Questions for Douglas Caddy

[John Simkin]

John Simkin wrote in the final posting in the Kennedy Assassination topic of the thread titled “Ashton Gray: His repeated violations of Board Guidelines,” which thread he then closed down:

“I have found Doug very helpful with my investigations into Lyndon Johnson. Hopefully he will continue to answer our questions. However, I do not expect hm to fully explain his relationship with the CIA during the Watergate scandal. Maybe he is saving this for his forthcoming book.”

Anyone who has read the Forum’s thread “Douglas Caddy: Question and Answer” will find that I have previously answered all questions posed to me about the CIA:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7253

John Simkin, in his remarks above, apparently intends to leave with the reader a tantalizing smear that I have been somehow had a relationship with the CIA.

One is reminded of the interrogation method of which Senator Joseph McCarthy was accused. It is said that he would pose the question to a witness “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Community Party?” When the witness denied that he had ever so been associated, it is said that Senator McCarthy would retort, “Are we merely to take you word on this?” in an attempt to harm the witness’s reputation.

Substitute John Simkin for Senator McCarthy and we have him asking me, in essence: “Are you now or have you ever been employed by the CIA or knowingly participated in any of its activities?” When I state that I have not, he merely gratuitously retorts, “I do not expect [you] to fully explain [your] relationship with the CIA.”

In the mid-1970's I employed the Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to obtain from the CIA any records that it had on me. I was stonewalled for a long period of time. I then appealed to Senator Barry Goldwater, whom I knew personally and who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, to intervene with the CIA to release this information. He agreed to write the CIA in my behalf.

A short time later I received from the CIA one document of several pages that was heavily redacted. It appeared to have been prepared as a summary of what the CIA knew about Watergate, before and after the break-in arrests on June 17, 1972. The only part that was not heavily redacted was one sentence that stated in essence “Michael Douglas Caddy has never been an employee of the CIA.”

I cannot quote the exact sentence as the CIA document is in my personal and professional files in the Library Archives of the University of Oregon, in Eugene, Oregon. This is some 2000 miles from where I reside. Even if I were to retrieve the CIA letter and quote exactly from it, most likely this would still not satisfy the John Simkin-Ashton Gray tag team. If the latter wish to engage in a fantasy that I was somehow had a relationship with the CIA, they are merely deluding themselves and adversely affecting the credibility of the Forum. The historical record rebuts their assertion.

I have obviously upset you by not deleting Ashton Gray’s membership. As I have explained many times on this Forum, I am fully committed to the idea of free speech. One of the most important aspects of this is the freedom to ask questions. Ashton is not always as polite as he should be. He has apologised for this and hopefully he will adjust his style in future. However, he is clearly very knowledgeable about Watergate and has raised some very important questions. Hopefully, in time, Ashton will also be able to answer them. Just because I have not deleted his membership does not mean that I always agree with him. (I am not sure what you are implying by the comment the “John Simkin-Ashton Gray tag team”) In fact, as the threads on “What was Watergate all about?” and “John Paisley” will eventually show, we probably disagree fundamentally about several issues.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7253

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3017

You originally contacted me because you wanted me to make changes to my web page on you. It is the main reason why most of the people involved in the assassination of JFK and Watergate stories make contact with me, including Alfred Baldwin, is that anyone who does a web search for the names of these people they quickly find themselves on my website. (For example, if you do a search at Google for “Douglas Caddy” my page on you comes up 1st out of 301,000 pages.) People are understandable concerned that in future my interpretation of their life could be quite significant. In your case, you wanted me to add that you had abandoned your previous right-wing views on politics. I was quite willing to do this as it was clearly true. You also agreed to answer questions on the Forum (as did Alfred Baldwin). As people like Gerry Hemming have discovered, this is a risky strategy as members cannot control the questions they are being asked. Gerry left leaving the questions unanswered. That in itself tells members a great deal. That is why I confidently predicted on the forum, in response to Ray Carroll assertion that Alfred and you would leave the forum if I allowed Ashton to remain as a member, that you would indeed stay and answer questions.

I am sure that you are right that the published documents show that you have never been an employee of the CIA. I doubt very much if you ever fell into this category. What I do believe is that William Buckley recruited you as a CIA asset in 1960 when you began to play a key role in the Young Americans for Freedom organization. Buckley had been a member of the CIA where he worked under E. Howard Hunt in Mexico.

I suspect the CIA also asked you to carry out tasks for the organization. I don’t think it is a coincidence that E. Howard Hunt contacted you to help out the Watergate burglars. He did this because he knew that investigators would eventually find the links between you and the CIA via Robert Mullen. In other words, you were part of the set-up. As you rightly say, the Watergate burglars were caught because of James McCord’s tape. However, the reason that journalists connected up the burglary with the CIA was McCord’s statement in court on the morning after his arrest. McCord voluntarily told the court that he had been a former employee of the CIA. He did not need to do that. That triggered off a series of events that eventually brought down Richard Nixon.

