Tim Gratz and Donald Segretti

[Tim Gratz]

Robert, for what it is worth, I was first the Vice-Chairman of the College Republicans and was then elected Chairman. In both capacities I spent a fair amount of time at the club at Marquette University in Milwaukee. But I have no recollection of any of the names mentioned. My dealings were normally with the officers of the club and I did not know all of the club members.

It is interesting that Heinan became associated with the John Birch Society.

There were two young men who were briefly associated with the UW Madison College Republican Club who were so "far out" that they gave me the "heebie jeebies". I think we finally concluded we would not allow them to remain as members of the club. I currently do not remember their names but I will cogitate on it. They were from Madison not Milwaukee. I do not want to imply that they were involved in any activities involving Bremer. Suffice it to say that some of the views they expressed were so extreme that they worried me.

I certainly would like to get to the bottom of the statement in Sprague's book which is clearly incorrect. Like you, I have great respect for the accuracy and integrity of Turner.

You are correct my life could have become a nightmare had I decided to go along with Segretti. And the more I think about it the more I think the first call I got from CREEP was intended as a "wink" to encourage me to cooperate with Segretti.

I think we need to be careful here, however. Sprague's book is clearly wrong about me. It may also be wrong about Segretti and Bremer. I have no information linking Segretti to Bremer. And I would not care to be sued by him. Moreover, despite the dastardly deeds he did in service of the Nixon campaign (and I mean "dastardly" literally) one ought not label him a murderer without evidence to support the charge. Ditto Ulasewicz (although he can't sue, of course).

[John Simkin]

Great posting Robert. I will be replying in more detail later. The link to the article by Timothy W. Maier was also very interesting. It includes the following passage:

In 1974 Wallace told United Press International that "he hoped the Watergate investigation would turn up the man who paid the money to have him shot." Wallace later said he mis-spoke but privately told reporters he believed the White House plumbers unit might have been involved.

The WalShot Files say Wallace had received a letter from Bernard Barker, one of the men caught in the Watergate break-in. The alleged letter is said to have claimed Bremer was paid by G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt for shooting Wallace. All deny the allegation. According to the WalShot Files, the FBI and Barker claim the letter is a fraud, and agents charged the ailing Wallace was after sympathy to support a third run at the presidency.

In 1975, Wallace's wife, Cornelia, told McCall's magazine that the FBI urged Wallace not to press the issue. The FBI briefed Wallace on Aug. 20, 1974, for the second time after denying his request to see the WalShot Files. But Cornelia says agents "didn't review any new developments. All they wanted to do was assure my husband that Bremer was not involved in a conspiracy."

When the New York Times reported Watergate hush-money operative Hunt testified in a Senate Watergate hearing that White House aide Charles Colson, upon hearing the news of the shooting, immediately ordered him to "bribe the janitor" or pick Bremer's lock to find out what type of literature Bremer read, the FBI faced public pressure to reopen the case. The G-men created a memo citing Hunt's story as unlikely because Colson called the Hunt statement "utterly preposterous." The FBI records state: "The allegation that the plumbers might be involved with Bremer appears to be far-fetched in that both Bremer's diary and our investigation indicate Bremer was actively stalking President Nixon up to a short time prior to his decision to shoot Governor Wallace."

In the midst of this a CBS News crew provided the FBI with a film clip depicting a man resembling Liddy whom CBS alleged "led Wallace into Bremer's line of fire." Could this mystery man be the same person who chased down a photographer and paid $10,000 for pictures unseen and undeveloped that were strictly of the crowd? FBI records show those pictures were never pursued because they weren't considered important.

Regardless, the FBI told CBS in 1973 that the mystery man was not Liddy. Although they admitted they had no idea who it was, they claimed the mystery man was just shaking Wallace's hand.

The file shows the FBI hauled both Hunt and Colson in for secret questioning in 1974. Both acknowledge that a conversation about Bremer's apartment took place but deny Liddy or the White House had any role in the assassination attempt. Hunt also told the FBI he never spoke to Liddy about Bremer -- although Hunt says in his Watergate book that he did talk to Liddy about it.

In 1974, the FBI concluded Colson's "explanation is directly opposite" Hunt's but recommended no further probe. The FBI chose not to interview Bremer about the story as "it would not appear logical to expose Bremer to such a weak theory." Likewise they did not try to interview Liddy, who tells Insight, "You got to remember, I wasn't talking to anyone at that time." Asked if he had any role in the Wallace assassination attempt, Liddy replies, "No." Told there were pages about the claim in the FBI's WalShot Files, he is dumfounded. "It sounds to me like these are wild allegations," he says.

Asked where he was when Wallace was shot, Liddy replies, "I don't remember. What's it say in my book?" His book, Will, says only that Liddy was reading the Miami Herald the next day. Two decades later Colson's story changes. He publicly has admitted to ordering the Bremer break-in but told Seymour Hersch in 1993 that he called it off.

