Jump to content
The Education Forum

Who Was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When?


Ashton Gray
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have been trying for quite some time without even modest success to determine who Douglas Caddy was representing at what relevant times, and at whose behest or request, in the Watergate case. Since he is a member in this forum and a pivotal figure in Watergate, and is also central to this precise issue, I appeal to him in good faith to reconcile in the most straightforward and unambiguous way possible the inconsistencies and discordances in the record.

I don't appeal on my own behalf; I appeal on behalf of the cause of setting forth a truthful record for posterity. I have no personal vested interest. I have no dog in the fight. Therefore, if, as there have been some indications, Mr. Caddy feels some personal antipathy toward me, I ask him to rise above it for the good of all.

Despite some allegations that have been made in this forum, I don't ask the questions to hound or needle. I have no personal axe to grind with Mr. Caddy; I don't know him. What I know is what's in the record, and the record is bedlam. The record is at war with itself—which is oddity at high water, since the record is made by people who all purport to tell the same thing. Mr. Caddy is one of the narrators, and is the only one of them participating here who can answer the questions.

If he finds me simply too persona non grata to countenance, then I ask that some other member of the forum step forward and present the obvious and logical questions that arise from the embattled accounts. Who presents the questions is of no relevance at all. To make personalities the issue is to obfuscate the issues.

I'm going to lay the pertinent accounts out in as orderly a procession as possible, but the very nature of the contradictions is such as almost to defy the ambition.

I've settled on the convention, rightly or wrongly, of presenting the accounts provided by the three relevant sources—Douglas Caddy, E. Howard Hunt, and G. Gordon Liddy—each in a separate message following this introductory message. At the end of each of those messages I will append questions arising out of them.

I respectfully request that the forum members permit me the opportunity to get all three sets of accounts and questions posted before commenting in order to have the overview, but of course this is only a request. I'll get them posted as quickly as I can.

The first of the three, immediately below, contains accounts and statements by Douglas Caddy himself.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the first in a series of three messages in which I'm going to lay out the accounts of the relevant principals concerning when, where, how, and under what circumstances Douglas Caddy was secured to represent parties related to Watergate.

First, I file Mr. Caddy's relevant record, taken from several sources, which I cite. At the end of this section are questions arising directly from Mr. Caddy's own accounts, without address to conflicting accounts by other parties involved. Those will come after I've posted all three sets of accounts.

Before I begin this section, I need to make a note about something quoted by Mr. Caddy himself in an article he wrote. It is a passage from E. Howard Hunt's autobiography, Undercover, which Mr. Caddy used as on opening to his own article, "Gay Bashing in Watergate." In quoting Mr. Caddy from that article, I'm also going to be quoting relevant parts of what he used from Undercover, but I encountered a time discrepancy between his excerpt (from the prologue of the book) and a first edition copy I have. Maybe he can clarify this. In my copy of the book, the time given by Hunt is "0213." Mr. Caddy quotes this as "3:13," a difference of an hour. I have put the 0213 time in brackets directly after Mr. Caddy's 3:13 indication.

DOUGLAS CADDY'S ACCOUNTS, DIRECT AND AS REPORTED

First is Caddy's succinct statement, made in the forum in February of this year, of being hired by both Hunt and Liddy:

  • In brief, I was retained as an attorney in the early morning hours of June 17, 1972 by Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy to represent them in the case and to represent the five persons arrested within the Democratic Party's national headquarters.

Next is Caddy's more lengthy statement concerning those events, excerpted from his article, "Gay Bashing and Watergate." It begins with Caddy's own quoting of E. Howard Hunt from Hunt's biography, Undercover. The quotation marks used for the Hunt excerpt are in the original Caddy article, which itself is not set in quotes. This is where the time discrepancy appears:

  • "Carrying three heavy attaché cases, I entered the Pennsylvania Avenue door, showed my blue-and-white White House pass to the uniformed guards, and took the elevator to the third floor. I unlocked the door of 338 and went in. I opened my two-drawer safe, took out my operational handbook, found a telephone number and dialed it.
    "The time was 3:13 [0213 in the hardcover book] in the morning of June 17, 1972, and the five of my companions had been arrested and taken to the maximum-security block of the District of Columbia jail. I had recruited four of them and it was my responsibility to get them out. That was the sole focus of my thoughts as I began talking on the telephone.
    "But with those five arrests the Watergate affair had begun...
    "After several rings the call was answered and I heard the sleepy voice of Douglas Caddy. 'Yes?'
    "'Doug? This is Howard. I hate to wake you up, but I've got a tough situation and I need to talk to you. Can I come over?'
    "'Sure. I'll tell the desk clerk you're expected.'
    "'I'll be there in about 20 minutes,' I told him, and hung up.
    "From the safe I took a small money box and removed the $10,000 Liddy had given me for emergency use. I put $1,500 in my wallet and the remaining $8,500 in my coat pocket. The black attache case containing McCord's electronic equipment I placed in a safe drawer that held my operational notebook. Then I closed and locked the safe, turning the dial several times. The other two cases I left beside the safe, turned out the light and left my office, locking the door."
    --E. Howard Hunt, Undercover: Memoirs of an American Secret Agent (Berkley, 1974)
    ...About half an hour after he telephoned me, Hunt arrived at my Washington apartment on P Street N.W., located just a five-minute drive from both the White House and the Watergate complex.
    After Hunt told me what had happened and answered a number of questions which leaped to my mind, I turned my attention to securing skilled criminal legal counsel for the five arrested individuals--McCord and the four Cuban-Americans--who were sitting in jail, naively expecting to be freed momentarily.
    My law firm had the then-traditional Washington practice in that it specialized in corporate law, not criminal cases. Of the three partners in the firm that Saturday, one was in Italy, another at Hilton Head, and the third, Robert Scott, was at home. I telephoned Scott, a former assistant U.S. attorney and a former assistant to the U.S. attorney general (and who later was appointed by President Carter to be a judge of the District of Columbia superior court).
    My 4 a.m. call awakened Scott, just as Hunt's call had awakened me about an hour earlier. I sketched the case for Scott: the arrests of the five at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, the roles of Hunt and Liddy, and the need for a skilled criminal defense attorney to represent the five incarcerated individuals. Scott, who by then was wide awake, exclaimed, "They must have been set up," and told me to sit tight while he telephoned his nephew, who was an attorney. Moments later he called back and said we would have to find another attorney, and after several more calls, Scott settled upon Joseph Rafferty, whom he knew but I did not. I then telephoned Rafferty, who told me to meet him in the arraignment courtroom of the superior court at 8:30 a.m. to begin our efforts to obtain the release of the incarcerated five.
    Within minutes of my conversations with Scott and Rafferty, Hunt used my home telephone to call Liddy. Hunt talked briefly to Liddy and then handed the telephone to me and we conversed. At that point Liddy retained me to represent him in the matter, Hunt having done so shortly after he arrived at my apartment. The idea of representing all seven defendants did not appeal to me, but the case was developing so fast and was of such serious nature that I was required to act, to postpone dealing with any potential conflict of interest among the various clients.
    Hunt then left my apartment about 5 a.m., telling me he was exhausted and was going home to get some sleep.
    Rafferty and I met at 8:30 a.m. but had some initial trouble locating the five arrested. Their names did not appear on the list of defendants scheduled to be arraigned in superior court. Finally, after some phone calls, we found them at the second police precinct at 23rd and L streets N.W., where they had been taken shortly after being caught. Around 10:30 a.m., the events of the day having begun at 2:30 a.m. when the arrests were made, Rafferty and I conferred with the five inside the cell block. At the end of our conference, James McCord, Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzalez, Frank Sturgis, and Eugenio Martinez asked us to represent them in the case.
    The five were then transferred to the arraignment courtroom and a hearing begun.
    ...here are six questions along with the answers I was ultimately forced to disclose:
    The question was, When was the last time that you saw Mr. Hunt? (Answer: from 3:35 a.m. to 5 a.m. on the morning of June 17 after the break-in when he came to my apartment seeking my legal counsel.)
    Did you see Mr. Hunt within one-quarter mile of the Watergate Hotel on June 16 or 17 of this year? (Answer: As the crow flies, my apartment was about a mile from the Watergate Hotel, and thus I saw Hunt when he came to my apartment after the break-in when he sought legal counsel.)
    At what time did you receive a telephone call in the early morning hours of June 17, 1972? (Answer: Between 3:05 a.m. and 3:15 a.m. when Hunt called to retain me, the arrests having taken place at 2:30 a.m.)
    Between the hours of Friday at midnight, June 16, and 8:30 a.m. Saturday, June 17, did you receive a visit from Mr. Everett Howard Hunt? (Answer: Yes, at 3:35 a.m.)
    Who, if anyone, asked you to represent those five individuals who were in jail at the 23rd and L streets N.W. that morning? (Answer: Hunt, when he called me between 3:05 a.m. and 3:15 a.m.; Liddy, when I spoke with him after Hunt telephoned him about 4:45 a.m.; and later the five individuals themselves.)
    All right, I believe the first question that we asked you, at which point you indicated a desire to consult with counsel, was the date on which Mr. X became your client? [Liddy was listed as Mr. X in this question, as his name had not yet surfaced publicly.] (Answer: Liddy became my client on June 17 when we spoke by telephone around 4:45 a.m.)

Here is the account as summarized from trial testimony, including Caddy testimony, in the Appeals Court ruling U.S. v. Liddy, No. 73-1565 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit:

  • When McCord, Barker, Martinez, Gonzalez, and Sturgis were apprehended in the DNC offices in the Watergate complex on June 17, at 2:00 a.m., they had in their possession walkie talkies, burglary tools, documents that had been taken from DNC files, telephone bugging devices, and equipment capable of transmitting voice conversations. Baldwin, who was acting as a lookout from the balcony of room 723, saw two men emerge from an alleyway near the Watergate building shortly after uniformed policemen arrived at the scene. He identified one of the men as Hunt and testified that the other was wearing a suit he recognized as Liddy's. At about 3 a.m. Hunt arrived at room 723 with a walkie talkie and used the telephone to call an attorney, Michael Douglas Caddy.
    Caddy's testimony established that about a half hour after this phone call, Hunt visited Caddy's apartment. Caddy then made a series of telephone calls to retain an attorney with more experience in criminal law. Caddy stated that at about 5 a.m. Hunt called Liddy from Caddy's apartment and informed Liddy that an attorney experienced in criminal law matters had been retained. Caddy talked to Liddy and confirmed what Hunt had said. Then Hunt gave Caddy $8500 in cash, one $500 bill and the rest in $100 bills.
    At 8:30 a.m., Caddy went to arraignment court where he met Joseph Rafferty, a lawyer with experience in criminal law. They checked with the clerk to see whether the arraignment sheet contained names of five individuals, names that were the aliases then being used by the five men arrested in the Watergate. Shortly thereafter the attorneys went to a police station to confer with the five men. Caddy had met Barker a year previous but had never met any of the others. Caddy had not been contacted by any of these men prior to his appearance at the police station. After the meeting at the police station, Caddy called Hunt at home. A few days later, Liddy directed Caddy by telephone to pay to Mr. Rafferty $2500 of the $8500 he had received.