I know this is pure speculation and that we will never discovery documentary evidence that this is the case. However, unless we assume that McCord was a complete idiot (and his previous record shows this was not the case), his main role was to implicate Nixon in the break-in. The same goes for E. Howard Hunt. I think you were an innocent victim of these events. I also understand why you are unwilling to admit to being a CIA asset.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

I also understand why you are unwilling to admit to being a CIA asset.

I'm glad John Simkin is not directly calling Doug Caddy a "xxxx," because it was John himself who banned that word from the forum. Instead, he calls Doug a xxxx in a slightly more roundabout way.

I suspect the CIA also asked you to carry out tasks for the organization. I don’t think it is a coincidence that E. Howard Hunt contacted you to help out the Watergate burglars.

Yet it is a fact that Hunt had fairly recently been sharing office space with Mr. Caddy, and the chances are they frequently ate lunch together. I gather Douglas Caddy and Hunt were always on friendly terms in the period leading up to Watergate, so if Hunt wanted a "clean" lawyer, (as I believe Hunt's plans required) his unwitting friend Douglas Caddy was absolutely the man to see.

He did this because he knew that investigators would eventually find the links between you and the CIA via Robert Mullen. In other words, you were part of the set-up.

Douglas Caddy has already given this forum every assurance that he had no knowledge of Mullen's status as a CIA front. Throughout his time using the Mullen offices, he was employed exclusively by General Foods. Mr. Caddy had ceased using the Mullen offices and was a member of an independent law firm (with no CIA connections that I'm aware of) at the time of the break-in, so John's theory requires us to stretch things a just a little bit.

Ashton is not always as polite as he should be.

This is very true. He has repeatedly and persistently called Doug Caddy a xxxx. In recent days, on the Diem thread, he has been applying that same epithet to Pat Speer.

However, he is clearly very knowledgeable about Watergate

I have ignored most of Mr. Gray's contributions to the Watergate debate, but I can say that his "knowledge" of the Diem forgeries seems to depend almost entirely on the implicit motto: "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EVIDENCE."

and has raised some very important questions.

I hope you are referring to something more substantive than the asinine list of questions that Ashton Gray has posed to Doug Caddy.

That is why I confidently predicted on the forum, in response to Ray Carroll assertion that Alfred and you would leave the forum if I allowed Ashton to remain as a member, that you would indeed stay and answer questions.

Just for the record, I never advocated that Ashton Grey be removed. Instead, I advocated that he be publicly reprimanded by the Moderator for repeatedly violating the forum rule against calling Douglas Caddy a xxxx.

Now I am obliged to sadly ask the Moderator to publicly reprimand himself.

[Jack White]

There are at least half a dozen LIARS on this forum. When someone purposely states an UNTRUTH, he is a xxxx. It should be pointed out when anyone here LIES. Occasionally they are only mistaken in spreading an untruth...but it is still a LIE. Most of these liars, in my opinon, are paid provocateur agents with specific agendas, assigned to xxxxx the internet to protect certain government secrets. There is NO OTHER POSSIBLE MOTIVE, except lunacy, for anyone to spend many hours a day supporting the SINGLE BULLET THEORY. Only paid whores like Posner have a motive to spread lies. Ordinary people do not....unless also being paid. I do not have to name the liars. By their deeds you all know them.

[Dawn Meredith]

There are at least half a dozen LIARS on this forum. When someone purposely states an UNTRUTH, he is a xxxx. It should be pointed out when anyone here LIES. Occasionally they are only mistaken in spreading an untruth...but it is still a LIE. Most of these liars, in my opinon, are paid provocateur agents with specific agendas, assigned to xxxxx the internet to protect certain government secrets. There is NO OTHER POSSIBLE MOTIVE, except lunacy, for anyone to spend many hours a day supporting the SINGLE BULLET THEORY. Only paid whores like Posner have a motive to spread lies. Ordinary people do not....unless also being paid. I do not have to name the liars. By their deeds you all know them.

I nominate this the post of the day. Jack you're still hitting 'em out of the park. If Posner ever joined this forum I'd resign on principle. (I know that would certainly please a few unnamed members

Dawn

[Douglas Caddy]

John, are you not aware that I covered this subject in this very thread on February 5, 2006? Why your sudden discovery of this information? I notice that your tag team partner, Ashton Gray, wasted no time, based on your posting, of spinning a new fantasy that I knew Washington police officer Carl Shoffler and Robert “Butch” Merritt. I knew neither of these of men. If you and he wish to delude yourselves otherwise, be my guest. I am beginning to be thoroughly amused of your and Ashton’s wide-of-the-mark postings. The more outlandish the accusations and insinuations, the greater the chance that the monetary advance on my new book will be increased as you and Ashton jointly transform me into a major “key player” in the Watergate scandal. However, don’t expect me to share my monetary advance with you both as a result of your adversarial public relations work in my behalf, especially since the Forum’s credibility is the ultimate victim of your tag team fantasy strategy.

Almost all of your posting in question draws directly upon the writing of Jim Hougan in his book, Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat and the CIA. I invite Forum members and readers of this thread to contrast pages 320 to 323 in Hougan’s book with what you have posted. In the past in your scholarly writings in the Forum you have been fastidious in citing source materials to support statements that you make, which is why they are so widely read with anticipation. Why then did you omit attribution to Hougan of what you wrote above?