Even as Nixon was publicly describing the shooting as "senseless and tragic," he was privately encouraging a Bremer break-in. "Is he a left-winger, right-winger?" Nixon asks about five hours after the shooting, according to a recently released Nixon "abuse of power" tape reviewed by Insight. Colson responds: "Well, he's going to be a left-winger by the time we get through, I think." Nixon laughs and says, "Good. Keep at that, keep at that"

"Yeah, I just wish that, God, that I'd thought sooner about planting a little literature out there. It may be a little late, although I've got one source that maybe ...," Colson says on the tape. "Good," Nixon responds. And Colson replies, "You could think about that. I mean, if they found it near his apartment. That would be helpful."

All of this may refer to just another third-rate burglary that never materialized. Or did it? A Black Panther publication was found in Bremer's apartment, according to the WalShot inventory record. But when in 1974 the Los Angeles Times asked if the FBI found a Black Panther publication, the FBI lied and said it had not.

Nixon might have laughed at that. But Wallace got the last laugh. The Watergate tapes show that on July 23, 1974, after learning he would lose all three Dixiecrats on the Judiciary Committee, Nixon asked Wallace to exert political pressure on his behalf. When Wallace refused, Nixon turned to White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig and said, "Well, Al, there goes the presidency."

[Tim Gratz]

John, do you imply in your last paragraph that Wallace thought Nixon was behind the attempted assassination?

[John Simkin]

John, do you imply in your last paragraph that Wallace thought Nixon was behind the attempted assassination?

Timothy W. Maier does seem to be implying this.

I've never had the slightest doubt.  And, of course, in response to your complaints about the pitch made to you by Segretti, Tony Ulasewicz was dispatched to deal with you.  [The recent addition to the tale of Ken Reitz makes for a most interesting troika of political sleaze culture.  I'll leave Karl Rove out of it for now...] 

Clearly, whether or not you consciouslessly recognized it at the time, you were skimming the surface of a very slimy milieu.  Which is where we get back to Cassini, and how the mistaken impression arose that you were somehow connected to him, and the putative role played in the Arthur Bremer scenario.

Both Segretti and Ulasewicz were reportedly seen with Bremer, as was Cassini.  The evidence for these assertions seems weak at best, but they will remain a part of the record - and oft-repeated - until some of these issues can be resolved.  While I cannot comment on the veracity of others who reported the above, I have always respected the quality of Bill Turner's work.  If he has been quoted accurately, I must assume there was a germ of truth to what he learned, or at least that he accurately related what he had been told, by someone whose agenda remains obviously undetermined.

Given that you had dealings with the first two men mentioned directly above, I am wondering if it is at all possible that you came into contact with the third man purpotedly seen or affiliated with Bremer, Cassini aka Cossini aka Kushman aka Cushman aka Kuzman, without even knowing it.  Segretti certainly used an alias in contacting you, and Cassini is reputed to have used a number of aliases, as just noted.     

If your campaign activities in 1971 or 1972 didn't put you in proximity with Cassini, one wonders how it came to be that your name - down to the first initial - was thrown into the hopper.

Presumably, if you encountered Cassini - even without knowing it - this would have occurred in the context of Republican party business, for that was a major portion of your life at the time.  Moreover, to cite from Eric Norden, it appears that Cassini's role was much like the ones played by Segretti and Reitz, both of whom you did meet: 

I think the key to this mystery is that Nixon had several dirty tricks campaigns in operation. The most important of these was run by H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. The chief field officer was Tony Ulasewicz. This operation began in March, 1969. Ulasewicz kept a strong control over these activities in order that it remained a completely secret operation. It had to be because Ulasewicz was running a campaign to set up Edward Kennedy in order to ensure he did not stand against Nixon in 1972. It is my belief that Ulasewicz was involved in Chappaquiddick incident.

After Kennedy’s career was ended in 1969, Ulasewicz turned his attention to George Wallace. It was Wallace, rather than Muskie that posed the most threat to Nixon being re-elected.

Ulasewicz’s operation was so secret that other Nixon aides (except for Haldeman and Ehrlichman) did not know of its existence. They therefore began organizing their own dirty tricks campaign. Colson ran Hunt and Liddy while Chapin employed Segretti. When Ulasewicz discovered what Segretti was up to he immediately moved to get it shut down. He knew that Segretti’s activities posed a serious threat to his own operation (he virtually says this in his autobiography).

The same could also be said of Hunt and Liddy. According to Ulasewicz’s autobiography, when the Watergate burglars were arrested Ehrlichman immediately assumed it was a Ulasewicz operation. Nixon and Haldeman probably reacted in the same way.