Next, here is the account from "All the President's Men" quoting Caddy:

  • Woodward went inside the courtroom. One person stood out. In a middle row sat a young man with fashionably long hair and an expensive suit with slightly flared lapels, his chin high, his eyes searching the room as if he were in unfamiliar surroundings.
    Woodward sat down next to him and asked if he was in court because of the Watergate arrests.
    "Perhaps," the man said. "I'm not the attorney of record. I'm acting as an individual."
    He said his name was Douglas Caddy and he introduced a small, anemic-looking man next to him as the attorney of record, Joseph Rafferty, Jr. Rafferty appeared to have been routed out of bed; he was unshaven and squinted as if the light hurt his eyes. The two lawyers wandered in and out of the courtroom. Woodward finally cornered Rafferty in a hallway and got the names and addresses of the five suspects. Four of them were from Miami, three of them Cuban-Americans.
    Caddy didn't want to talk. "Please don't take it personally," he told Woodward. "It would be a mistake to do that. I just don't have anything to say."
    Woodward asked Caddy about his clients.
    "They are not my clients," he said.
    But you are a lawyer? Woodward asked. "I'm not going to talk to you."
    Caddy walked back into the courtroom. Woodward followed. "Please, I have nothing to say." Would the five men be able to post bond? Woodward asked. After politely refusing to answer several more times, Caddy replied quickly that the men were all employed and had families-factors that would be taken into consideration by the judge in setting bond. He walked back into the corridor.
    Woodward followed: Just tell me about yourself, how you got into the case.
    "I'm not in the case." Why are you here?
    "Look," Caddy said, "I met one of the defendants, Bernard Barker, at a social occasion."
    Where?
    "In D.C. It was cocktails at the Army-Navy Club. We had a sympathetic conversation... that's all I'm going to say."
    How did you get into the case?
    Caddy pivoted and walked back in. After half an hour, he went out again.
    Woodward asked how he got into the case.
    This time Caddy said he'd gotten a call shortly after 3:00 A.M. from Barker's wife. "She said her husband had told her to call me if he hadn't called her by three, that it might mean he was in trouble."

Finally, here are the following excerpted relevant sections of an article that appeared in the Washington Post on Sunday, June 18, 1972, "5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats' Office Here":

  • ...Douglas Caddy, one of the attorneys for the five men, told a reporter that shortly after 3 a.m. yesterday, he received a call from Barker's wife. "She said that her husband told her to call me if he hadn't called her by 3 a.m.: that it might mean he was in trouble."
    ...Caddy, one of the attorneys for the five, said he met Barker a year ago over cocktails at the Army Navy Club in Washington. "We had a sympathetic conversation -- that's all I'll say," Caddy told a reporter.
    Caddy said that he was probably the only attorney whom Barker knew in Washington.
    Caddy, who says he is a corporate lawyer, attempted to stay in the background of yesterday's 4 p.m. court hearing. He did not argue before Superior Court Judge James A. Belson himself but brought another attorney, Joseph A. Rafferty Jr., who has experience in criminal law, to do the arguing.

QUESTIONS FOR MR. CADDY

  1. Since the five men were using aliases with the police, and there is no record of Hunt or Liddy having given you the aliases, how did you and Rafferty know what names to look for on the arraignment sheet, and which names to use when making phone calls to find the men?
  2. How were you able to brief Robert Scott on Liddy's role in the break-in?
  3. Did you or did you not receive a telephone call from Bernard Barker's wife asking you to represent her husband and the other men? If so, what time was it and where were you when you received the phone call?
  4. Did E. Howard Hunt tell you at your apartment that Bernard Barker's wife was going to call you?
  5. If Rafferty was the attorney of record, why were you called before the grand jury as the attorney for the men?
  6. Was Rafferty called before the grand jury, too? If not, why not?
  7. Were you in the court on June 17, 1972 as an attorney or only "as an individual"?
  8. You reportedly told Woodward at the courtroom that the men were not your clients. Was that true or false?
  9. In your 10:30 a.m. meeting with the five men inside the cell block, did you properly disclose to each of them that you were not a criminal lawyer but a corporate lawyer?
  10. Since you were not a criminal lawyer, and Rafferty was, why did you stay on the case at all?
  11. On June 17, 1972, did you subscribe any permanent record, file, pleading, notice of appearance, or any other instrument related to the case for any or all of the men? If so, what?
  12. At any relevant time, were you acting as an "Attorney in fact" on behalf of E. Howard Hunt and/or G. Gordon Liddy, and if so, did you have an instrument granting you a power of attorney for either of them or both?
  13. If Rafferty was the attorney of record and was the criminal lawyer on the case, why did he get $2,500 while you got $6,000?

Next will come E. Howard Hunt's full account of the relevant events.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my last post in this thread I posted relevant accounts by Douglas Caddy of the June 17, 1972 Watergate arrests and their aftermath, as germane to who retained or secured Caddy as a lawyer for any of the participants, when that occurred, and under what circumstances.

Below is the account of the same purported events that was given by E. Howard Hunt in his autobiography, Undercover—Memoirs of an American Secret Agent. Although Hunt makes a few brief allusions to Caddy in some of his testimony, almost no questions were put to Hunt concerning his relationship with Caddy and the circumstances surrounding Caddy's representation of Hunt, Liddy, and the Watergate entry team. I therefore see no point in adding the few random, terse snippets of mentions of Caddy's name that are scattered in only a few places in Hunt's testimony.

Although the excerpt below is rather long, it cannot be successfully condensed without destroying the continuity of details necessary for the exact purpose of scholarly comparison and analysis, which is the sole purpose of this forum thread. Therefore I reproduce this section with only minor omission edits exclusively for those purposes under Fair Use, and my questions for Mr. Caddy follow.

Before beginning this excerpt from Hunt, I must point out a significant discrepency in time stamps for various purported events. In Hunt's account below he says that he placed his phone call to Douglas Caddy at "0213 in the morning"—2:13 a.m.—after the arrests had taken place. In my previous message I posted excerpts from Liddy's appeal case ruling that state from the trial record that the arrests occurred at 2:00 a.m., consistent with Hunt's claim. Yet nearly all other accounts place the arrest time at 2:30 a.m. Douglas Caddy—in a reference posted and discussed in my last message—changed Hunt's original time of 2:13 a.m. for the call to Caddy, making it an hour later, "3:13," when supposedly "quoting" Hunt's own autobiography. Caddy's change makes Hunt's account more consistent with the 2:30 a.m. arrest time, while Hunt's own original telling of the story is more consistent with the appelate court ruling. All I can do is point out the inconsistency, one among many.

This excerpt begins at the moment Hunt and Liddy purportedly learn that the break-in team has been "caught":

