The Diem cables

[Ashton Gray]

Part II: The Form and Substance of Magic Nothingness

Judge to Mae West: "Are you trying to show contempt for this court?"

Mae West to judge: "Ah, no, Your Honor: I'm trying to hide it."

First witness to the stand, please: E. Howard Hunt. Give your testimony, Mr. Hunt, taken from your autobiography, about why you created the purported forgeries. You say there that you had studied all the relevant hundreds of State Department cables, and had told Mr. Colson that you found there "were cables missing from the chronological sequence." And Mr. Colson purportedly said, "The full story isn't there, then?" And what did you then tell Mr. Colson?:

• E. HOWARD HUNT TO CHARLES COLSON: "No, but anyone who read the cables as I have could never doubt the complicity of the Kennedy Administration in the death of the Vietnamese Premier."
  

But Mr. Hunt: I'm loathe to point out that you just destroyed the entire motive for forging any cables. But all right. Let's go on and explore your motiveless crime. What happened next?

• E. HOWARD HUNT: I handed him the two most damaging authentic cables I had been able to locate in State's files. Quickly, Colson reread them, handed them back and said, "See if you can't improve on them." With a nod I left his office and returned to mine.
  

And you claim, then, that you produced forged versions of these two State Department cables?

• E. HOWARD HUNT: I produced texts of two cables that I thought might answer Colson's purposes: One was an apparent query from the Saigon embassy concerning White House policy in the event that Diem and his brother-in-law should request asylum from the American Embassy. The second was a negative response, couched in State's typically Aesopian language. After Colson approved the texts, I began working with typewriters then available in the Executive Office Building and produced, with the aid of a Xerox machine, two cables which might be visually convincing to the reader, though not—as I had warned Colson—invulnerable to technical examination.
  

Okay, so it's your testimony that you forged TWO cables, and these were the damning illegal forgeries that you created using common typewriters—which look nothing at all like teletype output—and you used a Xerox machine to make these forgeries look like all the rest of the authentic State Department cables that you were slipping these ringers into the midst of—even though the type style didn't match.

All right, that's your story and you're sticking to it. I think Mr. Dash has just a few questions for you in formal sworn Congressional testimony concerning, first, the authentic cables, your discussion with Mr. Colson about them, and your forgeries:

• MR. DASH: Did you show the cables to Mr. Colson and offer an interpretation of them?
  MR. HUNT: I showed him copies of those chronological cables, yes, sir.
  MR. DASH: And what interpretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables?
  MR. HUNT: I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstacted from the files maintained by the Department of State in chronological fashion and that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of an accumulated evidence of the cable documentation, that the Kennedy administration was implicitly, if not explicitly, responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply comming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy.
  MR. DASH: What was Mr. Colson's reaction to your statement and the showing of the cables to him? Did he agree that the cables were sufficient evidence to show any relationship between the Kennedy administration and the assassination of Diem?
  MR. HUNT: He did.
  MR. DASH: Did he ask you to do anything?
  MR. HUNT: He suggested that I might be able to improve upon the record. To create, to fabricate cables that could substitute for the missing chronological cables.
  MR. DASH: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy administration and the assassiantion of Diem?
  MR. HUNT: I did.
  MR. DASH: Did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?
  MR. HUNT: I did.
  

Very nicely done, Mr. Hunt! And what did you do with these forgeries, as regards your safe?

• MR. HUNT: The several hundred authentic State Department cables remained in my locked two-drawer safe in my White House office, and the fabricated cables, in their various phases from text draft to completion, were placed in manila files captioned "Fab. I" and "Fab. II." These files, among others, were to be extracted from my safe by John Dean...
  

You put that very candidly, Mr. Hunt. I'm sorry: go on.

• MR. HUNT: These files, among others, were to be extracted from my safe by John Dean and eventually destroyed by the acting director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, L. Patrick Gray.
  

And that's the exact little party we're having here!

I just have one or two more questions: Who, exactly, in "the Kennedy administration," had you pinned these murders on?

• MR. HUNT:
  

I'm sorry, I can't hear you, Mr. Hunt. I mean, supposedly you showed these cables to Lambert at Life, and there had to be somebody's name attached to them, because it sure as hell wasn't Kennedy himself, but that's the only name we ever hear about these No-See-Um "forged cables." So who did you actually pin the murders on using your very suave "Aesopian language"?

• MR. HUNT:
  

I really simply can't hear you. So get off the stand, you lying piece of CIA scum (but I repeat myself), and don't come back unless you're told to.

Let's see if we can get somebody up here who can tell the truth. John Dean to the stand, please.

Mr. Dean, tell us in your own words what you saw after having a big dramatic production done of drilling open Hunt's safe—even though Joan Hall and the Secret Service had the combination, and you can't swing a cat anywhere near the White House without hitting five Secret Service agents. Just tell the court what you found in the way of these two forged cables. In your own words.