It is true that I sometimes cite my sources in my postings. On other occasions I do not do this. This is no conspiracy. It all depends on if the posting is part of a book I am writing.

The story about Shofler, Chung and Merritt does appear in Jim Hougan’s Secret Agenda. In my opinion it is the best book written so far on Watergate. However, Hougan did make mistakes in the book and like other investigators was unable to fully explain what Watergate was really about.

For example, on page 321 he writes that he does not believe the Merritt story because: "If we are to believe the disaffected informant, Shoffler told him to establish a homosexual relationship with Douglas Caddy, stating falsely that Caddy was gay and a supporter of Communist causes. In fact, Caddy was about as conservative as they come, and there was no reason to suspect that he was anything but heterosexual.”

Hougan was wrong about your homosexuality. Those on the right would no doubt say that you are now a “supporter of Communist causes”. Maybe it is time to reassess the information supplied by Merritt.

I also find Captain Edmund Chung’s testimony very interesting. Why did Sam Ervin and his committee believe Shofler over Chung? Why did they not ask any questions about Operation Sandwedge? Is it possible that like the Warren Report, Ervin was part of the cover-up?

Countless books have been written about Watergate and yet, to the best of my recollection, not a single author ever contacted me to get my views on the scandal – including Jim Hougan.

I was also surprised that I was never interviewed by the Senate Watergate Committee. It may have been that the Committee, as well as the Watergate Special Prosecutor, wanted to steer clear of gathering information and testimony that might have destroyed the U.S. Department of Justice and the judiciary branch of government in the eyes of the public.

I refer to the alteration of my grand jury testimony, given under penalty of perjury, by the court reporter at the instigation of the original Watergate prosecutors (Silbert, et. al) and by the alteration of Alfred Baldwin’s sworn testimony. These are both discussed in my article published by the Advocate.

I believe that even today in cases of paramount significance the practice of alteration of grand jury testimony still takes place.

One hypothetical example that has occurred to me is the Enron case. Ken Lay was very, very close to Texas Governor George Bush and later to President George Bush. It was Lay who used Enron’s resources to help secure the victory for Bush in Florida after the voting controversy erupted there in 2000. If any grand jury testimony were taken that linked Bush to Lay in the events that led up to the collapse of Enron, I believe that such grand jury testimony would likely have been altered or even deleted to protect Bush.

You write that “Maybe it is time to reassess the information supplied by Merritt.” I could not agree more. That is why I approached the Advocate to publish my Watergate article. In 1977 the Advocate published a two-part interview with Robert “Butch” Merritt that detailed the Nixon Administration’s covert war against the New Left and the gay community, which included his recounting of the role of the FBI and of Washington, D.C. police officer Carl Shoffler in targeting me because I was gay. The present editor of the Advocate, an extremely talented individual who is under 30 years of age, was unfamiliar with the 1977 article. It was only after he assigned a staff person to search the magazine’s archives, which led to the discovery of the article, that the Advocate placed great emphasis on publishing my piece.

http://www.advocate.com/special_feature.asp?id=19186

John Simkin wrote in the final posting in the Kennedy Assassination topic of the thread titled “Ashton Gray: His repeated violations of Board Guidelines,” which thread he then closed down:

“I have found Doug very helpful with my investigations into Lyndon Johnson. Hopefully he will continue to answer our questions. However, I do not expect hm to fully explain his relationship with the CIA during the Watergate scandal. Maybe he is saving this for his forthcoming book.”

Anyone who has read the Forum’s thread “Douglas Caddy: Question and Answer” will find that I have previously answered all questions posed to me about the CIA:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7253

John Simkin, in his remarks above, apparently intends to leave with the reader a tantalizing smear that I have been somehow had a relationship with the CIA.

One is reminded of the interrogation method of which Senator Joseph McCarthy was accused. It is said that he would pose the question to a witness “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Community Party?” When the witness denied that he had ever so been associated, it is said that Senator McCarthy would retort, “Are we merely to take you word on this?” in an attempt to harm the witness’s reputation.

Substitute John Simkin for Senator McCarthy and we have him asking me, in essence: “Are you now or have you ever been employed by the CIA or knowingly participated in any of its activities?” When I state that I have not, he merely gratuitously retorts, “I do not expect [you] to fully explain [your] relationship with the CIA.”

In the mid-1970's I employed the Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to obtain from the CIA any records that it had on me. I was stonewalled for a long period of time. I then appealed to Senator Barry Goldwater, whom I knew personally and who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, to intervene with the CIA to release this information. He agreed to write the CIA in my behalf.

A short time later I received from the CIA one document of several pages that was heavily redacted. It appeared to have been prepared as a summary of what the CIA knew about Watergate, before and after the break-in arrests on June 17, 1972. The only part that was not heavily redacted was one sentence that stated in essence “Michael Douglas Caddy has never been an employee of the CIA.”