E. HOWARD HUNT'S ACCOUNT FROM HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY

  • Galvanized, Liddy gripped the W/T [Walkie-Talkie] in one hand. Then a disembodied voice spoke: "They've got us." The entry team had responded at last.
    Stepping onto the balcony, I looked up at the rear windows of DNC headquarters in the adjacent office building. Lights were on but no one was in sight. The two upper floors were also lighted. I returned to Liddy, who was receiving a moment-by-moment description from the monitor [Alfred Baldwin] across the street: "...filing out with them now, guns drawn. Police wagon pulling up at the entrance below, also some marked police cars .... "
    "Keep talking," Liddy told him as I began opening suitcases.
    Together we began throwing in operational litter, forcing McCord's surplus electronic gear into his black attache case.
    To Liddy I said, "Let's go; the police will be here any minute."
    "Why?"
    "Barker has our room key."
    From the W/T [Walkie-Talkie] the monitor's [Alfred Baldwin's] voice: "What should I do?"
    Liddy grunted. I picked up the W/T [Walkie-Talkie] and pressed the transmit button. "Keep your lights out and stay out of sight. I'll come over as soon as I can. We're signing off."
    I retrieved the long automobile antenna from the balcony, telescoped it and tossed it on the bed, where Liddy was packing the most incriminating items into a handbag. "That's most of it," he said, "except for that damn antenna. Leave it here?"
    "Hell no." I thrust it down inside my trouser leg and turned off the lights. "Let's go."
    Down the elevator, hearts pounding, we walked past the drowsing desk clerk. Then my leg antenna began to slide onto the floor. Hitching it back under my belt, I kept on going without looking back.
    We reached the street, half a block from an assemblage of police cars, flashers playing eerily through the darkness. We got inside my Firebird, which I had parked at the entrance-just in case ....
    As I started the engine, Liddy said, "My jeep's up the street." "I'll take you there."
    He gestured at the dark Listening Post windows across the street.
    "What about him [Alfred Baldwin]?"
    "I'll come back. Go home and get yourself an alibi."
    Silently we drove four blocks toward the city, and Liddy got out.
    "Got the emergency money?"
    "I'm going to get it now."
    "Okay." He swallowed. "Goodnight, Howard. I'll be in touch tomorrow." We shook hands and he walked toward his green jeep. I made a U-turn and parked two blocks from the motel. Within pistol range of the police cars, I reflected.
    From the motel lobby I took the elevator to the seventh floor and knocked on the L/P [Listening Post] door. It opened a crack and I saw a man with a crew cut indistinctly against the dark background [Alfred Baldwin]. "Are you-?" he asked, but I handed him the W/T [Walkie-Talkie] and went inside, locking the door behind me. Offering me binoculars, he said, "Hey, take a look; the cops are leading them out."
    "Listen," I said, "it's all over. Pack up and get going."
    He looked around uncertainly. "Lotta heavy gear here. What do I do with it?"
    "Load the goddamn van and shove off."
    "Where should I go-McCord's house?"
    I stared at him incredulously. "That's the last place to go. I don't care if you drive the van into the river; just get the stuff out of here. Understood?" Turning, I strode toward the door.
    Plaintively he called, "What's going to happen?"
    "I don't know-but you'll be contacted." From the room I took the elevator to the lobby and walked casually to the sidewalk. On the far side of the street police were loading the last of the five-man entry team into a white paddy wagon. It seemed so damned final, I thought as I walked back to my car.
    From there I drove to the White House annex-the Old Executive Office Building, in bygone years the War Department and later the Department of State.
    Carrying three heavy attaché cases, I entered the Pennsylvania Avenue door, showed my blue-and-white White House pass to the uniformed guards and took the elevator to the third floor. I unlocked the door of 338 and went in. I opened my two-drawer safe, took out my operational notebook, found a telephone number and dialed it.
    The time was 0213 on the morning of June 17, 1972, and five of my companions had been arrested and taken to the maximum-security block of the District of Columbia jail. I had recruited four of them and it was my responsibility to try to get them out. That was the sole focus of my thoughts as I began talking on the telephone.
    But with those five arrests the Watergate Affair had begun.
    ...After several rings the call was answered and I heard the sleepy voice of Douglas Caddy. "Yes?"
    "Doug? This is Howard. I hate to wake you up, but I've got a tough situation and I need to talk to you. Can I come over?"
    "Sure. I'll tell the desk clerk you're expected."
    "I'll be there in about twenty minutes," I told him and hung up. From the safe I took a small money box and removed the $10,000 Liddy had given me for emergency use. I put $1,500 in my wallet and the remaining $8,500 in my coat pocket. The black attaché case containing McCord's electronic equipment I placed in a safe drawer that held my operational notebooks. Then I closed and locked the safe, turning the dial several times. The other two cases I left beside the safe, turned out the light and left my office, locking the door.
    From the Executive Office Building I crossed the street and entered 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, the building that housed Mullen & Company. A night guard was sitting at a desk in the lobby and I signed in, using the name Bob Wait.
    From my office I dialed Barker's home in Miami and spoke with his wife, Clara.
    "Clarita," I said, "things have gone wrong and Macho's been arrested."
    I heard a muilled shriek. Then, "Oh, my God!"
    "He's got bail money with him," I told her, "so maybe he'll be able to get out before dawn. I don't know how these things work, but I think he ought to have an attorney. I've already called one and I want you to call him too."
    I gave her Caddy's name and telephone number and asked that she phone Doug and retain him for her husband.
    "Where shall I call him from? Here?"
    "No. Go to a pay telephone and do it."
    Stricken though she was, Clara Barker focused on what had to be done. "All right," she said decisively. "I'll do it, Eduardo. My God, what happened? What was he doing up there?"
    "I haven't got time for questions," I told her. "Just call Caddy. That's all you or anybody can do." I hung up and stood for a moment looking around my office for what was to be the last time for many weeks. Then I turned out the light and left the room, went down the elevator and signed out at the guard desk.
    From there I drove to Caddy's apartment and told the reception clerk I was expected. He called Caddy on the intercom and directed me to the elevator. Caddy was awake and water was boiling for instant coffee.
    "Any milk?" I asked. "My ulcer's getting active." Caddy shook his head. "Sorry, Howard. No milk."
    "Then I'll take coffee." I sat down. "There was an operation tonight, Doug, and five men were arrested. You know one of them, Bernie Barker."
    "I remember him," Caddy said. "What do you mean 'operation'?"
    I sat back in my chair feeling a great weight pressing down on my shoulders. "It was at Democratic National headquarters in the Watergate," I told him. "I don't know what went wrong, but the long and the short of it is the police came and the men were hauled away. There're five of them, Doug, and they need legal representation." From my pocket I took the $8,500 emergency money and handed it to him. "Could you go down to police headquarters or wherever they take men after they're arrested and see if you can bail them out?"
    Caddy looked uncertainly at the money, then at me. "I'm not a criminal lawyer, Howard. You know that. I don't have the faintest idea where police take arrested men."
    "Could you call and find out?"
    "I guess so. Maybe one of my law firm's partners would know."
    "Bernie Barker's wife will probably call you and retain you officially to represent her husband and the other men," I told him.
    Caddy looked at his wristwatch, then went to another room to phone. I stood up and paced the floor, looked through the windows at the dark street and wondered what was happening to the entry team.
    Caddy came back to the room. Then the telephone rang and he disappeared to answer it. I heard him conclude one conversation, then dial another telephone number. He talked awhile longer, and I made myself a cup of instant coffee and began drinking it.
    Caddy approached me and said, "I talked to two of the partners; the other one's out of town. One of the partners will try to get hold of a guy named Rafferty. Joe Rafferty. I don't know him, myself, but he's a criminal lawyer, and if they can reach him, he'll call me." He shook his head. "I'll tell you one thing, Howard, my partners certainly don't like my being involved in this thing."
    "I'm sorry, Doug," I said sincerely. "I guess you're the only Republican lawyer I know."
    He laughed. "I don't know many myself," he said, and then the telephone rang.
    When he returned, Caddy said, "That was Rafferty. He says the men are probably at the D.C. Jail."
    "Maybe they're still at the precinct house or the station house or wherever police take prisoners to be booked. Funny thing is, Doug, the cops who arrested them were in hippie clothes-mod clothes, I guess you'd call it."
    "No kidding?"
    "I saw them myself."
    "Where were you when all this was going on?"
    "In another building. Doug, this is no time for details. I want those men bailed out and fast. Is Rafferty going to go down to the jail, telephone around or come here?"
    "I guess he's going to make some phone calls, then come here. Anyway, he'll call back when he has some information." He looked at the money again.
    "Take it along with you," I told him.
    "Okay. Any idea what the charges will be?"
    "Whatever they are, they can't be very heavy-maybe something like being on premises without permission, trespassing. The door lock was picked, so there shouldn't be anything like breaking and entering or burglary. They weren't going to steal anything, just photograph some documents. One other thing: Bernie has some false documents with him. They'll show him to be either Edward Hamilton or Edward Warren, I don't know which. Another man-who works for CREP-should show up as George Leonard."
    Caddy shook his head. "I don't get this false-document business, Howard. Where did they get them?"
    "In CIA," I told him, "information is made available on a need-to-know basis. There are things you don't need to know to bail them out. I want them out of jail and out of town before dawn."
    The telephone rang and Caddy answered it. I finished my coffee, stared again at the street and saw a solitary policeman at the far end of the block. For a fleeting moment it occurred to me that I might have been followed to the apartment and there was a stakeout waiting for me to leave. Then I dismissed the thought as ridiculous. I was overreacting to a situation that I felt sure could be contained. All the attorney had to do was to post bond for the five men, after which they would disappear. I had never heard of a criminal-conspiracy law, and as for the electronic part of the operation, I knew that electronic surveillance was conducted under the authority of the Attorney General, and Attorney General John Mitchell had approved Gemstone.
    By now, I thought, Liddy had informed at least one of his principals and if—as seemed unlikely—Rafferty's representations were insufficient, the full weight of the White House could be brought to bear to free the five men. Richard Kleindienst was the Attorney General, but as Mitchell's heir and successor, he should be responsive to John Mitchell's guidance. So perhaps Kleindienst could call Police Chief Jerry Wilson and arrange the men's release.
    I was not to learn until later that almost without exception every senior White House official was out of Washington that weekend and in or near San Clemente, California. Only John Dean was in Washington, but had I known that, I would have felt reassured. As one of Liddy's original principals, Dean would certainly know what had to be done, and as the President's counsel, he should be able to arrange things without getting Kleindienst involved.
    Finally Caddy returned and said, "Rafferty thinks this may take a little time, Howard, so I'm going to get dressed and stand by to meet him. You can stay here if you want."
    I shook my head. "No, I'd better go home." Thinking of Liddy, I said, "There may be some calls for me tonight, and home is the only place I could be reached."
    We shook hands and I thanked Caddy for his help. I never saw him again.
    When I left the apartment building, I walked out to the parking lot in a semidaze. I felt as though I had been a week without sleep, though I recognized my fatigue came from sustained tension. I drove home confident that sometime before noon Liddy would phone me to say that the men had been released and were on their way to Miami without their true names having been discovered.
    Dawn was graying the sky when I reached home and parked my Firebird outside, and I remember the sensation of moving against a strong current of water as I walked from the drive into my house. ...I wondered what had gone wrong in the target offices, and my mind went back to McCord's finding his first tapes taken from the garage doors. I reasoned that in view of what had ensued, a guard rather than a mailman had removed McCord's tapes, then called the police. I was puzzled, however, by the casual dress of the officers who had made the arrests. If a conventional police car had arrived in front of the Watergate office building with its roof light flashing, surely McCord's monitor [Alfred Baldwin] would have been able to warn the team in time to let them flee the building. But no marked police cars had arrived until later when my five associates were being led from the Watergate.

QUESTIONS FOR MR. CADDY

These questions encompass and compare Hunt's account, in this message, and Mr. Caddy's own accounts from the previous message in this thread.