• JOHN DEAN: I told Fielding I would like his assistance later that day in going through the material. During the afternoon of the 20th, Fielding and I began going through the cartons of Hunt's materials...
  

Wait wait wait wait, HOLD it. Fielding? Hunt? Is this... Oh, never mind: okay, this is FRED Fielding, your assistant, not LOUIS Fielding, Ellsberg's psychiatrist, but all related to Hunt somehow. Continue...

• JOHN DEAN: The bulk of the papers vere classified cables from the state Department relating to the early years of the war in Vietnam. These were separated out from the rest of the papers. ...First, among his personal papers were copies of his submissions for his per diem pay as a consultant, a few travel vouchers...
  

Wait wait wait wait, HOLD it. Diem? Yes, that's what we're looking... Ohhhh, you said per diem. I'm very sorry. But what did you see in the way of forgery?

• JOHN DEAN: A bogus cable—that is, other cables spliced together into one cable regarding the involvement of persons in the Kennedy administration in the fall of the Diem regime in Vietnam. ...I subsequently met with Ehrlichman to inform him of the contents of Hunt's safe. I gave him a description of the electronic equipment and told him about the bogus cable...
  

Wait wait wait wait, HOLD it. "Other cables spliced into one cable?" Is that what you actually said? You mean you could see splices? Were they taped together? What do you mean by "spliced," Mr. Dean? You splice audio tape and film, not cablegrams. And you told Mr. Ehrlichman about the bogus cable? Is that your testimony?

Hunt said that it required TWO cables and all that Huntesque "Aesopian language" to sell his purported malicious (but fantasy) hoax to kill Kennedy a little deader than he already was. And you don't mention a single thing anywhere about folders marked "Fab. I" and "Fab. II," Mr. Dean. Nobody ever does except Hunt. Now, how could you miss TWO manila folders so clearly marked, each with forged cables in them in various draft stages, and only come up with ONE purported forged cable? (Oh, yeah: "spliced" somehow.)

Where the hell did the other one that Hunt is supposed to have forged go? If you didn't find it, that means it had to have gone to the regular FBI agents, and not to Patrick Gray. But it doesn't turn up in the FBI investigative file. Oops.

Okay: so one of Hunt's infamous cables just evaporated into thin air. Maybe he used disappearing typewriter ribbon. You know those CIA boys. Always full of tricks.

But back to this ONE "spliced together" forgery you say you found (even though it doesn't sound anything like anything Hunt ever described): what "persons in the Kennedy administration"? What were their names? Why is it the only name we ever hear in all these "forged cables" stories is "Kennedy"? Who were these "persons" who Hunt had framed as having arranging the murder of political leaders? Mr. Dean?

• JOHN DEAN:
  

I can't hear you, Mr. Dean. Could you speak up? Who were the actual people that Hunt smeared with false accusations of murder? Which names of "persons in the Kennedy administration" had Hunt put on his forgeries? And while you're answering, exactly how was this magic single "spliced cable" supposed to set up a double assassination on the other side of the world? Can you clear up a few details of this lone phenomenal piece of writing? (Or, splicing.)

• JOHN DEAN:
  

Mr. Dean, I'm sorry, but I still can't hear a single thing you're saying.

Well, we know you're lying, anyway, you Ivy League CIA sock-puppet, that you tag-teamed with Patrick Gray to railroad the whole show, and that you were up to your chic glasses in every CIA trap that was sprung throughout the entire fraud, then recently ran your little Punch'n'Judy show with Liddy to add yet another psychotic layer to the fraud, didn't you? So get your lying fat butt out of the chair, and let's see if this can be salvaged by getting your "assistant," the Fielding doppleganger up here for one question before I get Speer's hero, L. Patrick Gray to come in here and save the day for him.

Mr. Fielding, take the stand, please: I realize you are not an eyewitness to any actual forgery, but you purportedly were sorting through papers from Mr. Hunt's safe with Mr. Dean, and you saw a bunch of cables, is that correct? In your own words from deposition:

• QUESTION: Did you read the cables?
  FRED FIELDING: Just briefly I looked at them.
  QUESTION: Do you recall the contents of those cables?
  FRED FIELDING: Only generally. The cables, as I recall, were classified. ...I would have no way of knowing if they have been declassified or not. They bore classification markings on them.
  QUESTION: What were the markings that indicated to you that they were classified?
  FRED FIELDING: Standard top
  QUESTION: Stamp?
  FRED FIELDING: These were Thermofax. I don't really recall if they were stamped or just typed only.
  