I cannot quote the exact sentence as the CIA document is in my personal and professional files in the Library Archives of the University of Oregon, in Eugene, Oregon. This is some 2000 miles from where I reside. Even if I were to retrieve the CIA letter and quote exactly from it, most likely this would still not satisfy the John Simkin-Ashton Gray tag team. If the latter wish to engage in a fantasy that I was somehow had a relationship with the CIA, they are merely deluding themselves and adversely affecting the credibility of the Forum. The historical record rebuts their assertion.

I have obviously upset you by not deleting Ashton Gray’s membership. As I have explained many times on this Forum, I am fully committed to the idea of free speech. One of the most important aspects of this is the freedom to ask questions. Ashton is not always as polite as he should be. He has apologised for this and hopefully he will adjust his style in future. However, he is clearly very knowledgeable about Watergate and has raised some very important questions. Hopefully, in time, Ashton will also be able to answer them. Just because I have not deleted his membership does not mean that I always agree with him. (I am not sure what you are implying by the comment the “John Simkin-Ashton Gray tag team”) In fact, as the threads on “What was Watergate all about?” and “John Paisley” will eventually show, we probably disagree fundamentally about several issues.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7253

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3017

You originally contacted me because you wanted me to make changes to my web page on you. It is the main reason why most of the people involved in the assassination of JFK and Watergate stories make contact with me, including Alfred Baldwin, is that anyone who does a web search for the names of these people they quickly find themselves on my website. (For example, if you do a search at Google for “Douglas Caddy” my page on you comes up 1st out of 301,000 pages.) People are understandable concerned that in future my interpretation of their life could be quite significant. In your case, you wanted me to add that you had abandoned your previous right-wing views on politics. I was quite willing to do this as it was clearly true. You also agreed to answer questions on the Forum (as did Alfred Baldwin). As people like Gerry Hemming have discovered, this is a risky strategy as members cannot control the questions they are being asked. Gerry left leaving the questions unanswered. That in itself tells members a great deal. That is why I confidently predicted on the forum, in response to Ray Carroll assertion that Alfred and you would leave the forum if I allowed Ashton to remain as a member, that you would indeed stay and answer questions.

I am sure that you are right that the published documents show that you have never been an employee of the CIA. I doubt very much if you ever fell into this category. What I do believe is that William Buckley recruited you as a CIA asset in 1960 when you began to play a key role in the Young Americans for Freedom organization. Buckley had been a member of the CIA where he worked under E. Howard Hunt in Mexico.

I suspect the CIA also asked you to carry out tasks for the organization. I don’t think it is a coincidence that E. Howard Hunt contacted you to help out the Watergate burglars. He did this because he knew that investigators would eventually find the links between you and the CIA via Robert Mullen. In other words, you were part of the set-up. As you rightly say, the Watergate burglars were caught because of James McCord’s tape. However, the reason that journalists connected up the burglary with the CIA was McCord’s statement in court on the morning after his arrest. McCord voluntarily told the court that he had been a former employee of the CIA. He did not need to do that. That triggered off a series of events that eventually brought down Richard Nixon.

I know this is pure speculation and that we will never discovery documentary evidence that this is the case. However, unless we assume that McCord was a complete idiot (and his previous record shows this was not the case), his main role was to implicate Nixon in the break-in. The same goes for E. Howard Hunt. I think you were an innocent victim of these events. I also understand why you are unwilling to admit to being a CIA asset.

John, you are right. What you have written is pure speculation. The truth is that I have never been recruited by the CIA to carry out any tasks for that organization.

I was never an employee of the Mullen Company. I was a General Foods employee. As I have disclosed previously Robert Mullen did at one time approach Howard Hunt and myself about purchasing his company as he wanted to retire. But out of the blue Mullen suddenly announced that he was selling the company to Robert Bennett.

One must remember that it was the CIA that incorporated the Mullen Company. While Robert Mullen had run the company for a number of years and was entitled to sell it, the CIA still had to approve the purchaser. That is why Robert Bennett chosen. He was then and is now, as the Republican U.S. Senator from Utah, a CIA asset. When he purchased the Mullen Company his father was the U.S. Senator from Utah. It was the CIA’s decision, for whatever reason, to have the Mullen Company sold to Bennett and not to Hunt and myself.

As to James McCord, I was surprised at the arraignment hearing later in the day after the arrests on June 17, 1972 when he disclosed he was formerly a CIA employee. All I knew at the time was his role as the Security Director for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President. My best guess is that he chose to reveal his CIA background because he realized that it would soon become public knowledge once his name was published in the newspapers. In the succeeding days I received calls from a number of persons at the National Security Agency who knew McCord personally and wanted to help him in his time of difficulty. In short, his CIA background would have become public knowledge probably sooner than later and he may have decided to make a pre-emptive strike by announcing it at the arraignment hearing.

Your statement that I am unwilling “to admit being a CIA asset” is pure McCarthyism. I have never been a CIA asset and never will be. I wholeheartedly concur with Paul Craig Roberts, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and in recent years a syndicated columnist, who wrote in his July 3, 2006 newspaper column:

“It is proof of the collapse of American morals and the fallen character of the American people that the American public and its elected representatives in Congress refuse to rein in the Bush regime and to hold it responsible for its monstrous crimes.

“America has become a land of evil. The rest of the world hates and despises us. And we are going to pay a terrible price for it.