  1. You said in your accounts that two of your law firm's partners were out of town that morning and only one was available: Robert Scott. Hunt says that you told him that one partner was out of town and that you had spoken to two partners on the phone, and that as a consequence you had said to Hunt, "I'll tell you one thing, Howard, my partners [plural] certainly don't like my being involved in this thing." Which of these mutually exclusive accounts, if any, is true?
  2. Why did you alter the time that Hunt had supplied for his phone call to you when you supposedly "quoted" Hunt at the beginning of your article, "Gay Bashing in Watergate"?
  3. Did the purported call from Hunt to you come at 2:13 a.m. or at 3:13 a.m. on the morning of June 17, 1972—if at all?
  4. Since the burglars couldn't have been "caught" unless the first wave of law enforcement had been plain-clothes men in unmarked cars, in your due diligence for your clients, what did you discover concerning this bizarre police response for a reported burglary in progress?
  5. What section, division, department, or unit of the D.C. police were these plain-clothes first responders part of?
  6. Did Hunt in fact tell you that you likely would be getting a call from Bernard Barker's wife?
  7. Did you ever receive such a call—as you told the Washington Post—and if so, where were you and what time was it?
  8. Hunt's account says not a word about any conversation with G. Gordon Liddy during his entire time at your apartment, and implies very strongly that neither he nor you had any contact at all with Liddy at all the entire time that Hunt was at your apartment, going so far as to say: "Thinking of Liddy, I said [to Douglas Caddy], 'There may be some calls for me tonight, and home is the only place I could be reached.'" You claim contrarily that both you and Hunt spoke to Liddy at some length on the telephone between 4:45 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., during which conversation you claim that Liddy told you that he wanted you to represent him. Which of these contradictory accounts, if any, is true?
  9. Hunt only claims to have given you aliases used by only two men: Bernard Barker, and another (McCord) who Hunt purportedly only described to you as "another man-who works for CREP." How did you get the aliases that the other men were using in order that you and Rafferty could locate them downtown?
  10. How were you able to do legal work for John Dean and G. Gordon Liddy beginning in March 1972 without ever encountering, meeting, or knowing of the Chief of Security for CREEP, James McCord?
  11. Hunt purportedly gave you the name "George Leonard" as the alias being used by McCord. That is the alias that had been used by G. Gordon Liddy at all other relevant times. When doing what you have described as minor legal research for Liddy beginning in March 1972, did you know Liddy as G. Gordon Liddy or as George Leonard? (Note: this question is asked despite Hunt's own self-conflicting accounts of who had which aliases.)
  12. Referring to your due diligence for your clients, what had Hunt done with the antenna he purportedly had stuffed down his pants leg?
  13. Referring to your due diligence for your clients, why was there purported "surplus electronic gear" in the temporary "command post" room with Hunt and Liddy?
  14. Referring to your due diligence for your clients, when did you learn that Hunt had stashed incriminating "surplus electronic gear" in his White House safe, and did you advise him to leave it there?
  15. Given that you had worked for John Dean beginning in March 1972; given that as an extension of that work did work for Liddy; given that you purportedly had been advised that Liddy was involved; given that Hunt says that Dean was in town at the time, did you contact John Dean that morning, and if not, why not?
  16. Referring to your due diligence for your clients, isn't it true that all "documentation" for every one of the aliases for every one of the participants had originated at CIA?
  17. Did you at any time put into the record the origins of the fake I.D.s used by the participants?
  18. Isn't it true the fake I.D.s supplied by Hunt to certain participants included not one, but two, different I.D.s that CIA had supplied to Hunt (in addition to a separate one that had been supplied by CIA to Liddy)?
  19. Can you list the exact aliases that the participants had supplied to the police that morning, linking each to the real names?
  20. Did you wait for Rafferty to come to your apartment, or did you meet Rafferty elsewhere?
  21. Had you ever seen or met James McCord prior to seeing him in the cell block? If so, when, where, and under what circumstances?
  22. What became of the tapes from the recording system that had been installed in Hunt's White House office on or about July 9, 1971?
  23. Had you ever met with Hunt in that office?
  24. Hunt, in telling you the men had been arrested, claims to have said to you: "You know one of them, Bernie Barker." Is that how it happened?
  25. Hunt says he never saw you again after he left your apartment. How did you manage to avoid ever encountering him throughout all the subsequent legal actions?
  26. Exactly when and under what circumstances did you stop representing each of the seven people that you have both claimed, and denied to the press, as having represented?

This ends this section. Coming in the next message is G. Gordon Liddy's accounts of the same purported events.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Request for a moderator to delete this mysterious vestige posting. (I still cannot find any consistent reason why some messages post twice. I've tried to avoid doing anything that has seemed to account for it—then it happens again. There must be some kind of conflict between my browser and the forum software that I'm still trying to find a fix or workaround for.)

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the third and last of my sequential series of messages in this thread providing accounts by Douglas Caddy, E. Howard Hunt, and G. Gordon Liddy of exactly when, where, how, and under what circumstances Douglas Caddy came to represent Hunt, Liddy, and the five member Watergate "break-in team."

This message provides the available accounts of G. Gordon Liddy concerning events starting with the arrests in the Watergate and culminating with Liddy's purportedly retaining Douglas Caddy over the phone later that same morning.

At the end of each previous message I've posted questions for Douglas Caddy arising from the information in the accounts, particularly regarding contradictions in the available sources. I do the same at the end of this message, now asking questions that arise from contradictions or omissions in all three accounts that I've posted.

Here are Liddy's accounts:

G. GORDON LIDDY'S ACCOUNTS

First is the description of the relevant events as described by Liddy in his autobiography, Will. Note that Liddy says the appearance of law enforcement personnel took place "just after 2 a.m." There are some discrepancies related to time in the earlier two accounts already posted. Now here is Liddy's description:

  • Just after 2 a.m. there was a transmission over the radio: "There's flashlights on the eighth floor."
    It was McCord's man [Alfred Baldwin] at the observation post. I repeated the news to Hunt. We agreed that it was probably one of the two guard forces making a 2 a.m. door check. We were not concerned, believing that our team would be in darkness and not visible throught the glass doors, which they would have locked from the inside behind them after Gonzalez picked the lock to gain entry. The next transmission was mine: "One to two. Did you read that?" There was no answer.
    "One to three. Keep us advised."
    The next transmission [from Alfred Baldwin] seemed to support our theory of a guard's making a routine check. "Now they're on the seventh floor."
    There was a pause, then came the query, in a wonderous tone that made its way through even the low fidelity of the transceiver: "Hey, any of our guys wearin' hippie clothes?"
    It was only then that Hunt and I realized that something was very wrong.
    "One to three. Negative. All our people are in business suits. Why"
    "They're on the sixth floor now. Four or five guys. One's got a cowboy hat. One's got on a sweat shirt. It looks like...guns! They've got guns. It's touble!"
    Hunt and I were standing now. "...One to two. Are you reading this? Come in!"
    "...One to two," I repeated. "Come in. That's an order!"
    That finally brought the first and last transmission we were going to receive from the entry team. A whispered voice said, simply and calmly: "They got us!"
    The observation post [Alfred Baldwin] obeyed my prior order to keep us advised: "Now I can see our people. They've got their hands up. Must be the cops."
    Hunt went out on the balcony to see whether he could see anything as the observation post [Alfred Baldwin] continued to report:
    "More cops now; uniforms..."
    Hunt and I began packing everything of an incriminating nature that we could find, intending to leave tho room clean. Suddenly Hunt said, "Damn!"
    "Now what?"
    "We've gotta get out fast. I just remembered Macho's [barker's] got this room key."
    We took what we had and started to leave. Hunt went over to the antenna to take it when we received a last transmission from the observation post [Alfred Baldwin]: "What should I do now?"
    Both my hands were full so Hunt answered: "Stay put. Keep the lights out and stay out of sight. I'll be right over."
    Howard slipped the antenna down his pants leg, which gave him a stiff-legged gait, as we snapped out the lights, closed the door, and walked to the elevator. It was a quick trip down one floor. The door opened and we walked easily past the desk to the front door and out to the street. The place was swarming with police and squad cars; their flashing lights cast Christmas-like reflections incongruously into the warm June night. As Hunt turned right toward his car, he said, "Where's your Jeep?"
    "Up ahead. On the other side of the street. Facing this way."
    "Get in. I'll drive you up a few blocks and you can approach it from the other direction."
    "Good idea. Thanks."
    We drove east on Virginia leaving the arrest scene behind us. Crossing the first intersection, Hunt pulled over to the right and let me out. "You got the contingency fund ready?" I asked him.
    "My office safe. I'll get it just as soon as I take care of McCord's man [Alfred Baldwin]."
    "O.K. Get hold of Caddy. Use the money. I'll call you tomorrow." Doug Caddy was a lawyer we both knew and always had in mind for emergency use.
    Hunt made a U-turn and headed back toward Howard Johnson's while I walked across the street, then headed tho same way on foot. I got into my Jeep and drove slowly past the now bustling area in front of the Watergate, turned right at the intersection, and headed home.
    It was about 3 A.M. when I eased my way into the bedroom, trying not to awaken Fran. Light streamed into the room from the streetlight outside, and I could see her still form as I started quietly to undress. After a moment she stirred. I stopped moving, hoping she'd stay asleep. Hunt would, I thought, think back to the original plan for GEMSTONE-the one in which all entry people were to be untraceable and, in the event of difticulty, be bailed out under their aliases only to disappear-if necessary to Nicaragua, where Hunt had close ties with the Somoza family. I knew that wouldn't work NOW. Alias or not, McCord had been an FBI agent and his prints were on file in the identification division; they'd make him in twenty-four hours at the latest. Fran stirred again. "Is that you?"
    "Yes."
    I continued undressing. Fran has a sixth sense. Maybe all women married to the same man for fifteen years do.
    "Anything wrong?"
    "Tbere was trouble. Some people got caught. I'll probably be going to jail."
    Perhaps the experience of the FBI years told Fran it would be pointless to inquire further. She closed her eyes and said nothing more. Neither did I. What more was there to say?
    I climbed in bed and went to sleep.
    ...I was awakened at 5 A.M. on 17 June by the phone ringing at my bedside. I picked it up quickly, hoping it wouldn't wake Fran. It was Hunt. He was, he explained, with Doug Caddy. Caddy, said Hunt, did not feel well enough versed in criminal law and the procedures of the Washington criminal court system to be of effective assistance. Hunt reminded me that Caddy was a labor law specialist and said he wanted to retain the services of a criminal lawyer named Rafferty.
    Speaking quietly, I told Hunt that if that was Caddy's judgment it was fine with me, and it wasn't necessary for Hunt to check with me on everything Caddy wanted to do-at which point I asked Hunt what time it was, to impress upon him as gently as I could that it was especially not necessary for him to check with me at 5 A.M.
    Hunt defended himself by pointing out that he knew I was a criminal lawyer and that he was used to consulting me about legal matters. Besides, said Hunt, Caddy wanted $8,500.as a retainer. Was that all right? Was it all right for him to use some of it for Rafferty? I told Howard the fee requested was reasonable. "Just a minute," he said, "Doug wants to talk to you himself."
    Caddy apologized for the hour and before he could say anything more, I said, in order to place him under the restrictions of the attorney-client privilege: "Doug, the fee's fine; but I think it should include Howard and me."
    "Howard's already asked me to represent him and I've agreed." .
    "Fine. I'm asking you to represent me, too, Doug; and anything I have to say to you comes specifically within the attorney-client privilege. Hunt's not a third party who can take it out of that We're prospective codefendants."
    "I understand. I just wanted to get your O.K. personally on using Rafferty."
    "You've got it. Tell Howard to get some sleep."
    I told Caddy that I wanted Rafferty to bail out the five men arrested a few hours previously, and that I'd make up anything he used from the $8,500 fee for cash bail. I guessed it would be set at $10,000 each, which would, at the usual 10 percent rate, cost a total of $5,000. There was more than double that left in the GEMSTONE treasury in my office.
    I went back to sleep until six.

