seeking operatives with both flexible morality and tight lips.  Unless "Simmons" was just cold-calling anyone and everyone within the Young Republican camp - a surefire invitation to the entire plan being exposed and backfiring against the Republican "dirty tricks" squad - "Simmons" must have had reason to believe that Knox was unethical and could be relied upon to keep his mouth shut, and/or Knox had reason to believe that Tim Gratz could be recommended for the same reasons.  It may prove to Tim's credit that he alerted Karl Rove.     

Simmons said he was interested in running a "negative campaign" in Wisconsin. He explained that the purpose of the campaign was to create as much bitterness and disunity within the Democrat primary as possible. He suggested doing things such as planting questions in student audiences before which the Democrat candidates were working, getting students to picket the Democrat candidates, e.g. a black student to picket Muskie regarding his remark on a black V.P. candidate, etc. He also said he was interested in planting spies in the Democrat candidate's offices. He said that he wanted to concentrate on Muskie, and give second priority to McGovern.

How, exactly, does this square with Tim's current contention that he thought "Simmons" might have been sponsored by Democrats?  In this very thread, he has asserted:  "I was concerned that Segretti (who I knew as "Simmons") was being funded by a well-meaning but ill-informed rich Republican (perhaps W. Clement Stone) or by a Democrat or by the Democratic Party as an agent provocateur."  One cannot dismiss as wholly fantastic the notion that Democrats would recruit a young Republican to damage their own campaign, only to unmask the charade at a later date, for whatever damage it might do to the Republicans.  However, even in the murky world of political intrigue, common sense dictates that it is such a stretch of the imagination as to be highly unlikely.  The more compelling rationale is that it was what it purported to be: a campaign designed to inflict maximum damage against the Democratic candidate for President, be it Muskie or McGovern.

Simmons said he wanted topay someone $100.00 per month, plus expenses, to co-ordinate these projects. He also said he was willing to pay a salary of up to $50.00 per month to a person we could plant in Muskie headquarters.

I asked him if he was working for the CCREP or the RNC. He replied he was working on his own, with his own money. (He implied that he was saying this because he did not want anyone to be able to trace his activities to the Nixon campaign or the Party officially.) I asked him how I could establish his credentials, and he was, frankly, evasive, although I got the impression that he was implying this evasiveness was deliberate.

This is precisely the vague, but reassuring, come-on used by "Maurice Bishop" in recruiting Veciana: "I represent certain interests of considerable authority and influence, but they must remain unnamed.  Draw your own conclusions."

Although the whole incident seemed strange, I tentatively agreed to work on his project (as most of the ideas he suggested seemed like they were worth doing anyway). He gave me $50.00 in advance payment, and said he would call back in early January. He said I should concentrate initially on finding someone to plant in Muskie HQ. He said that we would communicate only by telephone, for security reasons.

One notes the interesting use of language in the graf above: "I tentatively agreed to...."  Upon acceptance of the $50 on offer, I suggest there was nothing "tentative" about the arrangement.  "Simmons" clearly thought he had bought and paid for services yet to be rendered, an impresson Tim deliberately sought to foster. 

One also notes that Tim didn't balk at agreeing to the arrangement, and did not storm out of the meeting or threaten to report "Simmons" to the authorities.  That he was never asked to actually deliver on what he had agreed to do was due only to the fact that "Simmons" never called back. 

Why didn't he call Tim back?  Because Ulasewicz [or someone within his White House group], alerted by Karl Rove, tipped off "Simmons" that Tim Gratz had loose lips.  Otherwise, "Simmons" would have continued to assume that Tim Gratz was his man - bought and paid for - and contacted him again to put the plans in motion.  Clearly, someone advised "Simmons" not to pursue contacts with Tim Gratz, or there would have been followup contacts. 

