Tim Gratz and Donald Segretti

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Your tactics are the same as those of Bush and Rove. Rather than answering claims that Bush was wrong about Saddam Hussein’s attempts to obtain uranium from Niger (as he clearly was) you attack the man himself. This is of course typical of the modern Republican Party that was originally shaped by that other crook, Richard Nixon.

John, I am not even sure what "man" you assert I have falsely attacked?

Also, does not the colloquy on the Rove/Wilson matter belong on its own thread?

[Tim Gratz]

Pat wrote:

Secondly, if no crime was committed in revealing Plame's identity why in heck is there a special prosecutor spending millions to uncover who was responsible?

This is from the Wall Street Journal piece I linked in a previous post:

On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail.

"While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear--at least on the public record--that a crime took place," the Post noted the other day.

So, Pat, the "answer" to your question is: That's a DARN good question! Our tax dollars at work!

Edited July 18, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Also, does not the colloquy on the Rove/Wilson matter belong on its own thread?

Yes, I just thought it was relevant to a discussion on political morality and dirty tricks campaigns:

The thread on Karl Rove and the CIA can be found here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4297

[John Simkin]

I have just had this email from Tim Gratz. It seems he is also threatening me with legal action as well.

John Shanet has accused me of being in the middle of a plot to have Bremer murder Wallace.

Enough is enough.

This is clearly libel.

I intend to sue Shanet for every penney he has.

I do not want to have to include Spartacus as a defendant because despite our political differences I admire what you have created as an educational tool.

But to have someone use the Forum to accuse me of being a murderer (or almost) clearly crosses the limit. I would analogize it to someone running a bordello in the back of a university lecture hall. The educational merit cannot justify the libel.

Maybe he could clarify what he means by this email.

[Tim Gratz]

John, I do not think you should "publish" Shanet's lies (or Sprague's, for that matter) without verifying a factual basis for them. Calling a live person-- whose reputation (and feelings) can be destroyed--a murderer (or at least someone who plotted a murder) is about as serious a charge as can be made against someone. In that regard, I believe you have a LEGAL responsibility to "police" postings on a forum just as print publications have an obligation to do so. If one of your members wants to use YOUR forum to propogate a charge that someone is a murderer, I think you jolly well better verify he has FACTS to support that charge.

Do you think your legal responsibility to prevent libel is less because you are on the internet and are not a print media?

Is libel in England a criminal offense, by the way?

Members ought to realize I feel VERY strongly about this. If they put themselves in my shoes, figuratively, I think they would understand my indignation.

Edited July 18, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

John, you yourself stated that the attempt to link me to Bremer might have been not just a mistake but indeed a plot to smear me.

Now, since I have no evidence of it, I do not accuse Shanet of having a "hidden agenda"; I favor a simpler explanation for his rants.

Edited July 18, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

In an effort to have Arthur Bremer kill George Wallace?

That is what Shanet is talking about, Mark!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

I must confess I hadn't realised this was your interpretation of Shanet's post. From its' reading, I'm not sure you can prove an accusation of murder from those words, but I'm no lawyer.

Whether Shanet returns or not (and I hope he will), I don't agree with yours and Pat's criticism of his ideas as 'lies', 'rants' etc. Tim, his prestated model of who he believed was behind the assassination is much closer to the truth than your ridiculous rhetoric about Castro's guilt. I believe a poll of member's views would confirm this.

Finally, you've set a dangerous precedent by threatening legal action. It won't win friends.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, would you be upset if someone accused you of planning a murder?

Pat us right.

I have heard NO respected assassination researcher ever suggest that SAM PAPICH was an assassin. Now that is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to call the Castro scenario ridiculous. Not when it is supported by:

1) a history professor who researched and wrote a book on the assassination that had several publishings.

2) a highly successful attorney and counselor to three (or is it four) presidents.

3) a well-respected investigative jopurnalist.

4) a senator who served on the Church Committee.

The fact that you disagree with the theory, and that other members of the forum do, does not make it ridiculous.

If even ONE of the reported DGI agents in Dealey Plaza is accurate, there are sinister explanations.

Ron Ecker, who does not, of course, agree with my scenario, has written that Castro "probably" desired the death of JFK (although he does not think he plotted it).

Are there other viable scenarios? Of course. I do not accept any scenario that JFK was killed for economic motives. Is it possible he was killed by a rabid racist Democrat southerner who hated his policy on integration of the races (e.g. Gen. Walker)? Yes, I think JFK's racial policies were so hated they could have generated an assassination plot.

But Papich or Dillon? Those scenarios are truly ridiculous!

[John Simkin]

I think it would be a good idea to go back to the passage of Richard Sprague's book, The Taking of America, that implies a link between Tim and Arthur Bremer.