Next is a relevant excerpt from Liddy's deposition in Dean vs. St. Martin's Press:

  • G. GORDON LIDDY: Hunt and I were in the room, and the plan had been that we would all be able to communicate; that is, Hunt and I, the entry team, and the lookout across the way [Alfred Baldwin], using the transceiver equipment that we had. We had no problem whatsoever in talking to the lookout, but apparently, because the gain was turned down by the entry team, they couldn't hear us. ...The "gain," you would call it the volume. The technical term is "the gain." And we got--we heard very clearly, Mr. Hunt and I heard the lookout fellow say, "Are any of our people dressed like hippies?"
    And we said, "No, they all have business suits." And he said, "Well, there's some people on a floor above, and they are going along." And all of a sudden he said, "Uh-oh, guns. They've got guns."
    So we knew there was trouble, and we tried to raise the entry team inside the DNC headquarters.
    ...And we couldn't raise them, and we kept saying, "Are you reading this," meaning the transmissions from the look out. And then finally, we got a whispered transmission from the entry team and all it said was, "They got us." And we knew that this thing had--had really gone bad.
    So what we did was, we gathered up as much of the equipment as we could, Hunt I recall specifically taking the antenna and putting it down his trouser leg, which gave him a rather stiff-leg walk. And we had as much of that stuff as we could carry without attracting attention, and the two of us just went down and exited the building, and the place was just aswarm with police cars and all the rest. And we just walked out of there, and I got a lift from Hunt to my Jeep so that I could approach it from a different direction.
    And I went home. And Hunt went on his way. And I didn't speak to him again until about 5:00 a.m. the next morning.
    QUESTION: Okay. When you spoke to him the next morning, what was said?
    G. GORDON LIDDY: He called me and he said that the men were in jail and needed to be bailed out, and he wanted to use the services of an attorney named Douglas Caddy. And he wanted permission to use the reserve fund, which I think was $8,000, to this purpose.
    And Mr. Caddy, who had had no criminal law experience, wanted to know if it was okay to use another attorney known to him who did have criminal law experience. And I gave him permission to use the money to get the guys out of there as soon as possible.
    And then I got up and I realized that we had to tell the people who are our superiors that this had happened.

QUESTIONS FOR MR. CADDY

The questions below arise out of comparisons of all three accounts—Caddy's, Hunt's, and Liddy's. See also questions posed in the previous two messages. While these questions address some inconsitencies, they also now address omissions in the record related to crucially important issues.

  1. Liddy is very specific about the time of a purported call to him from your apartment, Mr. Caddy: 5:00 a.m. He says that he made a point of the time to Hunt. You have said the call took place 15 minutes earlier, around 4:45, and that Hunt left your apartment right around 5:00 a.m., just when Liddy says Hunt was placing a call to Liddy. Hunt mentions nothing about any call at all to Liddy from your apartment, and implies strongly that he wasn't in touch with Liddy at all that morning at your apartment. Did such a call actually take place, and if you say it did, which time is correct?
  2. Liddy claims that Hunt asked Liddy's permission after 5:00 a.m., on the phone, to give you the $8,500. Hunt claims that he gave you the $8,500 just after arriving at your apartment, which you say happened at 3:35 a.m.—well before either the disputed 4:45 or 5:00 a.m. time of a purported phone call to Liddy. Hunt says nothing about any call at all to Liddy, much less about asking Liddy's permission to give you that fee. Yet according to Liddy's appelate court ruling, you testified that Hunt gave you the money only after talking to Liddy and getting approval. Which, if any, of these contrary accounts is true?
  3. The appelate court ruling says Hunt called you from room 723 of the Howard Johnson's motel. Hunt says he called you from his White House office. You testified that the call came about a half hour before Hunt arrived at your apartment, which you say happened at 3:35 a.m., placing the phone call at approximately 3:05 a.m. You also say that your apartment was only about a mile away from the Watergate. Where did Hunt call you from, and can you account for why it took Hunt half an hour to get there?
  4. Why did you allow your clients, the break-in team, to incriminate themselves and each other on additional counts for a purported "first break-in," when there was no physical evidence that could have incriminated them for additional counts, or even have made anybody aware that any purported "first break-in" had occurred at all?
  5. Did you advise your clients to so incriminate themselves and each other by telling the "first break-in" stories? If so, why?
  6. Going to your due diligence, did you advise your clients of a sweep by the phone company that had been done just days before they were "caught" inside the Watergate, evidence that would have exculpated them from self-incrimination and mutual incrimination on additional criminal liability for any such "first break-in" and planting of alleged "bugs" that were not present? If not, why not?
  7. Given that G. Gordon Liddy was your client, and that he personally had destroyed the physical evidence that might, or might not, have incriminated your other clients for any such purported "first break-in," did you advise the "break-in team" that Liddy had destroyed that evidence? If not, why not?
  8. Did you establish beyond a reasonable doubt, to your own satisfaction, that any purported "first break-in" had taken place at all over Memorial Day weekend? If you did, how did you?
  9. Did you actually know, at any relevant time, that no such "first break-in" had occurred at all?
  10. Are you currently participating in a continuing, knowing cover-up of the fact that there was no "first break-in" at the Watergate?
  11. Do you have any actual proof or physical evidence of the whereabouts and activities of E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, James McCord, and Alfred Baldwin, III over Memorial Day weekend—May 26, 27, and 28 1972?
  12. Was there a fraud upon the courts, upon Congress, and upon the people of the United States with the knowing intent to deceive regarding a purported "first break-in"?
  13. If there was such a fraud, given its consequences on the Office of the President—who is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces—and given its consequences on the Congress—who has war powers—and given that the United States actively was engaged in war at the time, does this rise to USC 18 §2381, Treason? If you know.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legitimate questions in my estimation. Might I suggest Asthton that you give Mr Caddy some time to respond and not ask any further questions- (at THIS time). He has stated, I believe on a different thread, -

(where I inadvertantly said I was going to ask him just one question, then quite stupidly, asked him two, that he is in the midst of writing a book, and is very busy. )

We are privileged to have people like Doug Caddy here on the forum, as well as Mr. Baldwin. I wish we also had Misters Hunt, McCord, Liddy, Dean, and especially Mr. Woodward. Alas, we do not.

So, please allow Mr Caddy the time he needs to address your questions. And you may also wish to tone down the sarcasm a bit, as it appears not everyone is viewing your writing style AS sarcasm. In particular Mr. Caddy.

Although having been interrogated by a Grand Jury, threatened and held in contempt by Judge SIrica, I cannot imagine how Mr Caddy would ever feel "threatened" by a mere "writer/editor" at this forum, he still deserves our respect, if we wish him to respond to questions. After all, he is, like the rest of us, an invited guest at this forum.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another thread, Mr. Caddy mentioned that he'd already written about his contact with Mrs. Barker, back in February. I believe this is the post to which he was referring:

"I did not represent Bernard Barker, one of the Watergate burglars, prior to the case breaking open on June 17, 1972. However, I did meet him on one occasion several months earlier and so testified before the grand jury in the first weeks of the case.

My meeting came about by Howard Hunt inviting me to join him for lunch at the Navy Club in Washington, D.C. When I arrived there, Hunt and Barker were already seated and Hunt made the introductions. I do not recall exactly what we discussed but it most likely was Barker's role under Hunt in the ill-fated invasion of Cuba that took place under President Kennedy, who later came to believe that he had been misled and misadvised by the CIA on the matter. Hunt's recounting of the invasion is told in his book, "Give Us This Day." Even Hunt's most vociferous critics concede that he is an extremely gifted writer and this is reflected in all of his books, including the above-mentioned one.

I did talk to Mrs. Barker several times in the days immediately following her husband's arrest, primarily about providing security for bail to get him out of jail. With her permission I publicly alluded to these calls in order to provide an excuse for my showing up at the jail on the day of the arrests without having received a telephone call from any of those arrested. Of course, it is well known now that Hunt and Liddy retained my legal services within hours after the arrests to represent them and those arrested. But I could not then publicly disclose Hunt's and Liddy's names as they had not been arrested.

When Hunt came to my residence about an hour after the arrests, having a short time earlier telephoned me from his office in the Executive Office Building that adjoins the White House, I was amazed that he did not fully comprehend the significance of what had occurred at the Watergate complex and its potential grave impact. After hearing what he related, I was dismayed and said to myself, "Well, the Republicans have really done it to themselves this time." I knew that it was unlikely that the five arrested individuals could be quickly set free on bail but attempted nevertheless, with the advice of one of the partners of my law firm who was a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, to do so in the hope of averting a major scandal. My effort was in vain, just as I had feared it would be. The rest, as the saying goes, is history."

I believe Ashton has already read this post, as I recall him quoting Mr. Caddy's comments about Hunt's writing skills. If so, then he apparently missed Mr. Caddy's acknowledgement that he talked to Mrs. Barker and used her as his excuse to show up in court without having received a call from any of the "burglars."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat:

Somewhere here on one of these threads you asked if I had read McCord's book, "A Piece OF Tape".

No I have not. But I know that McCord has always denied that he was TRYING to get caught at Watergate.

And it was this matter to which I was referring when I said you "believed (him)".

I recall- and I may be wrong here, but I thought that I once read that you were suspicious about this entire taping the doors- TWICE- incident, until you read his book. Am I mistaken here, when it was in fact perhaps Tim Gratz who said this? If so I apologise. But it was that exact quote to which I was referring in my post.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat:

Somewhere here on one of these threads you asked if I had read McCord's book, "A Piece OF Tape".

No I have not. But I know that McCord has always denied that he was TRYING to get caught at Watergate.

And it was this matter to which I was referring when I said you "believed (him)".

I recall- and I may be wrong here, but I thought that I once read that you were suspicious about this entire taping the doors- TWICE- incident, until you read his book. Am I mistaken here, when it was in fact perhaps Tim Gratz who said this? If so I apologise. But it was that exact quote to which I was referring in my post.