What!? What are you trying to do, Mr. Fielding? Do you realize how completely absurd you've now made this farce? Do you have any idea how completely idiotic you've now made Mr. Hunt sound, claiming that he used a Xerox machine to create two "forgeries" that now we're to believe he somehow slipped unobtrusively into a stack of THERMOFAX copies of actual cables? Oh, just get down. Step down. Get out. Go. Don't come back. Go sit next to Dr. Fielding. Sit in his lap. Wear his clothes. Psychoanalyze Ellsberg. (No, I wouldn't wish that even on you.)

The one last hope we have is L. Patrick Gray. I just know that somehow he's going to save the day. Somehow. He's got to. He must be the only honest one of the three people in the world who claim to have seen these purported forged cables—or cable?—or whatever.

Calling L. Patrick Gray to the stand. Anybody seen Mr. Gray? No, not me! The bald-headed guy who stepped into Hoover's shoes, railroaded the so-called "FBI investigation" with Dean, incinerated crucial evidence, and then immediately walked off the stage just in time to cause the most damage. That Mr. Gray. Somebody please go dig him up. And bring him back into...

PART III: GRAY DOES GRAY

Ashton Gray

[Terry Mauro]

On August 3, 1973, former acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray testified before the Watergate Committee. He'd been forced to resign after John Dean came forward admitting the existence of the cables, and that he'd given the cables to Gray. Upon resignation, Gray admitted he'd destroyed the cables.

Here is the relevant part of his testimony:

"I distinctly recall that I burned them during Christmas week with the Christmas and household paper trash that had accumulated immediately following Christmas. To this point I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of "Top Secret" state department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy Administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Vietnam."

On September 24, 1973, Howard Hunt testified. Here is the relevant part of his testimony. He was questioned by Sam Dash. At this point, they have already started discussing Hunt's review of the legitimate cables in the state department's files.

Q: Now in the review of these cables did you notice any irregularity in the sequence?

EHH: I did.

Q: And at what period did the gap in sequence occur?

EHH: The period immediately leading up to the assassination of the premier of South Vietnam.

Q: Did you show the cables to Mr. Colson and offer an interpretation of them?

EHH: I showed him copies of those chronological cables, yes, sir.

Q: And what intepretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables?

EHH: I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstracted from the files maintained in the Department of State in chronological fashion. And that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of the accumulated evidence and the cable documentation, that the Kennedy Administration was implicitly if not explicitly responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply coming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy.

Q: What was Mr. Colson's reaction to your statement and the showing of the cables to him? Did he agree that the cables were sufficient evidence to show any relationship with the Kennedy Administration and the assassination?

EHH: He did.

Q: Did he ask you to do anything?

EHH: He suggested I might be able to improve on the record.

Q: And what did you understand him to mean when he said to improve upon the record?

EHH: To create, to fabricate cables that could substitute for the missing chronological cables.

Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem?

EHH: I did.

Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?

EHH: I did.

Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables?

EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables.

Q: Now are you aware from your conversations with Mr. Colson and the use of these cables any strategy that Mr. Colson had with regard to Catholic voters?

EHH: Yes, sir.

Q: Could you describe that more fully?

EHH: I believe it was desired by Mr. Colson, or at least some of his colleagues, to demonstrate that a Catholic United States Administration had, in fact, conspired in the assassination of a Catholic chief of state in another country."

***********************************************************

"I distinctly recall that I burned them during Christmas week with the Christmas and household paper trash that had accumulated immediately following Christmas. To this point I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of "Top Secret" state department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy Administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Vietnam."

Well then, isn't that considered to be tampering with State's evidence?

In that respect, Ashton is right in contending there are no cables. Therefore, one is left with what is known as

"circumstantial evidence."

"Q: And what intepretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables?

EHH: I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstracted from the files maintained in the Department of State in chronological fashion. And that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of the accumulated evidence and the cable documentation, that the Kennedy Administration was implicitly if not explicitly responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply coming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy."

Aka, "circumstantial evidence."

"Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem?

EHH: I did.

Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?

EHH: I did.

Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables?

EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables."

A pre-meditated, egregious, and deceitful obstruction of justice, employing malice aforethought. This all leads back to a murder case, mind you. Actually, to two subsequent "bloody" coup d'etats, as opposed to those of the "bloodless" kind, if you will. But, alas that's just my humble opinion and take on this whole sordid mess.

Terry, the discussion isn't IF the cables exist, it's IF they ever existed. I say "Yes." For some strange reason, Ashon says "NO." I do not understand how he could assert such a thing, when we have Nixon and Ehrlichman discussing the cables in private, have Hunt testifying he created them, and Gray testifying he looked at them before he destroyed them. There are numerous other references to the cables.

For example, we have the disgraced former Attorney General John Mitchell discussing them in his July 10, 1973 testimony before the Watergate Committee. He cites the creation of these cables as one of the prime reasons he (Mitchell) participated in the cover-up, encouraging Mr. Magruder to perjure hmself, and giving hush money to Hunt and the "burglars." Here he is being questioned by minority counsel Fred Thompson, who went onto play senators in movies and eventually become a Senator himself.