“Bush’s belief that our superpower status makes us immune to the opinion of others goes beyond hubris into insanity.”

In short, because I hold the same opinion as Paul Craig Roberts, I would make a terrible CIA asset.

[Ashton Gray]

Mr. Caddy, I take back any unkind thing I ever might have implied about you in any slightest way. I apologize to the bottom of my soul and soles for any tiniest shadow of doubt I might ever have cast upon you by any means, intentional or unintentional. I laud and praise and sing hosanas to your generous candor (and I promise not to sing out loud, so as not to scare the cat, but you get the general sentiment).

I believe that the entire world owes you an immeasurable debt of gratitude, and I vow to do everything in my power to see that all credit is yours, and I refer to the following open and frank confession you made back in January, one that I have been attempting, with some friends, to fit some way into the Escheresque landscape of Watergate. And then suddenly, the parallaxes aligned, the dimensions shifted, the poles inverted, and where Escher had hung, it was like a Norman Rockwell painting. To wit:

While it is true that I have never worked for the CIA or any intelligence agency, I need to add that I was approached at one time to work for the CIA. This event occurred about three months before Watergate broke open in June 1972. Howard Hunt asked me to join him and a Mr. Huston (I think the name was Larry Huston), who was general counsel for the CIA. Hunt drove me to a restaurant/bar not far from the CIA headquarters where we met Huston.

The purpose of the meeting was to ascertain whether I would be interested in working for the CIA. If I were interested, the CIA wanted me to oversee the building of a luxurious hotel on the coast of Nicaragua. After it was constructed, I would be in charge of the building, which apparently would be used to lure the country's socialist politicians there to get to know more about them.

I told Hunt and Huston that I would think about it but never pursued it any further. Of course, when the Watergate scandal evolved, it became obvious that my role as an attorney in that criminal case precluded me from ever being an asset to the CIA in its operations.

The hotel business must play a key role in the intelligence business.

Indeed it must. Why, just look at Watergate! And, indeed, your life makes Chauncey Gardner's look like "Fun with Dick and Jane." I think you have absolutely no idea how the Fates were toying with you. Let me tell you why:

• Tuesday, 22 February 1972
  G. Gordon Liddy meets with unnamed CIA personnel in connection with CIA "special clearances" he has been granted.
  Thursday, 24 February 1972
  G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt meet with a "retired" CIA doctor, introduced by Hunt to Liddy as "Dr. Edward Gunn," to get briefed by him on various covert means of murder for a possible assassination.
  Circa Saturday, 26 February 1972
  E. Howard Hunt—"retired" from CIA, working for CIA front-company Mullen, and working closely with Liddy as a paid White House consultant—travels to Nicaragua for no known reason. CIA has created a file on Hunt's activities entitled "The Mr. Edward" file. It is maintained "outside the normal CIA filing system." A "bigot list" (the CIA's term for the treatment of especially sensitive cases, restricting access to a limited number of persons) has been created for Hunt's activities.
  Circa Monday, 28 February 1972
  Douglas Caddy begins doing legal work for Presidential counsel John Dean and an unnamed "associate" of Dean, plus legal work for G. Gordon Liddy, who has long-standing "special clearances" from CIA. [NOTE: Much more to come on this in the Watergate forum very soon.]
  Friday, 3 March 1972
  Gary O. Morris, psychiatrist of E. Howard Hunt's wife, Dorothy, vanishes while on vacation on the Caribbean island of St. Lucia. No trace is ever found of the pleasure boat he had left on for a cruise with his wife and a local captain, Mervin Augustin.
  Circa Friday, 10 March 1972
  E. Howard Hunt contacts Douglas Caddy and arranges a meeting with Hunt, Caddy, and CIA general counsel Larry Huston at a restaurant/bar near CIA headquarters. Hunt and Huston want Caddy to do work for the CIA in Nicaragua, purportedly in connection with the building of a luxury hotel.
  

Mr. Caddy, are you able to grasp the majestic moment of this revelation? Are you able to hear the sudden almost cathedral-like hush in the universe? Do you feel the stillness?

I'm sure you've been religiously ignoring the revelations in the Watergate forum, but over there, not only have the wheels come off of the CIA hoax, but all the rivets are rattling out, the boiler plate is crashing off on all sides and down the cliff, there is a terrible shriek of metal-on-metal, black wisps of smoke are all that's left of the so-called "Diem cables," and rats are jumping off of the wreck in droves.

And do you know what you've just done? You've ripped the rails the shuddering wreck was at least still screeching and groaning on completely out of the ground and tied them into a bow. You've just shattered the last shred of cover Hunt ever had. You've just irrevocably tried and convicted him of working directly for and with CIA at the exact crucial point in time where he has invested lie after lie after lie, in autobiography and "sworn" testimony, swearing up and down, and getting other liars to swear up and down, that he was having nothing whatsoever to do with CIA.

Mr. Caddy: do you have any idea what a celebrity you're about to become NOW? I am absolutely awed even being in the same forum with you. I could almost kiss you! (Well, at least a hearty, hearty slap on the back.)