It was only after the arrest of the Watergate burglars that investigators discovered details of Ulasewicz’s activities (via Jack Caulfield). However, Sam Ervin and his Senate Committee backed off investigating this operation. It was one thing to accuse the president of lying about his knowledge of a break-in of an office, it was something else to suggest that he had given orders that had resulted in the death of a woman and an attempted murder of one of your leading political rivals. (What is more, any examination of the setting up of Edward Kennedy might well have led to calls for investigation into the deaths of JFK and RFK.) Given the situation he was in, Nixon was more than willing to resign over the activities of Hunt and Liddy as long as the activities of Tony Ulasewicz were not investigated. This explains why Ervin’s committee never asked Ulasewicz about Operation Sandwedge. Instead, they restricted their questions to Ulasewicz involvement in Watergate.

[Tim Gratz]

John, I do not think Ulasewicz shut down the Segretti operation. Didn't Segretti's activities continue at least through the summer of 1972? (Not that the answer to that question changes the basic thrust of your argument.)

John, in his book does Ulasewicz menbtion that he was involved in security for Nixon's 1968 campaign as well? I am sure Ulasewicz made that statement to me when he was introducing himself.

Robert, by the way, Ulasewicz and his associate also stayed at the Park Motor Inn when they came to Wisconsin.

Edited July 14, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

John, I do not think Ulasewicz shut down the Segretti operation.  Didn't Segretti's activities continue at least through the summer of 1972?  (Not that the answer to that question changes the basic thrust of your argument.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe Segretti kept at it until his name was found on Hunt's phone bill. The Post broke the story in Sep 72, I think, but several men told tales to delay the investigation of Segretti until after the election. I believe Chapin was the one to fall on his sword, serving time ultimately so America could have Gerald Ford as President and George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as his cronies. Remind me to slug Chapin if ever I meet him.

[Tim Gratz]

I believe Chapin was convicted of perjury for denying, before the grand jury, that he was running Segretti.

[John Simkin]

John, in his book does Ulasewicz menbtion that he was involved in security for Nixon's 1968 campaign as well?  I am sure Ulasewicz made that statement to me when he was introducing himself.

These appear to be the relevant dates:

Jack Caulfield, a former member of the New York City Police Department, was hired by H. R. Haldeman in May 1968. His job was to establish an in-house investigative capability that could be used to obtain sensitive political information. Caulfield then approached his friend, Ulasewicz, to be his agent in the field.

In March, 1969, John Ehrlichman met with Caulfield and Ulasewicz at the VIP lounge at the American Airlines Terminal of New York's La Guardia Airport. Ehrlichman agreed to pay Ulasewicz $22,000 a year plus expenses in return for "discreet investigations done on certain political figures".

Later it became clear that Ulasewicz was expected to carry out illegal activities. This included the fire-bombing of the Brookings Institute. In his autobiography Ulasewicz argues that he was reluctant to break the law. Even so, he admits to visiting the Brookings Institute in order to see the best way the operation could be carried out.

Ulasewicz was forced to do this as Jack Caulfield had already admitted this in his testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee. Ulasewicz claims that he only investigated Edward Kennedy and did not plant information to descredit him. It is just a question if you believe Ulasewicz or not.

[Dawn Meredith]

John, do you imply in your last paragraph that Wallace thought Nixon was behind the attempted assassination?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Timothy W. Maier does seem to be implying this.

I've never had the slightest doubt.  And, of course, in response to your complaints about the pitch made to you by Segretti, Tony Ulasewicz was dispatched to deal with you.  [The recent addition to the tale of Ken Reitz makes for a most interesting troika of political sleaze culture.  I'll leave Karl Rove out of it for now...] 

Clearly, whether or not you consciouslessly recognized it at the time, you were skimming the surface of a very slimy milieu.  Which is where we get back to Cassini, and how the mistaken impression arose that you were somehow connected to him, and the putative role played in the Arthur Bremer scenario.

Both Segretti and Ulasewicz were reportedly seen with Bremer, as was Cassini.  The evidence for these assertions seems weak at best, but they will remain a part of the record - and oft-repeated - until some of these issues can be resolved.  While I cannot comment on the veracity of others who reported the above, I have always respected the quality of Bill Turner's work.  If he has been quoted accurately, I must assume there was a germ of truth to what he learned, or at least that he accurately related what he had been told, by someone whose agenda remains obviously undetermined.

Given that you had dealings with the first two men mentioned directly above, I am wondering if it is at all possible that you came into contact with the third man purpotedly seen or affiliated with Bremer, Cassini aka Cossini aka Kushman aka Cushman aka Kuzman, without even knowing it.  Segretti certainly used an alias in contacting you, and Cassini is reputed to have used a number of aliases, as just noted.     

If your campaign activities in 1971 or 1972 didn't put you in proximity with Cassini, one wonders how it came to be that your name - down to the first initial - was thrown into the hopper.