Dawn

Yes, I said I thought his behavior was suspicious until I read his book. He makes no bones that he is a super-patriot. He resented that Nixon was mis-usng the intelligence agencies for partisan political purposes, and trying to make the CIA take the fall for Watergate. The book does a good job, IMO, of showing how McCord came to his decision to talk to Sirica. Once he realized the Federal Prosecutors were under Nixon's influence. and were helping the White House push the whole thing aside, his disgust reached record levels. He decided to let the whole thing play out, so he could THEN go to Sirica, and expose the corruption of the system. I think a lot of people get caught up in thinking the CIA is the root of all evil. The CIA is a tool, all too often misused by the Presidency for political purposes. I think McCord is an honest man. While the tape was his mistake, there were a number of other mistakes made contributing to the capture of the burglars. If you read McCord's book, you'll see that he was encouraging a complete clean-up of Washington. I don't see the CIA as ever recommending such a thing or tolerating one of its agents recommending such a thing...too many skeletons, too many closets... I think McCord is an honest man and I'm sure Mr. Baldwin agreed.

Sometimes we have to let go of our "pet" theories before we can make sense of things. I let go of my "pet" theory that McCord deliberately got caught. The Watergate break-in and its aftermath now makes almost perfect sense to me. Nixon was out of control. He had a bunch of cowboys working for him. It was only a matter of time before they'd get caught. They got caught. Hunt blackmailed him. McCord flip-flopped back and forth but eventually decided to do the right thing. He went to an honest, if perhaps overly aggressive, judge. Most of the truth came out. Are their secrets? Sure. I think there was a secret deal between Nixon and the men behind the Watergate hearings (inc. Ted Kennedy?) to force Agnew out of the chain-of-command. NO ONE wanted him as President. It also wouldn't surprise me one bit if Hunt and Liddy had something to do with Hoover's death and/or the assassination attempt on Wallace. I had a "pet" theory for a long time that they'd been behind the break-ins at FBI offices, and the exposure of COINTELPRO, in an attempt to force Hoover from office, as well. That theory went out the window last year with an acknowledgement from a respected Forum member that he had a very good idea--wink wink--who was involved. And it wasn't the White House or the CIA, but honest-to-God leftists, who remain at large... So much for "pet" theories. I suppose one of the reasons they're called "pet" theories is because we usually outlive them,

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Ashton has already read this post, as I recall him quoting Mr. Caddy's comments about Hunt's writing skills. If so, then he apparently missed Mr. Caddy's acknowledgement that he talked to Mrs. Barker and used her as his excuse to show up in court without having received a call from any of the "burglars."

<Long sigh> No. No, Pat. No, I had not missed a single syllable. Apparently you missed the fact that your question was knowingly evaded by Mr. Caddy using a tired, ancient, cobwebbed, swaybacked, transparent gimmick of sending you off somewhere looking through messages (which he knows very well most casual readers won't even bother to do) for a nonresponsive statement that contained key words like "Mrs. Barker" and "telephone call," confident that you would believe the questions had been answered. He even gave the wrong name for the thread. Of course you, being a forum veteran, were able to track it down—something he well knew that the vast majority of casual readers never would accomplish.

He was quite confident that you, having been supplied a puff of air, would believe, after encountering certain key words, that you had been given an answer. And here you are telling me that you got an answer. And you got no answer at all.

However, I see you've managed to use the no-answer Caddy gave you in that other thread to bring it over and hijack this thread and take it off topic. Therefore, I am reposting below the reply I have just posted (in the appropriate thread) to the no-answer Mr. Caddy gave you, and that you ran over here waving. And in posting this, I want to make you this personal undying vow: this is the last response to anything you post in this or any forum that you ever will see from me. Happy trails.

Here's the message to Douglas Caddy:

In regard to the matter of my telephone conversations with the wife of Bernard Barker in the early days of Watergate, I already covered this subject in my posting of Feb. 6, 2006, which can be found in the Douglas Caddy: Question and Answer thread.

Actually, Mr. Caddy, I already was entirely familiar with what you had written in the thread you reference long before I posted a single question to you. The thread, by the way, is not titled "Douglas Caddy: Question and Answer." That's very imprecise language for an attorney. The thread is in the "JFK Assassination Debate" forum, and is entitled "Questions for Douglas Caddy." If you actually want people to be able to find what you said when you send them off somewhere else instead of answering a question, it might do them a considerable service to tell them the correct place to go.

The one and only thing you said about Mrs. Barker in that other thread is not at all responsive to any questions I have asked about the purported phone call from Mrs. Barker that you have said you received from her shortly after 3:00 a.m. on the morning of June 17, 1972, and therefore is not responsive to Mr. Speer's civilized, reasonable suggestion that you answer a few of my questions on that specific point.

In fact, not only is what you wrote there not responsive, it regretably adds yet another layer of confusion to the facts at issue. In that thread, you wrote the following:

  • DOUGLAS CADDY: "I did talk to Mrs. Barker several times in the days immediately following her husband's arrest, primarily about providing security for bail to get him out of jail. With her permission I publicly alluded to these calls in order to provide an excuse for my showing up at the jail on the day of the arrests without having received a telephone call from any of those arrested."

Thank you.

The one (singular) specific call that you "publicly alluded to in order to provide an excuse" for your showing up at the jail on the day of the arrests is the one (singular) call that you told reporters from the Washington Post about on that very day, as reported in the Post, later repeated in "All the Presiden't Men." I quote:

  • "Douglas Caddy, one of the attorneys for the five men, told a reporter that shortly after 3 a.m. yesterday [June 17, 1972], he received a call from Barker's wife. 'She said that her husband told her to call me if he hadn't called her by 3 a.m.: that it might mean he was in trouble.'" —The Washington Post June 18, 1972: "5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats' Office Here"

The same thing is repeated in "All the President's Men":

  • "Caddy said he'd gotten a call shortly after 3:00 A.M. from Barker's wife. "She said her husband had told her to call me if he hadn't called her by three, that it might mean he was in trouble." —All the Presiden't Men, Woodward and Bernstein

These accounts of that one (singular) crucial phone call have stood for 34 years in these seminal references on Watergate, uncontested by you.

In the post in that other thread you cited, which I have quoted above, you say that you had talked to Mrs. Barker "several times" (plural). That's fine. I have no idea what relevance the other conversations have to the one—and only one—specific phone call that you unquestionably "publicly alluded to" in order to "provide an excuse" for your having shown up "at the jail on the day of the arrests without having received a telephone call from any of those arrested."

There is only one phone call anywhere in the available record that fits that description. One. That's the one I've been trying for some time now to get a few simple answers about, which even Mr. Speer has asked you to answer, and still no answers are forthcoming to the very pertinent questions that arise about that one purported phone call.

The reasons the perfectly reasonable and logical questions, still unanswered, have been asked repeatedly now by several people, in many ways, is because you, yourself, told reporters that Mrs. Barker's call had come to you "shortly after 3:00 a.m." on the morning of June 17, 1972, specifically because her husband had given that time as a cut-off time by which she should become concerned, and specifically because Bernard Barker had given her your name and phone number as the person to call in that event.

And very relevant to all the foregoing, there are these facts of record:

  • You have testified under oath that you received a telephone call from E. Howard Hunt "between 3:05 a.m. and 3:15 a.m." on that same morning of June 17, 1972, and have testified that he arrived at your apartment at 3:35 a.m. that morning.
  • E. Howard Hunt says in your article that his call to you that morning was made at 3:13 a.m. In that conversation, neither you or Hunt make any reference to any call from Mrs. Barker, and Hunt apologizes for having woken you up.
  • In his autobiography, Hunt says that after speaking to you at 3:13 a.m. and securing his White House office, he then left his White House office and went across the street to his office at Mullen, and there placed a call to Mrs. Barker, who he says "shrieked" at the news of her husband's arrest.
  • It had to be at least 3:20 a.m. by the time Hunt placed the call to Mrs. Barker. Hunt says that during that call he, not Bernard Barker, is the one who gave your name and phone number to Mrs. Barker. He says exactly: "I gave her Caddy's name and telephone number and asked that she phone Doug and retain him for her husband."
  • You, on the other hand, told the Washington Post that Bernard Barker had told his wife to call you if she hadn't heard from him by 3:00 a.m., because it would "mean he was in trouble." Yet by as late as 3:20 a.m., or even later, apparently she hadn't been concerned enough to call anyone, and she got the news about the arrest delivered to her by E. Howard Hunt. According to Hunt, she had no idea that there had been any trouble.
  • In Hunt's account of his purported conversation with Mrs. Barker, where Hunt gives her your name and number, she gives no indication at all of knowing anything about you, or of already having your name or your phone number, or of having been told to call you by her husband, Bernard Barker.
  • Despite the above, you told the Post that she had your contact information from Bernard Barker, not Hunt. You gave that to the Post (purportedly with her permission) as your entire motive for having been present at all: an early morning call shortly after 3:00 a.m., from a concerned woman in Miami that you didn't know, telling you—a corporate attorney—that she thought her husband "might be in trouble" somewhere in Washington, D.C. What the nature of such trouble might be, or even where in Washington, D.C. he might be, presumably neither you nor she knew the slightest thing about.
  • In your accounts, and in Hunt's accounts, there is no mention of any call from Mrs. Barker at all during the entire time Hunt was at your apartment, which you have said under oath was from 3:35 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.
  • In Hunt's account, he says that at some unspecified time after he arrived at your apartment—which you have testified was not until 3:35 a.m.—he told you the following: "Bernie Barker's wife will probably call you and retain you officially to represent her husband and the other men." He says you didn't respond, only looked at your watch, and went off to call your law firm partner. (Or partners, since your accounts differ on that point, too, which I've covered in another thread.)

Obviously, Mr. Caddy, these accounts conflict. I think any reasonable and rational person would be perfectly justified in attempting to get the conflicting accounts resolved in some direction for the sake of historical accuracy, specifically in wanting to ascertain:

1) Did Mrs. Barker actually phone you "shortly after 3:00 a.m." on the morning of June 17, 1972, as you told the Washington Post?

2) If Mrs. Barker did call you "shortly after 3:00 a.m.," did her call come before or after Hunt called you? (His call came at 3:13 a.m., according to your own article, "Gay Bashing in Watergate.")

3) If Mrs. Barker already had called you by 3:13 a.m. (when Hunt called you), why did you not tell Hunt when he called you, and why does your own article say that Hunt woke you?

4) If Mrs. Barker already had called you by the time Hunt purportedly called her and gave her your name and number—around or after 3:20 a.m.—do you have any way to account for her surprise that her husband was in trouble, or for her not telling Hunt she already had your name and number from her husband and already had called you?