And while I understand completely that you never have been a CIA asset, and stayed far, far away from anything at all having to do with those boys, and had no idea what all these CIA people like Hunt and Liddy and Dean and Bennett were doing standing all around you, can I be so bold as to make just one little suggestion? If you should just happen have anybody in your address book who might have any influence with them on any basis, you might want to get that person to put in a good word for your innocent "Chauncey Gardener" slip of the tongue. I don't know if Langley is going to be quite as thrilled with this revelation as perhaps I am. They might be a little—I don't know—pissy?

Anyway: thank you, thank you, thank you! You have no idea how easy the job is now with this confession. Watergate is solved. It is a slam dunk. It's all over but the official re-opening of the investigation and the sentences. I'm glad to know you won't get dragged into it, and I can't wait for the movie! They won't give you a different name in this one, I can just about guarantee it! You'll be the star!

Ashton Gray

P.S. If you have any creative say, and you can get a small part written in for me, I'd really, really like to be played by Will Smith. Thanks, man.

Edited July 9, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[J. Raymond Carroll]

And do you know what you've just done? ... You've just shattered the last shred of cover Hunt ever had. You've just irrevocably tried and convicted him of working directly for and with CIA at the exact crucial point in time where he has invested lie after lie after lie, in autobiography and "sworn" testimony, swearing up and down, and getting other liars to swear up and down, that he was having nothing whatsoever to do with CIA.

Ashton Gray

I don't know where you've been, but Hunt testified under oath more than 30 years ago that, throughout his time working in the White house, he was reporting to Richard Helms through an intermediary at CIA

[Ashton Gray]

And do you know what you've just done? ... You've just shattered the last shred of cover Hunt ever had. You've just irrevocably tried and convicted him of working directly for and with CIA at the exact crucial point in time where he has invested lie after lie after lie, in autobiography and "sworn" testimony, swearing up and down, and getting other liars to swear up and down, that he was having nothing whatsoever to do with CIA.

Ashton Gray

I don't know where you've been, but Hunt testified under oath more than 30 years ago that, throughout his time working in the White house, he was reporting to Richard Helms through an intermediary at CIA

Now, this is not a reply to Mr. Carroll, because I would not tell him the directions to Hades if he had nowhere else to go, and a hot date waiting there. I've yet to see him contribute any single thing of substance; apparently he is far too busy authoring sideline carping criticisms of other people's hard-won contributions, while back-channel tag-teaming (I've got it on record in the Diem cables thread in the Watergate forum) with Pat Speer, who posted sworn testimony there that he had subtley fudged to suit his own purposes (I've got it on record in the Diem cables thread).

However: I hate seeing good people being willfully deceived, and so I have quoted Mr. Carroll's covert deception, above, that he posted in reply to my post concerning Douglas Caddy having outed E. Howard Hunt (with a little help from a few friends) as having been working directly with CIA during a period in February and March 1972, when Hunt and the CIA swear he was not working with or for CIA at all.

I'd like you to note that Mr. Carroll doesn't quote any relevant testimony. He just tells you about it with his interpretation. This is part of his pro-CIA disinformation technique, and that's exactly what it is. He, of course, will deny this. So has Speer denied it. So has Caddy denied ever working or cooperating with CIA in any of its interests. Deny, deny, deny. Fine. Over to you.

Meanwhile, I'm going to post actual relevant testimony that also contains blatant CIA denial. It is the sworn testimony of Richard Helms, who had been Director CIA at all relevant times. Helms is being questioned by Watergate Committee counsel Fred Thompson regarding events just days after the "burglars" had been caught—specifically, a conversation between Acting Director FBI L. Patrick Gray and Richard Helms on Thursday, June 22, 1972. At the time, E. Howard Hunt has left the city, but is a suspect who the FBI has been trying to locate and interview. And here is the sworn testimony:

• FRED THOMPSON: "Director Helms said"—again reading from the Walters memorandum [General Vernon Walters, Deputy Director CIA]—"he had talked to Gray on the previous day, made plain to him the Agency was not behind the matter, and it was not connected with it. None of the suspects was working for it [CIA], nor had worked for the Agency in the last two years." ...Did you tell him [Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray] that none of the suspects was working for the CIA nor had worked for the Agency in the last two years?
  RICHARD HELMS: Yes.
  

Now, please note carefully that nowhere in this message do I call anybody "xxxx." My momma raised me better. She did, now and then, though, say, "Get away from that skunk!"

Ashton Gray

Edited July 10, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Douglas Caddy]

Mr Caddy:

I respect you for returning here. Can we all agree on one thing: that the purpose of this forum is to arrive at the truth? It is my sole purpose. And your post above certainly apears to be sincere. I do not know how long you have been reading this forum but I joined in 10/04 and the flaming and name calling drove me away several times. In fact I begged for rules that would later be established regarding the manner in which posters should treat each other. With respect and civility.

You do not have to answer anyone's questions here, but I do have a few rather broad ones:

1. Do you believe that the full truth about Watergate was aired during the hearings?

2. Are you personally satisfied the that Dorothy Hunt was killed in an "accident? on 12/8/72?

3. Do you believe that there is a free press in this counrty, uncontrolled by Operation Mockingbird.?

4. If not, do you believe that Bob Woodward is/was an Op Mockingbird journalist?

Thank you. If you have covered any of these questions in the past I apologise for any repititon of same.