Presumably, if you encountered Cassini - even without knowing it - this would have occurred in the context of Republican party business, for that was a major portion of your life at the time.  Moreover, to cite from Eric Norden, it appears that Cassini's role was much like the ones played by Segretti and Reitz, both of whom you did meet: 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the key to this mystery is that Nixon had several dirty tricks campaigns in operation. The most important of these was run by H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. The chief field officer was Tony Ulasewicz. This operation began in March, 1969. Ulasewicz kept a strong control over these activities in order that it remained a completely secret operation. It had to be because Ulasewicz was running a campaign to set up Edward Kennedy in order to ensure he did not stand against Nixon in 1972. It is my belief that Ulasewicz was involved in Chappaquiddick incident.

After Kennedy’s career was ended in 1969, Ulasewicz turned his attention to George Wallace. It was Wallace, rather than Muskie that posed the most threat to Nixon being re-elected.

Ulasewicz’s operation was so secret that other Nixon aides (except for Haldeman and Ehrlichman) did not know of its existence. They therefore began organizing their own dirty tricks campaign. Colson ran Hunt and Liddy while Chapin employed Segretti. When Ulasewicz discovered what Segretti was up to he immediately moved to get it shut down. He knew that Segretti’s activities posed a serious threat to his own operation (he virtually says this in his autobiography).

The same could also be said of Hunt and Liddy. According to Ulasewicz’s autobiography, when the Watergate burglars were arrested Ehrlichman immediately assumed it was a Ulasewicz operation. Nixon and Haldeman probably reacted in the same way.

It was only after the arrest of the Watergate burglars that investigators discovered details of Ulasewicz’s activities (via Jack Caulfield). However, Sam Ervin and his Senate Committee backed off investigating this operation. It was one thing to accuse the president of lying about his knowledge of a break-in of an office, it was something else to suggest that he had given orders that had resulted in the death of a woman and an attempted murder of one of your leading political rivals. (What is more, any examination of the setting up of Edward Kennedy might well have led to calls for investigation into the deaths of JFK and RFK.) Given the situation he was in, Nixon was more than willing to resign over the activities of Hunt and Liddy as long as the activities of Tony Ulasewicz were not investigated. This explains why Ervin’s committee never asked Ulasewicz about Operation Sandwedge. Instead, they restricted their questions to Ulasewicz involvement in Watergate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

-_______________________

Bingo John, I believe you've nailed it here.

Also during the Watergate hearings for about a day it LOOKED as if the Dorothy Hunt death might be probed....I remember being on red alert, alas the moment passed and nothing came out.

Dawn

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert, for what it is worth, I was first the Vice-Chairman of the College Republicans and was then elected Chairman.  In both capacities I spent a fair amount of time at the club at Marquette University in Milwaukee.  But I have no recollection of any of the names mentioned.  My dealings were normally with the officers of the club and I did not know all of the club members.

Do you recall travelling to Michigan at all?

It is interesting that Heinan became associated with the John Birch Society.

There were two young men who were briefly associated with the UW Madison College Republican Club who were so "far out" that they gave me the "heebie jeebies".  I think we finally concluded we would not allow them to remain as members of the club.  I currently do not remember their names but I will cogitate on it.  They were from Madison not Milwaukee.  I do not want to imply that they were involved in any activities involving Bremer.  Suffice it to say that some of the views they expressed were so extreme that they worried me.

Any recollections at all may prove helpful.  Some of the following freshly rediscovered details might even jog an odd memory.

I certainly would like to get to the bottom of the statement in Sprague's book which is clearly incorrect.  Like you, I have great respect for the accuracy and integrity of Turner.

Which is the only reason I'm prepared to credit Sprague on this.  Unable to find much more on Cassini than rumour and innuendo, I had all but dismissed him as an urban legend.  Yet, I reasoned that if Turner was quoted accurately on the facts, then either Turner knew them to be true or had been told it was by somebody whose purpose is open to question. 

In any event, by implying that Turner might have good reason to believe what Sprague cited, I in no way intend to suggest that you had any involvement with Bremer.  But, clearly, your name has been thrown into the milieu that allegedly surrounded Bremer, and I'd like to know for what purpose.  If one takes careful note of the language employed, the contention is not that you associated with Bremer; only that "Bremer received money from a group associated with Dennis Cassini, Donald Segretti and J. Timothy Gratz."  What "group" might that be?

[i've already suggested you may have been pre-emptively patsified by fellow Republicans.  Based on your disclosure to Karl Rove, the CREEPs had good reason to think you posed a potential threat, particularly when a similar report arrived from New Hampshire, to which you alluded.  By laying a false evidentiary trail that tied you to Bremer, no matter how tenuously, the CREEPs could discredit you and whatever you chose to reveal about them and their other machinations.]

You are correct my life could have become a nightmare had I decided to go along with Segretti.  And the more I think about it the more I think the first call I got from CREEP was intended as a "wink" to encourage me to cooperate with Segretti.