What evidence is there that Bremer's attempt on Wallace was a directed attempt by a conspiratorial group? Bremer himself has told his brother that others were involved and that he was paid by them. Researcher William Turner has turned up evidence in Milwaukee and surrounding towns in Wisconsin that Bremer received money from a group associated with Dennis Cassini, Donald Segretti and J. Timothy Gratz.

This passage does not of course say that Tim was involved in this conspiracy. What it does do is to suggest that Tim was a member of the same group that paid Bremer money just before the attempted assassination of George Wallace. Therefore, what is important is to discover what groups Tim was involved with at this time. I believe you have admitted to being a member of the far right group, Young Americans for Freedom. Do you know if Dennis Cassini, Donald Segretti and Karl Rove were members of this organization? What other groups did you belong to at this time?

[Tim Gratz]

John the problem with the Sprague passage is that it implies (clearly) that I was involved in the transaction transfering some funds from the "group" to Bremer. Else why even list my name?

Let's take YAF as an example. Now I certainly do not think YAF funded Bremer but MERELY for the purpose of debate let us assume that was believed. Now researching YAF history I discovered interestingly that one of its sponsors was a Wisconsin resident far more prominent (and rich) than me. A man named Herbert Kohler. I can almost assure you that all American members will recognize the name Kohler. Assuming (as I certainly do) that Kohler had nothing to do with Bremer, why would Sprague say that Bremer was funded by a group in which Herb Kohler was a financial sponsor?

Of course we do not think that Oswald killed Kennedy and most suspect Oswald's politics were not of the left. But I can assure you that when Oswald was thought to be the leftist assassin few if any right-wingers indicted the entire membership of the Fair Play For Cuba Committee.

I have found Turner's writings to be quite precise (and Sprague's sloppy). I find it hard to believe that Turner would construct a sentence (and thought) as ambiguous as the statement in Sprague's book. The fact that it is so strangely ambiguous supports my theory that Sprague got Turner wrong, whether intentionally or not is an interesting question.

[John Simkin]

John the problem with the Sprague passage is that it implies (clearly) that I was involved in the transaction transfering some funds from the "group" to Bremer.  Else why even list my name?

It is your reluctance to answer direct questions that encourage so many members to be suspicious of your motives. Why do you find it impossible to admit to the groups you were a member of in the early 1970s? Were they really that bad?

[Tim Gratz]

John, I have absolutely NO CLUE about what you refer.

In 1972, I was a member of the Dane County (WI) Republican Party (but Segretti was not).

I was, if I recall, from time to time a member of YAF. Whether a card-carrying member or not I subscribed to its political philosophy. No idea whether Segretti belonged to YAF.

I was a member, indeed an officer, if the College Republicans (Segretti was not).

And I was associated, in 1972, with "Young Voters for the President", which was an auxiliary of CREEP (I do not think it issued membership cards as such). Segretti presumably was associated with CREEP.

So I belonged to the Young Republicans, the senior Republican organization, the presidential re-election committee and YAF. Rather obvious.

I still say the Sprague statement is curiously written and clearly it contains no references from which its statements can be verified, and it ought to be dismissed on that basis alone. I find his entiire book to be eccentric.

[Tim Gratz]

John I have stated unequivocally that I had never even heard of Bremer until he shot Wallace, and never heard of Cassini until a few months ago.

I think I have tried to answer every question related to my activitities in 1972.

It ought to be obvious to everyone that I was on the side of "clean politics" in 1972. I do not recall ever playing a "dirty trick" on any Democrat candidate, in any year!

Speaking of unanswered questions, however, reminds me: where is your answer to this question: have you reached Mr. Marchetti yet?

[John Simkin]

Speaking of unanswered questions, however, reminds me: where is your answer to this question:  have you reached Mr. Marchetti yet?

I phoned Victor Marchetti and got his daughter. She was unwilling to let me talk to him. I have asked several members to try and ask him questions about his knowledge of the CIA and the JFK assassination. For a variety of reasons, no one has yet managed to get through to him. I have suggested to Larry Hancock that Victor would make a good guest at the JFK Lancer Conference.

Could you now answer the question I have posed several times about the specific policies of the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF)?

[Tim Gratz]

John, why?

What do the policies of the Young Americans For Freedom have to do with the Bremer attempt on Wallace?

I cannot remember every specific thing YAF was advocating forty plus years ago. I was more active in the Young Republicans. Read the platform of the 1972 Republican Convention. I am sure it probably was a fair reflection of my views.

Was I in favor of winning the war in Vietnam? Darn right. Was I convinced that Johnson had blown the war with his policies? Darn right there as well. Did I volunteer to fight in the war? No. Very few young people did, regardless of their political persuasion. I was part of the draft lottery and my number was never called. Would I have obeyed the law if drafted? Of course.

Did the people of Vietnam suffer after we abandoned them to the Communist insurgency from the North? Terribly. Have conservatives apologized for supporting the war? None that I recall. Have some leftists apologized for opposing it? Yes, indeed.

But it strikes me we are getting far, far afield from assassination research. Why?