Mr. Simmons registered at the Park Motor Inn on Dec 16, 1972, and checked out on Dec. 19th. He listed his home address as 1400 Olympic Avenue NW, Wash DC. He paid his bill in cash. He made approximately twelve local phone calls, and three long distance calls. One of the long distance calls was to Randy Knox' home in Fort Atkinson; one was to a Madison area (884 exchange) number, and one was to Peoria, Ill., 309-674-2143. (We are checking this number out through contacts in Illinois.)

Precisely how did you ascertain the above details, Tim?  It seems as though you managed to procure a copy of "Simmons"' hotel bill.  Surely the staff of the Park Motor Inn - even in the less sophisticated times of 1972 - would not disclose to anyone confidential information about a guest, his home address, his method of payment, the number of phone calls he placed, the numbers to which those calls were made, etc.  In order to obtain this information, did you use the $50 to bribe a Park Motor Inn employee, or did you misrepresent yourself to such an employee as a police officer?  Who were these "contacts in Illinois" from whom you expected to learn the subscriber to whom the number 309-674-2143 was registered? 

Up until the final graf of the memo, one might reasonably believe your assertion that you were simply a waif who got caught up in something larger and uglier than you had expected to find.  The reportage of the above details, however, suggests that you were more skilled or schooled than you were naive, or that you wished to demonstrate to the memo's intended audience that you might offer some utility to them in their future plans.  Either way, it seems that your final graf in the memo sinks any plausible credibility to the central tenet of your story: that you were an "innocent" who found himself embroiled in something through no fault of his own.

All, of course, based on the assumption that you actually wrote the memo you can no longer recall penning.

Did you?      

Edited by Robert Charles-Dunne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, Robert.

Do you come here to find the truth or to represent a point of view? Segretti? Rove? Nixon? Are you kidding me?

I knew long ago Mr. Gratz had no interest in what really happened to John Kennedy on November 22, 1963. To him it's all a game, played from the safety of his home, or library, or wherever he posts from.

"I'll take David Atlee Phillips, for a thousand..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, Robert.

Do you come here to find the truth or to represent a point of view?  Segretti? Rove? Nixon? Are you kidding me?

I knew long ago Mr. Gratz had no interest in what really happened to John Kennedy on November 22, 1963.  To him it's all a game, played from the safety of his home, or library, or wherever he posts from.

"I'll take David Atlee Phillips, for a thousand..."

Stan,

I'm not sure Tim's home will be very safe at the moment. Hurricane Dennis is wreaking havoc down there at the moment. Despite my differences with Tim on the Forum, I hope he's OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Mark! Appreciate the kind thoughts.

The headline in Sunday's paper was "Key West Dodges Another Bullet". Dennis passed about 67 miles west of Key West.

The winds were blowing consistently 75 plus miles per hour most of Friday night. No rain or lightning though. My power was out for thirteen hours and it was almost 90 degrees! The sight of the branches blowing in the strong winds is a sight I shall never forget.

Saturday it rained all day and there were consistent winds of 35 to 40 miles per hour. Incredibly, there was little flooding.

I have a friend who grew up next to Customs (CIA) Agent Cesar Diosdado (who, ironically, lived six blocks down on the street where I have lived for three years). A large tree fell right on the top of his van and destroyed it.

Lots of trees down but no major damage in Key West.

It was quite an experience, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The headline in Sunday's paper was "Key West Dodges Another Bullet".  Dennis passed about 67 miles west of Key West.

Maybe God was trying to help us with our investigation. Maybe the hurricane should be called "Dennis Salvatore Cassini". Was it a near miss or a direct hit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A near miss--about 70 miles west of Key West near the Dry Tortugas. Rip Robertson's CIA front company Mineral Traders claimed its ships were looking for oil in the Dry Tortugas.

But John, although I know I have not yet convinced you of who really killed JFK, I am glad to see you are finally acknowledging the existence of God! Kidding aside, I like you dearly despite our political differences and it is far more important to me to know the security of your eternal soul than to resolve the unsolved crime of the twentieth century!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
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...