I think we need to be careful here, however.  Sprague's book is clearly wrong about me.  It may also be wrong about Segretti and Bremer.  I have no information linking Segretti to Bremer.  And I would not care to be sued by him.

I've heard nothing about Segretti going after Sprague in the courts, or Lisa Pease; I think you'd have far less concern than Sprague, et al, since you can reveal nothing more than you have thus far.

This doesn't mark the end of the road, however.  A brief browse through some old tomes has raised some interesting questions, and may yet reveal a deep game which some suspected, but none has proved. 

Segretti was recruited in June '71, by Nixon's appointments secretary Chapin, while the former was still in the service.  Segretti began work for Nixon immediately, while still in the military.  As you noted, Tim, Segretti and Chapin had been USC students together, along with Haldeman and a handful of others who ended up in the White House.

They were part of a USC political team called the Trojans, and indulged in all the stuff that would later make them famous: destroying opposition signs and pamphlets; the substitution of their own counterfeit pamphlets and fliers; stuffing ballot boxes; rigging the makeup of the student court, etc.  When Chapin was tasked to find a recruiter of political espionage, Segretti naturally came to mind.

Unlike yourself, Tim, Segretti offered other of his initial recruits $150 per week, plus $75 per week for each assisstant.  [by the way, you were neither the first nor the only to decline Segretti's offer.  That happened in the summer of '71 when Segretti approached a lawyer with whom he'd served in Viet Nam, and a half dozen more declined, that we know of, prior to Segretti's advances toward you.]  Segretti seems to have approached lawyers and law students almost exclusively, always stipulating that nothing illegal was planned, before outlining schemes that weren't just illegal, but brazenly so, to the extreme.  A requirement, Segretti told them, was the procurement of false ID, such as he used and such as was allegedly found upon Cassini's body, post-OD.

To give some indication of scope of the WH campaign: Wood-Stein reported in Oct. of '72 that FBI files indicated "at least 50 undercover Nixon operatives traveled throughout the country trying to disrupt and spy on Democratic campaigns."  It has since been established that there is no mention of this number of "Nixon operatives" in any known FBI Watergate-related file.  [An odd mistake for Mark Felt to make, as FBI's Number Two, assuming he was DT.] 

However, we have a common sense reason to suspect it may nevertheless be true.  Tim Gratz of our forum met two such men, Donald Segretti and Ken Reitz, while Tim was a muckety-muck in the Young Republican movement.  Just how many such operatives must there have been roaming the country if a single Young Republican can encounter two such recruiters for dirty tricks while working in a state of lesser importance to the WH?

Long story short:  A phone call from a New Hampshire Republican campaign factotum to CREEP inquiring about a "Donald Simmons" aroused suspicion [either before or after Tim's similar call had the same result.]  In turn, Magruder learned that Simmons was Segretti, and was Chapin's man. 

Subsequently, responsibility for running Segretti was moved from Chapin to E. Howard Hunt , using the alias Ed Warren, who received weekly updates from Segretti in a public place across the street from Hunt's office.  Segretti only learned that Ed Warren was actually Hunt upon seeing newspaper photos after Hunt's arrest as a WH burglar.  Segretti admitted that Hunt "scared" him, no doubt moreso once Segretti learned his true identity, [ex?]-CIA, and all. 

This is where the tale may take on a darker hue than mere campaign pranks.  It is while Segretti was demonstrably under Hunt's control that Segretti is allegedly seen in the company of Arthur Bremer.  If it seems too fantastic that Hunt's little Ratxxxxer was dispatched for such a purpose, we should recall that Nixon lawyer Chuck Colson, immediately after the attempted assassination of Wallace, instructed Hunt to break into Bremer's apartment and plant false evidence to implicate somebody other than the Republicans.  This seemed a rather odd concern.  And yet it is precisely what is revealed in Hunt's Senate Watergate committee testimony, the WH tapes and the demands placed by Nixon upon Mark Felt, noted as recently as six weeks ago in a Woodward WP piece:

That evening, Nixon called Felt -- not Gray, who was out of town -- at home for an update. It was the first time Felt had spoken directly with Nixon. Felt reported that Arthur H. Bremer, the would-be assassin, was in custody but in the hospital because he had been roughed up and given a few bruises by those who subdued and captured him after he shot Wallace.

"Well, it's too bad they didn't really rough up the son of a bitch!" Nixon told Felt.

Felt was offended that the president would make such a remark. Nixon was so agitated and worried, attaching such urgency to the shooting, that he said he wanted full updates every 30 minutes from Felt on any new information that was being discovered in the investigation of Bremer.

One notes that Nixon wasn't demanding to be updated on Governor Wallace's condition; only what could be determined by FBI about the man who tried to kill him.  Again, a rather odd concern.