5) If Mrs. Barker didn't call you until after Hunt's purported call to her at 3:20 a.m., did she tell you that Hunt had recently called her and given her your name and number and had said to call you, or did she tell you that her husband had given her your contact information and had said to call you—as you told the Washington Post?

6) E. Howard Hunt says Mrs. Barker asked him on the phone if she should call you from her home, and that he said to her: "No. Go to a pay telephone and do it." Did Mrs. Barker call you from her home, or had she gotten up, gotten dressed, and gone out to a phone booth, as Hunt says he told her to do?

7) You also said to the Washington Post that you simply had met Bernard Barker "a year ago over cocktails at the Army Navy Club in Washington." You have said this was the one and only time you had met Barker before June 17, 1972. Do you have any knowledge or understanding of why he would have had your name and number at all a year after that brief encounter, or why he would have given it to his wife as an emergency contact in a distant town without having made prior arrangements with you?

8) If Mrs. Barker called you before Hunt arrived at your apartment at 3:35 a.m., why did Hunt tell you the following when he was there with you: "Bernie Barker's wife will probably call you and retain you officially to represent her husband and the other men," and why did you say nothing in response?

9) If Mrs. Barker instead had not called you by 3:35 a.m., when Hunt arrived, did she not call you until after Hunt had left at 5:00 a.m.? If so, why did you tell the Post that her call had been received by you "shortly after 3:00 a.m."?

10) Is it, in fact, your position—as it appears—that an unknown woman called you out of the blue shortly after 3:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning, and said she was calling from Miami, and said that her husband had told her he had only met you over cocktails in a club a year before, but had told her to give you a call if she hadn't heard from him by 3:00 a.m. because he might be in some unknown kind of trouble at some unknown location in Washginton D.C., and that after hearing that at 3:00 o'clock in the morning, you did not slam down your phone and go back to sleep?

These are perfectly valid and reasonable questions, Mr. Caddy. They are obvious questions arising from your own statements. They are perfectly logical questions. Some of them have already been expressed in earlier threads, some implied, but there they are.

Your character isn't being assassinated by being asked straightforward questions about your own assertions of fact. Perhaps it isn't enough of the celebrity treatment to suit you, but speaking just personally, I didn't come to this forum for celebrity fawning, Mr. Caddy; I came here to read and discuss historical fact, and to sort fact from the fiction.

I can assure you that if persons who have direct knowledge of historical events...

'Scuse me: the exact problem is that we have two completely different sets of purported "historical events" trying to occupy the same place at the same time in the instant case, Mr. Caddy: yours and Hunt's. That doesn't work in this universe. One set, or both sets, are not "historical events" at all, but "historical fictions."

You have your own responsibility for both conflicting sets having equal "authority," since you have endorsed Hunt's account yourself by incorporating part of it into your own.

How else can anyone hope to pull such taffy apart without asking reasonable questions?

It is my intention to do no more posting, besides the immediate one, until John Simkin returns from Sicily next week...

Okay. It's fine with me if you leave these, and all the other questions I've asked, sitting here festering and unanswered. They're generating quite a good deal of interest in some quarters, I hear, just as questions, and even more interest in why you're going to such extreme, even draconian lengths to keep from answering them. In fact, it's my opinion that the longer you don't answer them, the more the questions are answering themselves in fell voice.

I also have a pretty good prescience that even if you should succeed in your strident cries for my head on a platter (hat and all ;) ) these questions—these very same questions—will be following you for a very, very long time to come. In fell voice.

Your mileage may vary.

...when he will undertake an investigation of the Record that I filed with him and Administrator Walker of a large number of violations of the Board Guidelines by Mr. Ashton.

That's very imprecise language for an attorney, Mr. Caddy. You meant "alleged violations."

And it's not "Mr. Ashton." It's "Mr. Gray." But you can call me Pat.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, Ashton, or Pat, I interpreted Mr. Caddy's evasiveness differently. I thought he'd sent me to that thread because he wanted to answer the Barker question without answering YOUR question. Keeping my own opinions out of it for a second, he feels you've insulted him. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me that he would not want to reward what he interprets as your bad behavior by directly providing the answers you've demanded. I urge you to try and step outside your own skin and see things through his eyes. Why on Earth would he respond to any questions from you?

No one is forced to participate on this Forum. When one engages in respectful discussion, it encourages others to engage in respectful discussion. You may want to go back through the Forum archives and read the many discussions between Robert Charles-Dunne and Tim Gratz to see how this can be done. They disagreed on almost everything. but never called each other evil or soul-less.

As far as the Barker situation, I believe Mr. Caddy answered that sufficiently. He said he had Mrs. Barker's permission to use her as an excuse. As to whether he received this permission retro-actively--the bone of your contention--you're correct, it's still unclear. And will probably remain that way. I just don't see Mr. Caddy, or anyone with any pride, caving in at this point and saying "you're right, I told a fib...Sue me!" knowing that as soon as he admitted as much you'd use his honesty against him and denounce him as a xxxx and do a little victory dance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall- and I may be wrong here, but I thought that I once read that you were suspicious about this entire taping the doors- TWICE- incident, until you read his book.

It's a whole chapter of "How to Spin for the CIA":

"Ally yourself with the opposition. Be 'one of them.' Express similar doubts and concerns you might have shared with them at one time. Then say that you gave the CIA operative a fair hearing, a just consideration, and realized that, as with all CIA operatives, he really was always and only of pure motive and purpose, doing his best at every step for truth, justice, and the American way. He was a victim of circumstances beyond his control, and of the failings and foibles of others around him who lacked the discipline and unblemished chaste virtue that at every moment was his own guiding light."

The advanced lessons say it's even all right to trash another CIA op (like Hunt) if you have to in order temporarily to sell the "Come to Jesus" sermon for one you're trying to peddle (like McCord)—you know, like saying that the other one blackmailed somebody while your choir boy was only trying to "do the right thing."

You can always come back in a separate argument, and say the one who you admitted was a blackmailer in one breath (Hunt) was always 100% virtuous and truthful and honest-to-a-fault in everything else he ever said or did. You know, like everything he ever said about private, closed-door meetings he had with other CIA operatives. "That? Oh, that, well, that you can just take to the bank." Don'tcha' know.

(Watch for this exact flip-flop claim to be coming soon to a thread near you!)

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jun 27 2006, 03:19 AM' post='66536']

Pat:

Somewhere here on one of these threads you asked if I had read McCord's book, "A Piece OF Tape".

No I have not. But I know that McCord has always denied that he was TRYING to get caught at Watergate.

And it was this matter to which I was referring when I said you "believed (him)".

I recall- and I may be wrong here, but I thought that I once read that you were suspicious about this entire taping the doors- TWICE- incident, until you read his book. Am I mistaken here, when it was in fact perhaps Tim Gratz who said this? If so I apologise. But it was that exact quote to which I was referring in my post.

Dawn

Yes, I said I thought his behavior was suspicious until I read his book. He makes no bones that he is a super-patriot. He resented that Nixon was mis-usng the intelligence agencies for partisan political purposes, and trying to make the CIA take the fall for Watergate. The book does a good job, IMO, of showing how McCord came to his decision to talk to Sirica. Once he realized the Federal Prosecutors were under Nixon's influence. and were helping the White House push the whole thing aside, his disgust reached record levels. He decided to let the whole thing play out, so he could THEN go to Sirica, and expose the corruption of the system. I think a lot of people get caught up in thinking the CIA is the root of all evil. The CIA is a tool, all too often misused by the Presidency for political purposes. I think McCord is an honest man. While the tape was his mistake, there were a number of other mistakes made contributing to the capture of the burglars. If you read McCord's book, you'll see that he was encouraging a complete clean-up of Washington. I don't see the CIA as ever recommending such a thing or tolerating one of its agents recommending such a thing...too many skeletons, too many closets... I think McCord is an honest man and I'm sure Mr. Baldwin agreed.

Sometimes we have to let go of our "pet" theories before we can make sense of things. I let go of my "pet" theory that McCord deliberately got caught.

So, you let go of your common sense "pet theory" that McCord was TRYING to get caught upon reading McCord's (self-serving) book that he simply made some mistakes. Hmmmm. Shudda stuck with common sense. I find it hard to believe you'd be this naive. (DM)

The Watergate break-in and its aftermath now makes almost perfect sense to me. Nixon was out of control. He had a bunch of cowboys working for him.

No disagreement there. (DM)

It was only a matter of time before they'd get caught. They got caught. Hunt blackmailed him. McCord flip-flopped back and forth but eventually decided to do the right thing.

At least that is how he tried to make it LOOK. (DM)

He went to an honest, if perhaps overly aggressive, judge. Most of the truth came out.

Not a chance. Most of the "truth" was covered up. (imho) (DM)

Are their secrets? Sure. I think there was a secret deal between Nixon and the men behind the Watergate hearings (inc. Ted Kennedy?) to force Agnew out of the chain-of-command. NO ONE wanted him as President.

I doubt Ted Kennedy was in on any deal with Tricky Dick. I think Teddy knows better than that. I agree noone wanted Agnew as president. They did want the man they knew they could depend on tho. The one who'd been such a good boy in helping cover up for the assassination of JFK. Gerry Ford. (Remember his little book "Portrait of AN Assassin" ?) How convenient that he would also make Bush head of the CIA. HOw utterly convenient Patrick. Good old dependable Gerry. (DM)

It also wouldn't surprise me one bit if Hunt and Liddy had something to do with Hoover's death and/or the assassination attempt on Wallace.

Well, now there's a thought....(DM)

I had a "pet" theory for a long time that they'd been behind the break-ins at FBI offices, and the exposure of COINTELPRO, in an attempt to force Hoover from office, as well.

Sounds like a good theory to me...so far, but... (DM)

That theory went out the window last year with an acknowledgement from a respected Forum member that he had a very good idea--wink wink--who was involved. And it wasn't the White House or the CIA, but honest-to-God leftists

OR, do you mean it was leftists who "exposed COINTELPRO"? (Sid Bluementhal did write a seminal article on COINTELPRO "How The FBI Tried to Destroy the Black Panthers". It's in Government by Gunplay (Harvey Yazijian and Sid Blumenthal). (1976)

,

WHAT????? Now you've done a 180. (And does "wink wink" mean we are, or are NOT to take this "pet theory" seriously???) DM)

who remain at large... So much for "pet" theories. I suppose one of the reasons they're called "pet" theories is because we usually outlive them,

I am still struggling with your throwing out the only explanation based on common sense, of the taping of the doors HORIZONTALLY, TWICE , in favor of a new theory based on what Jim McCord wrote in his book. You are one trusting soul for someone who studies this stuff.