(Most of us do not possess photographic memories, so occassionally I ask a question that has been alreadly dealt with. )

Dawn

Dawn: Thank you for asking these questions that are framed in a professional manner. I am pleased to answer them to the best of my ability.

(1) Taken as a whole, I think that much of the truth about Watergate was aired during the Watergate Committee hearings. However, two subjects that should have been covered but were omitted were (i) the alterations of my grand jury testimony and the sworn testimony of Alfred Baldwin by the original prosecutors; and (ii) Robert "Butch" Merritt's allegations about how the FBI and the Washington, D.C. police department recruited him as an informant on the activities of the New Left and the gay community and of me as an attorney in Watergate. The lengthy article about Merritt published in the Advocate in 1977 reproduced a photograph of a signed receipt of money given to Merritt by the Washington, D.C. police to cover costs of his role as an informant. So the story he told was not something that he made up out of thin air.

(2) All I can say about the death of Dorothy Hunt in the plane crash in 1972 is that the circumstances of the crash remain highly suspicious.

(3) I do not believe that we have a free press in the U.S. today. Operation Mockingbird may not be in place at the present time but instead the mass media is controlled by a small number of corporations. These corporations bend when the government asks them to do in curtailing the dissemination of news. The most encouraging develop in the last year has been the rise of the bloggers, who are like bloodhounds on the scent of government corruption and controlled news. The biggest challenge facing the successors of Operation Mockingbird is how to control the Internet (which they are now trying to do through proposed legislation) and rein in the bloggers.

(4) Bob Woodward is known to have had close ties to the Pentagon even before Watergate. His role in trying to downplay the Plame investigation has led to allegations that he engaged in some sort of coverup. Woodward today gives the appearance of someone heavily influenced by government authorities. Contrast him with Seymour Hersh and the difference between a controlled newsman and a free one becomes quite evident.

[John Simkin]

They are just telling the 'truth' as their contollers want the 'truth' presented. I am inclined to believe Jack is correct, most [maybe not all] of those who consistantly try to slow down the researchers and the investigation of hidden history in many matters are working for the very forces that that hid and created that false history. A few may be misguided or afraid to face the fact that the Empire and the Emperors are really without any clothes and the society they live in a sham one - lies build on past lies and those built on the lies before them. John, without asking you to name names, generally how did these persons or creatures of the intelligence 'borg' come to be on the forum.

I cannot answer this question without you naming names.

[Dawn Meredith]

Mr Caddy:

I respect you for returning here. Can we all agree on one thing: that the purpose of this forum is to arrive at the truth? It is my sole purpose. And your post above certainly apears to be sincere. I do not know how long you have been reading this forum but I joined in 10/04 and the flaming and name calling drove me away several times. In fact I begged for rules that would later be established regarding the manner in which posters should treat each other. With respect and civility.

You do not have to answer anyone's questions here, but I do have a few rather broad ones:

1. Do you believe that the full truth about Watergate was aired during the hearings?

2. Are you personally satisfied the that Dorothy Hunt was killed in an "accident? on 12/8/72?

3. Do you believe that there is a free press in this counrty, uncontrolled by Operation Mockingbird.?

4. If not, do you believe that Bob Woodward is/was an Op Mockingbird journalist?

Thank you. If you have covered any of these questions in the past I apologise for any repititon of same.

(Most of us do not possess photographic memories, so occassionally I ask a question that has been alreadly dealt with. )

Dawn

Dawn: Thank you for asking these questions that are framed in a professional manner. I am pleased to answer them to the best of my ability.

(1) Taken as a whole, I think that much of the truth about Watergate was aired during the Watergate Committee hearings. However, two subjects that should have been covered but were omitted were (i) the alterations of my grand jury testimony and the sworn testimony of Alfred Baldwin by the original prosecutors; and (ii) Robert "Butch" Merritt's allegations about how the FBI and the Washington, D.C. police department recruited him as an informant on the activities of the New Left and the gay community and of me as an attorney in Watergate. The lengthy article about Merritt published in the Advocate in 1977 reproduced a photograph of a signed receipt of money given to Merritt by the Washington, D.C. police to cover costs of his role as an informant. So the story he told was not something that he made up out of thin air.

(2) All I can say about the death of Dorothy Hunt in the plane crash in 1972 is that the circumstances of the crash remain highly suspicious.

(3) I do not believe that we have a free press in the U.S. today. Operation Mockingbird may not be in place at the present time but instead the mass media is controlled by a small number of corporations. These corporations bend when the government asks them to do in curtailing the dissemination of news. The most encouraging develop in the last year has been the rise of the bloggers, who are like bloodhounds on the scent of government corruption and controlled news. The biggest challenge facing the successors of Operation Mockingbird is how to control the Internet (which they are now trying to do through proposed legislation) and rein in the bloggers.