But Nixon and his crew were anxious to place a WH-friendly spin on these events, going so far as blaming Teddy Kennedy to the FBI, and covertly planning to falsify evidence to implicate McGovern, as disclosed by WH tapes of Oval Office conversations that transpired that evening.  This, from Martin Schram/Scripps-Howard/June 20 of this year:

In this call, on May 15, 1972 - hours after Wallace was shot - Nixon chose not to do the actual talking. But he can be heard stage-whispering instructions to Colson, who fed them to Felt as ''rumors'' passed along by ''my assistant.'' We are not talking here about the much-ballyhooed but little-revealing tape-recording that has long been considered the only recorded conversation between Nixon and Deep Throat, The Washington Post's secret source. That call occurred at 8:15 p.m.

No, this was an earlier conversation, at 7:42 p.m., when Felt first called to brief Nixon about the shooting of Wallace at a campaign rally in nearby Laurel, Md. The recording apparently was not transcribed (after all, Nixon wasn't actually on the phone). But it can be heard at the National Security Archive Web site.

When the White House switchboard put Felt's call through to the Oval Office, it was Colson who answered the phone. ''Mr. President, do you want Mark Felt?'' Colson asked. Nixon just said ''No.'' So Colson took the call. But as Felt started to brief Colson, telling him the gunman was Arthur Bremer, of Milwaukee, Nixon can be heard clearly, stage-whispering to Colson.

NIXON (whispering): ''Tell him you've got a report that Kennedy people were involved in this.''

COLSON (speaking to Felt): ''One of my assistants was just saying to me that he'd had a couple of rumors. One is that some Kennedy people were involved in, that some of his associates were Kennedy friends. And the second report we've had is that the fellow was an antiwar radical.''

FELT: ''I think the latter would be more likely. ... I've had absolutely nothing on that Kennedy angle, but I'll be sure to pass that along.''

COLSON: ''Well, be sure you push that, Mark, just to be certain that they ask those kind of questions.''

As Nixon whispered in the background, Colson found ways to push the Kennedy and antiwar connections several more times.

COLSON: ''I think both of those ought to be checked because, as I've been told by my assistant here, they're running rampant, those rumors.''

FELT: ''We'll push it as hard as we can ... Particularly on those two rumors. ... Be careful on that Kennedy thing. ... I think that's probably a pretty wild rumor.''

Felt apparently had no trouble identifying Colson's ''assistant.'' In his next call, at 8:15 p.m., Nixon got on the line - and Felt said: ''Since I last talked to you - or Mr. Colson -'' Nixon impatiently interjected: ''Yeah, yeah, yeah?''

That night, Colson's log later showed, he and Nixon had dinner together. What they discussed there is unrecorded. But later, at 9:23 p.m., Nixon and Colson had one more phone conversation on the topic of the day (transcribed in Stanley I. Kutler's book, ''Abuse of Power.'')

NIXON: ''Is he (Bremer) a left-winger, right-winger?''

COLSON: ''Well, he's going to be a left-winger by the time we get through, I think.''

NIXON: ''Good. Keep at that, keep at that.''

COLSON: ''Yeah. I just wish that, God, that I'd thought about planting a little literature out there (in Bremer's Milwaukee apartment).''

NIXON: (Laughs)

COLSON: ''It may be a little late, although I've got one source [Hunt???] that maybe -''

NIXON: ''Good.''

COLSON: ''- you could think about that. I mean, if they found it near his apartment, that would be helpful.''

One loud clanging note in the transcript immediately above:

''Yeah. I just wish that, God, that I'd thought about planting a little literature out there (in Bremer's Milwaukee apartment).''

Just when did Colson think there might be time to accomplish that?  After Bremer shot Wallace in Maryland?  Or before?  Given that Wallace was shot at about 4 pm, and Felt first identified Bremer by name to the White House at 7:42 pm, how could Colson have been upbraiding himself at 9:23 pm for not thinking of planting incriminating "literature" in Bremer's place sooner?  Colson seems to have had one of those head-slapping "I coulda had a V8" moments. 

Who to dispatch to the scene?  Why, E. Howard Hunt, of course.  The same chap who would later earn the singular distinction of having a jury rule that they thought he and CIA had both played a role in murdering JFK.

Both Hunt and Colson would later be quizzed by FBI on the conflicts in their stories.  Hunt alleged Colson told him to go to Bremer's apartment, but that he had balked.  Colson denied the story in its entirety, and waited a further 20 years to admit that he did order Hunt to go to Milwaukee, but then called it off.  Despite being unable to resolve these discrepancies, an FBI report of this interrogation of two WH officials notes something interesting:  both men deny Liddy or the White House had any role in the assassination attempt. 