Dawn

[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jun 27 2006, 03:19 AM' post='66536']

Pat:

Somewhere here on one of these threads you asked if I had read McCord's book, "A Piece OF Tape".

No I have not. But I know that McCord has always denied that he was TRYING to get caught at Watergate.

And it was this matter to which I was referring when I said you "believed (him)".

I recall- and I may be wrong here, but I thought that I once read that you were suspicious about this entire taping the doors- TWICE- incident, until you read his book. Am I mistaken here, when it was in fact perhaps Tim Gratz who said this? If so I apologise. But it was that exact quote to which I was referring in my post.

Dawn

Yes, I said I thought his behavior was suspicious until I read his book. He makes no bones that he is a super-patriot. He resented that Nixon was mis-usng the intelligence agencies for partisan political purposes, and trying to make the CIA take the fall for Watergate. The book does a good job, IMO, of showing how McCord came to his decision to talk to Sirica. Once he realized the Federal Prosecutors were under Nixon's influence. and were helping the White House push the whole thing aside, his disgust reached record levels. He decided to let the whole thing play out, so he could THEN go to Sirica, and expose the corruption of the system. I think a lot of people get caught up in thinking the CIA is the root of all evil. The CIA is a tool, all too often misused by the Presidency for political purposes. I think McCord is an honest man. While the tape was his mistake, there were a number of other mistakes made contributing to the capture of the burglars. If you read McCord's book, you'll see that he was encouraging a complete clean-up of Washington. I don't see the CIA as ever recommending such a thing or tolerating one of its agents recommending such a thing...too many skeletons, too many closets... I think McCord is an honest man and I'm sure Mr. Baldwin agreed.

Sometimes we have to let go of our "pet" theories before we can make sense of things. I let go of my "pet" theory that McCord deliberately got caught.

So, you let go of your common sense "pet theory" that McCord was TRYING to get caught upon reading McCord's (self-serving) book that he simply made some mistakes. Hmmmm. Shudda stuck with common sense. I find it hard to believe you'd be this naive. (DM)

The Watergate break-in and its aftermath now makes almost perfect sense to me. Nixon was out of control. He had a bunch of cowboys working for him.

No disagreement there. (DM)

It was only a matter of time before they'd get caught. They got caught. Hunt blackmailed him. McCord flip-flopped back and forth but eventually decided to do the right thing.

At least that is how he tried to make it LOOK. (DM)

He went to an honest, if perhaps overly aggressive, judge. Most of the truth came out.

Not a chance. Most of the "truth" was covered up. (imho) (DM)

Are their secrets? Sure. I think there was a secret deal between Nixon and the men behind the Watergate hearings (inc. Ted Kennedy?) to force Agnew out of the chain-of-command. NO ONE wanted him as President.

I doubt Ted Kennedy was in on any deal with Tricky Dick. I think Teddy knows better than that. I agree noone wanted Agnew as president. They did want the man they knew they could depend on tho. The one who'd been such a good boy in helping cover up for the assassination of JFK. Gerry Ford. (Remember his little book "Portrait of AN Assassin" ?) How convenient that he would also make Bush head of the CIA. HOw utterly convenient Patrick. Good old dependable Gerry. (DM)

It also wouldn't surprise me one bit if Hunt and Liddy had something to do with Hoover's death and/or the assassination attempt on Wallace.

Well, now there's a thought....(DM)

I had a "pet" theory for a long time that they'd been behind the break-ins at FBI offices, and the exposure of COINTELPRO, in an attempt to force Hoover from office, as well.

Sounds like a good theory to me...so far, but... (DM)

That theory went out the window last year with an acknowledgement from a respected Forum member that he had a very good idea--wink wink--who was involved. And it wasn't the White House or the CIA, but honest-to-God leftists

OR, do you mean it was leftists who "exposed COINTELPRO"? (Sid Bluementhal did write a seminal article on COINTELPRO "How The FBI Tried to Destroy the Black Panthers". It's in Government by Gunplay (Harvey Yazijian and Sid Blumenthal). (1976)

,

WHAT????? Now you've done a 180. (And does "wink wink" mean we are, or are NOT to take this "pet theory" seriously???) DM)

who remain at large... So much for "pet" theories. I suppose one of the reasons they're called "pet" theories is because we usually outlive them,

I am still struggling with your throwing out the only explanation based on common sense, of the taping of the doors HORIZONTALLY, TWICE , in favor of a new theory based on what Jim McCord wrote in his book. You are one trusting soul for someone who studies this stuff.

Dawn

(I reply to some of your other points above. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawn, I urge you to read McCord's testimony as well as his book. He's quite credible. And I'm not naive. What is incredibly naive is to assume that there was a vast conspiracy, including men such as Caddy and Baldwin, to pretend there was a first break-in, in order to cover up what these men were really up to. You are a lawyer. Does it make sense to you that an accused perpetrator of a crime would admit to a previous crime in order to hide their involvement in another crime, when they have never been accused of this other crime, and when this CRIME HAS NEVER BEEN IDENTIFIED? That's a looney theory if ever there was one.

As far as the break-in at the Meridian PA FBI office, which led to the exposure of COINTELPRO, let me clarify. As Nixon had been praying for Hoover's removal from office, due to his resistance to the the Huston plan, and as ithe exposure of COINTELPRO led to cries for Hoover's ouster, by Hale Boggs, among others, I had suspected that the break-in had been orchestrated by Nixon, using Hunt and the Cubans. The fact that no one was ever arrested for this break-in, one of the most embarrassing chapters in the history of the FBI, seemed too much a coincidence. Certainly, I thought, a bunch of hippies embarking on such a break-in would get arrested shortly thereafter. When someone on this forum wrote about COINTELPRO, I shared my "Pet" theory, only to get shot down. I was assured that the real "Committee to Investigate the FBI" was a small group of leftist intellectuals, who remain silent to this day. Although the statute of limitations on the break-in has long passed, there is a separate law regarding conspiracy to hide a criminal act, which evidently still applies. Thus, the continued silence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall- and I may be wrong here, but I thought that I once read that you were suspicious about this entire taping the doors- TWICE- incident, until you read his book.

It's a whole chapter of "How to Spin for the CIA":

"Ally yourself with the opposition. Be 'one of them.' Express similar doubts and concerns you might have shared with them at one time. Then say that you gave the CIA operative a fair hearing, a just consideration, and realized that, as with all CIA operatives, he really was always and only of pure motive and purpose, doing his best at every step for truth, justice, and the American way. He was a victim of circumstances beyond his control, and of the failings and foibles of others around him who lacked the discipline and unblemished chaste virtue that at every moment was his own guiding light."

The advanced lessons say it's even all right to trash another CIA op (like Hunt) if you have to in order temporarily to sell the "Come to Jesus" sermon for one you're trying to peddle (like McCord)—you know, like saying that the other one blackmailed somebody while your choir boy was only trying to "do the right thing."

You can always come back in a separate argument, and say the one who you admitted was a blackmailer in one breath (Hunt) was always 100% virtuous and truthful and honest-to-a-fault in everything else he ever said or did. You know, like everything he ever said about private, closed-door meetings he had with other CIA operatives. "That? Oh, that, well, that you can just take to the bank." Don'tcha' know.

(Watch for this exact flip-flop claim to be coming soon to a thread near you!)

Ashton Gray

Mr. Gray, I have been on this Forum for years, discussing many aspects of our recent history. I have been quite critical of the CIA throughout, and have even assisted Larry Hancock in research for his book Someone Would Have Talked. My research concluded that Tracy Barnes, in his role as Director of the Domestic Operations Division of the CIA, with his background as Assistant Director of Plans, and his close working relationship with Rip Robertson, David Morales, David Phillips, and Howard Hunt, would have been in pefect position to fund and organize an assassination attempt on the President of the United States and any other leader, without the knowledge of higher-ups, and without leaving a paper trail. I hardly see this as a position sympathetic to the CIA. Your post accusing me of being some sort of CIA apologist is both incredibly off-the-mark and insulting. It is also indicative of your own lack of scholarship, as you are prone to seeing conspiracies when there is none. This is a forum for intellectual discussion and is designed to help students think critically about our history, and you do nothing but fill it full of PROPAGANDA proposing what appears to be a bizarre theory. When challenged, rather than discuss the logical basis for your theory, you announce that you are through with the challengers and will no longer respond to them. You then try to make them seem disingenuous by suggesting that their posts are somehow being orchestrated by the CIA. As a result, you bring down the level of discourse on this forum.

If, as you claim, the CIA was trying to bring down Nixon in order to put Gerald Ford in power, why would it concoct such an arcane and overly complicated scenario as the Watergate break-in, when there were more damaging items at its disposal, such as the Huston plan, the Diem cables, the ITT memo, and the Ellsberg break-in? If, as you seem to believe, this plan was put in place by Helms, why did none of these things come to light until Helms was long gone? Why didn't Helms speak up about Haldeman's attempts to get him to cut off the FBI investigation of Watergate before he was shipped off? Why did Helms subsequently perjure himself in order to conceal the Nixon Administration's involvement in the overthrow of Allende? Did the CIA continue as the orchestrator of the plot against Nixon after Helms was removed? Did Schlesinger, Nixon's hatchet man, creator of the "family jewels," continue with the CIA's plot against Nixon? If so, why? As for Ford, just how did the CIA know he would be put in place to replace Agnew? And how did the CIA know Agnew was going to resign? According to Agnew, Nixon himself was behind his ouster. Did the CIA cut a deal with Nixon to dump Agnew? If so, why didn't they put this plan in place before the 72 election, so that Ford could actually have been elected, and have more credibility once President? Similarly, if the CIA was so all fired-up to support Ford, what kinds of plots were hatched against Carter in 76 to preserve Ford's reign? Geoge H.W. Bush was DCI during this period. Are you telling me he was a willing part of the move to overthrow Nixon, his mentor, but did nothing as DCI to help Ford defeat Carter, and continue his own reign as DCI?

Your whole theory is as full of holes as a whiffle ball. Please stop, regroup,and at least try to have it make sense before you accuse those of us with functioning critical faculties of being CIA lackeys.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...