(4) Bob Woodward is known to have had close ties to the Pentagon even before Watergate. His role in trying to downplay the Plame investigation has led to allegations that he engaged in some sort of coverup. Woodward today gives the appearance of someone heavily influenced by government authorities. Contrast him with Seymour Hersh and the difference between a controlled newsman and a free one becomes quite evident.

Thank you very much Mr. Caddy. I think I have another question or two for you, and some thoughts on what you posted, but have to get out the door for a trial. (Fortunately for me it will be short: a parole revocation hearing with a mentally ill inmate. ) Sometime perhaps we can discuss the legal bus...off this forum... I know that you and Barr are close as are Barr and I. (email daily, of late, re Nathan Darby's death, and the work he is doing now, about which I will PM you, later.)

Dawn

[Ashton Gray]

Mr. Caddy,

I have a suggestion from a source I'm not entirely sure about that J. Edgar Hoover wasn't the only surprise package in a suit who was Director of a major national agency: that Richard McGarrah Helms also had eclectic, even exotic, interests, which were the best kept secret CIA has ever had. Do you have any similar information or knowledge?

Ashton Gray

[Pat Speer]

I don't know where you've been, but Hunt testified under oath more than 30 years ago that, throughout his time working in the White house, he was reporting to Richard Helms through an intermediary at CIA

Now, this is not a reply to Mr. Carroll, because I would not tell him the directions to Hades if he had nowhere else to go, and a hot date waiting there. I've yet to see him contribute any single thing of substance; apparently he is far too busy authoring sideline carping criticisms of other people's hard-won contributions, while back-channel tag-teaming (I've got it on record in the Diem cables thread in the Watergate forum) with Pat Speer, who posted sworn testimony there that he had subtley fudged to suit his own purposes (I've got it on record in the Diem cables thread).

Ashton Gray

Anyone interested in seeing how something as exotic as an agent/provocateur, or something as banal as an internet xxxxx, behaves, should just sit back and read Mr. Gray's posts. He couldn't counter that Colson testified to having been aware of the creation of the cables, so he decided to attack me as having mis-typed something on purpose. Simply amazing.

When a man commits a crime, and admits to it, and multiple witnesses acknowledge they either witnessed the crime or it's being covered up, and NO ONE who knows the admitted criminal or the witnesses has the least bit doubt the crime occurred, it is simply wacky to decide the crime never occurred. Since Ashton has theorized this non-crime was invented to damage Nixon, perhaps he can show us how this non-crime damaged Nixon, as none of the men involved in the commission of this crime ever testified to Nixon having any knowledge of the crime or its cover-up. Perhaps he also can explain why inventing a story about faked cables was so much easier than actually creating fake cables.

[Ashton Gray]

There are at least half a dozen LIARS on this forum. ...Most of these liars, in my opinon, are paid provocateur agents with specific agendas, assigned to xxxxx the internet to protect certain government secrets. There is NO OTHER POSSIBLE MOTIVE, except lunacy ...Ordinary people do not....unless also being paid. I do not have to name the liars. By their deeds you all know them.

And the payment is supplied by those being lied to: us. And it is taken in from us, and paid out to the professional vandals by the people who have the most to hide, and so who, naturally, are the biggest enemies of free speech in the world.

What you are seeing being done to this forum by a small few is not "free speech" at all. It is an ineffable, relentless, debased attack on open and free communication that is exposing the secrets of the paymasters.

It is so far beneath contempt that it plunges below even the reach of pity.

By what means does any human being reach such a level of degradation that they would write willful, vicious misstatements of evidence instead of merely posting the link to a thread that has five pages of evidentiary testimony that disproves every petty, subversive syllable they write? That very thing has just been done, just above, in this thread.

It is perverse defacement of a public forum, and no other thing.

Ashton Gray

Edited July 10, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[J. Raymond Carroll]

By what means does any human being reach such a level of degradation that they would write willful, vicious misstatements of evidence

Ashton Gray

I assume Mr. Gray is referring to the typo Pat Speer made in retyping an extract from Colson's testimony. This happened on the Diem Forgery thread. Of course this typo would never even have happened if Mr. Gray had not refused to oblige the forum by scanning the relevant testimony himself, which he had indicated was no problem for him. So Pat Speer obliged the forum by retyping the testimony himself, and Good Golly he put a period where the transcript shows a dash (equivalent of a comma).

Now it should come as no surprise to anyone that the punctuation in official transcripts is determined by the stenogropher's best guess. Chuck Colson might have intended a period and not a dash as the stenogropher transcribed. Even if we had an audiotape of Colson's testimony, it is quite likely that independent minds would differ on the most appropriate punctuation.

Now as to typos, who has not been guilty? We can admit them without fear of retribution, unless, of course, the typo is caught by the eagle-eyed Ashton Gray. If this should happen to you, dear reader, you may find yourself, Like Pat Speer, accused of "willful, vicious misstatements of evidence."

In fact, if we examine Mr. Gray's other post dealing with this typo (on the Diem thread) we find that Mr. Gray is accusing Pat Speer of the 2 felony crimes of forgery and uttering a forged document.

Turning a typo into a double felony is a strong candidate for the title of MOST ASININE THING I HAVE EVER HEARD IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.