Liddy?  How did the FBI get him involved in this?  The following is excerpted from the Timothy Maier piece I posted a link to earlier:

In the midst of this a CBS News crew provided the FBI with a film clip depicting a man resembling Liddy whom CBS alleged "led Wallace into Bremer's line of fire." Could this mystery man be the same person who chased down a photographer and paid $10,000 for pictures unseen and undeveloped that were strictly of the crowd? FBI records show those pictures were never pursued because they weren't considered important.

Regardless, the FBI told CBS in 1973 that the mystery man was not Liddy. Although they admitted they had no idea who it was, they claimed the mystery man was just shaking Wallace's hand.

..................

The FBI chose not to interview Bremer about the story as "it would not appear logical to expose Bremer to such a weak theory." Likewise they did not try to interview Liddy, who tells Insight, "You got to remember, I wasn't talking to anyone at that time." Asked if he had any role in the Wallace assassination attempt, Liddy replies, "No." Told there were pages about the claim in the FBI's WalShot Files, he is dumfounded. "It sounds to me like these are wild allegations," he says.

Asked where he was when Wallace was shot, Liddy replies, "I don't remember. What's it say in my book?" His book, Will, says only that Liddy was reading the Miami Herald the next day.

While the implications might seem too fantastic to credit, there was certainly one group of people who harboured grave suspicions of White House complicity,  the victim and his family.  Before Wallace died in 1998, his family asked the case be re-opened -- specifically to examine the actions of Nixon's aides.

From a Dec. 14, 1992, Associated Press story (Nexis -- no link):

The FBI should reinvestigate the 1972 shooting of former Gov. George C. Wallace, his son said, to learn if there is any truth to a report that the attack was discussed in the Nixon White House.

George Wallace Jr. said Saturday he asked President-elect Clinton to reopen the investigation and that he also wants a congressional inquiry.

Wallace said he doesn't believe then-President Nixon had any knowledge of the assasination attempt before the shooting.

"My question is, did anyone else involved in Nixon's campaign have prior knowledge?" he said.

Indeed.

Apologies for the neverending length of the foregoing post.

Moreover, despite the dastardly deeds he did in service of the Nixon campaign (and I mean "dastardly" literally) one ought not label him a murderer without evidence to support the charge.  Ditto Ulasewicz (although he can't sue, of course).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Mark Stapleton]

No apology required, Robert. Fascinating information.

[John Simkin]

This is one of the best postings the JFK Forum has had in its short history. Over the next few days I will be looking at several points Robert makes.

Which is the only reason I'm prepared to credit Sprague on this.  Unable to find much more on Cassini than rumour and innuendo, I had all but dismissed him as an urban legend.  Yet, I reasoned that if Turner was quoted accurately on the facts, then either Turner knew them to be true or had been told it was by somebody whose purpose is open to question. 

In any event, by implying that Turner might have good reason to believe what Sprague cited, I in no way intend to suggest that you had any involvement with Bremer.  But, clearly, your name has been thrown into the milieu that allegedly surrounded Bremer, and I'd like to know for what purpose.  If one takes careful note of the language employed, the contention is not that you associated with Bremer; only that "Bremer received money from a group associated with Dennis Cassini, Donald Segretti and J. Timothy Gratz."  What "group" might that be?

William Turner is a much respected journalist. It seems strange that he should add Tim Gratz’s name to this list of conspirators. During the Watergate investigation it was revealed that Tim had actually reported Segretti’s activities to CREEP. This was in the public record. Tim was one of the “good guys”. There were lots of “bad guys” that Turner could have added to this list. Yet, he does not do this. Instead he opts for someone that had apparently tried to distance himself from this undercover action. To me, that suggests that Turner had evidence to believe that Tim was involved in these events. This raises two possibilities:

(1) Tim was involved in this dirty tricks campaign against Wallace.

(2) Someone was trying to set Tim up by passing false information to Turner.

We know that Turner did investigate the Bremer case (an article about Bremer by Turner appeared in Sid Blumental and Harvey Yazijian’s (eds) book Government by Gunplay: Assassination Conspiracy Theories from Dallas to Today (1976).

Has anyone read Turner’s Rearview Mirror: Looking Back at the FBI, the CIA and Other Tails (2001). Does anyone know if he mentions the Bremer case in this book?

[Tim Gratz]

John, I have added before the possibility that Turner got things right but that Sprague somehow got them wrong.

Robert makes a good point in raising the issue of what "group" Sprague was referencing. Certainly I was involved in CREEP (via its auxiliary organization "Young Voters for the President"). So was Segretti. So were literally thousands of other people. So if all Sprague meant was that someone from CREEP had used CREEP funds to give to Bremer, where does that get us? And why was my name mentioned unless I was involved in the transfer of funds? That is presumably the implication of the reference to me.

It is strange that Sprague does not identify the group.

And, as I suspect you know, despite how strongly I felt at the time that it was important for the future of the country that Nixon be re-elected, I would not have even smeared a Democrat candidate to ensure the re-election of Nixon. In my opinion, morality is needed in politics. And morality means, among other things, that the ends (even important ends) cannot justify immoral means.

Edited July 17, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

And, as I suspect you know, despite how strongly I felt at the time that it was important for the future of the country that Nixon be re-elected, I would not have even smeared a Democrat candidate to ensure the re-election of Nixon.  In my opinion, morality is needed in politics.  And morality means, among other things, that the ends (even important ends) cannot justify immoral means.

Is this supported by the facts. You have for a long time promoted the activities of George Bush as being involved in some sort of moral crusade. However, you fail to respond when it is pointed out that Bush’s supports Communist Party dictators like President Karimov of Uzbekistan.

The fact is that the 1968 Nixon dirty tricks campaign heralded a new strategy for the Republican Party. This was the decision to rely heavily on what has become known as “negative campaigning”. The main objective is to smear your opponent rather than to stress your own policies. Ronald Reagan once claimed that he won both presidential elections without making any firm promises about what he intended to do. The important point is not to do the smearing yourself. Instead you employ other people like Tony Ulasewicz to do your dirty work for you. Ulasewicz evolved into your old buddy Karl Rove.

Bush calls Rove his “Turd Blossom” (a Texas term for a flower that grows from a cowpat). Rove first began his dirty tricks campaign on behalf of the Republican Party in 1970. His first target was Alan Dixon, a Democratic candidate in Chicago.

In 1972 he joined the dirty tricks campaign being organized by Ulasewicz. He helped recruit volunteers via the Young Americans for Freedom organization. This resulted him coming under the influence of Lee Atwater, Nixon’s political strategist whose guiding moral principle was “don’t get caught”.

It was Atwater who introduced Rove to George Bush. He masterminded these smear campaigns against Bush’s opponents. In the 1994 Texas governor’s race Rove organized a campaign that claimed that Bush’s opponent, Ann Richards, was a lesbian.

In the 2000 Republican presidential primaries Bush’s main rival was John McCain. At this stage of the struggle McCain was ahead of Bush in the polls. Bush’s main problem was that McCain was a Vietnam war hero whereas Bush was a draft dodger. Rove decided to turn McCain’s strength into a weakness. He put around stories to his journalist friends that McCain’s experiences as a prisoner of war had left him mentally unstable. He also told of how McCain had abandoned his crippled first wife and had an illegitimate child with a black prostitute. None of this was true but it worked as it took attention away from Bush’s own behaviour during the Vietnam War.

Rove used the same strategy against John Kerry. Once again, being a Vietnam war hero was used against him, and the physical coward, who is very keen to send other young men to their deaths, was able to defeat a man who knows what it is like to come under enemy fire.

The latest case of Rove’s dirty tricks concerns his decision to tell journalists that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. Plame was the wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson and Rove had mounted a smear campaign against him after he publicly accused the Bush administration of exaggerating the case for going to war. Wilson had previously been on a CIA-sponsored trip to investigate whether Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons. (He discovered the story was untrue.)

The story was published by right-wing journalists such as Robert Novak, Matt Cooper and Judith Miller. The CIA complained as they argued that this story threatened the lives of Miller and the agents working under her control.

A grand jury is currently looking into this case. Novak has not yet been called. Miller has already been sent to prison for refusing to reveal her sources. Matt Cooper did give evidence on Thursday and revealed that it was indeed Rove who gave him this information. At the time Rove had told him on “double super secret background”. Rove, who had previously denied giving Plame’s name to journalists, is now claiming that he was telling the truth as his only refered to her as “Wilson’s wife”.

Will this mean that Rove will go to prison? No, not in Bush’s America. Will this mean an end to Rove’s career? No. Bush cannot afford Rove to become a free agent. After all, he might sell his story to the press. If he did, it might be interesting to find out if he was involved in the dirty tricks campaign against Wallace.

[Tim Gratz]

John here we are not addressing the morality of wars or of supporting dictators.

The discussion was political dirty tricks.

I gather you have no evidence that I ever engaged in any dirty tricks or smeared an opponent (I mean an opponent to a candidate for whom I was working) in any political campaign. Because I never did.

You have gone so far as to suggest that I probably called Kennedy a Communist during his presidency--without any evidence whatsoever for that. He was clearly an anti-Communist although he made errors in his foreign polict to be sure.

And you have never criticized Shanet for calling Sam Papich a Communist. Why not? Should there not be morality on the internet as well? I submit it is worse to brand Papich a murderer than it was to call Anne Richards a lesbian--if that was in fact done. For obvious reasons: some people may object to the morality ofhommseual relationships but they are no longer a crime, while murder is the worst crime imaginable. So do I see a double standard here?

And remember in the 1950 US Senate campaign in Florida? George Smathers reportedly went so far as to call Claude Pepper's sister a thespian! Smathers won, of course.

Edited July 17, 2005 by Tim Gratz