"Q: Let me refer to June 19 and 20 (NOTE: this was 2 days after the break-in), I am not quite sure when it was, Mr. Mitchell. As I understand it, Mr. Mardian and LaRue debriefed Liddy and found out what he knew about the break-in, his involvement, and the involvement of others. And at that time, he related to them some of the White House horror stories, I believe you characterized them as, the plumbers activity and so forth. I will go back to that in a minute, but as I understand your testimony this morning, this is really the reason, the knowledge you got from that debriefing was really the reason why you, in effect, stood by while Mr. Magruder was preparing a story which, according to what you knew from Liddy, was going to be a false story to present to a jury.

JM: Along, Mr. Thompson, with some of the other stories that Mr. Dean brought forward to him, the Diem papers and the suspected extra-curricular wiretapping, and a few of the others."

So here we have John Mitchell, one of Nixon's best friends and closest political allies, testifyng that he was aware of the cables within days of the break-in, before Hunt was ever arrested. He states, furthermore, that his awareness of these cables was instrumental in his decision to participate in the cover-up. He obviously considered them real and very damaging. It's of interest as well, that it was he who brought up the cables, not his questioner. Thompson was minority counsel...in other words, he represented the Republicans on the committee. As such, Thompson's job was, in fact, to get enough of the truth out to satisfy the public, but not so much it would hurt his party's chances in upcoming elections. Thompson, not coincidentally, wrote a long section of the Watergate Report on possible CIA involvement. This was obviously done to murk the waters a bit and make the blatant head-to-toe corruption of the Nixon Administration less clear-cut. The Republicans were fighting for their life and knew it.

In sum, there is simply no reason to believe the cables did not exist, outside of a burning desire to believe that everything we've ever learned or been told about Watergate is some gigantic CIA lie. None of the men whose careers were upset or destroyed by their existence ever doubted their existence. They even testified to creating the cables and looking at the cables. If they didn't doubt their existence, why should we?

I believe you should really ask yourself who benefits from Ashton's illogical assertion that these cables did not exist. And the answer is... Richard Nixon. If the cables did not exist, it means that everything we were told by Dean, Hunt, and Gray about the cables was some sort of set-up, by either the Democrats, the CIA, or both. Although Ashton denies being a Nixon apologist, when I have asked him if he felt that Nixon was guilty of impeachable offenses he has repeatedly refused to answer. Once again, Ashton, was Nixon guilty of impeachable offenses? If so, why is it LOGICAL to believe the cables did not exist? The CIA could still have played a role in the Watergate story. The agency could have encouraged McCord and Hunt, and leaked information to Woodward, in order to help bring Nixon down. Why is it so much more LOGICAL to you to believe the agency set Nixon up from the beginning, and that men such as Dean, Liddy and Hunt, by all appearances loyal to Nixon before they were threatened with imprisonment, and even afterwards in Liddy's case, were part of a plan to destroy Nixon?

Please explain to us why Nixon recalled the cables being shown to Life Magazine if they in fact did not exist. Please explain to us why L. Patrick Gray would resign in disgrace after admitting he destroyed the cables if they in fact did not exist.

**************************************************************

"I believe you should really ask yourself who benefits from Ashton's illogical assertion that these cables did not exist. And the answer is... Richard Nixon. If the cables did not exist, it means that everything we were told by Dean, Hunt, and Gray about the cables was some sort of set-up, by either the Democrats, the CIA, or both. Although Ashton denies being a Nixon apologist, when I have asked him if he felt that Nixon was guilty of impeachable offenses he has repeatedly refused to answer. Once again, Ashton, was Nixon guilty of impeachable offenses? If so, why is it LOGICAL to believe the cables did not exist? The CIA could still have played a role in the Watergate story. The agency could have encouraged McCord and Hunt, and leaked information to Woodward, in order to help bring Nixon down. Why is it so much more LOGICAL to you to believe the agency set Nixon up from the beginning, and that men such as Dean, Liddy and Hunt, by all appearances loyal to Nixon before they were threatened with imprisonment, and even afterwards in Liddy's case, were part of a plan to destroy Nixon?"

I believe Ashton was inferring that the cables do not exist NOW. I don't remember him saying that they never existed, at all. L.P. Gray attested to their existence, as you've been so helpful to point out, but turned around and destroyed them. So, they do not exist in the record today. I specifically do not remember Ashton stating that they NEVER existed, but that if you knew they were in existence today, for you to produce them. At least that's the gist I got from that exchange when it was taking place.

As far as any loyalty to Nixon on the parts of Hunt, Liddy, Woodward, or any of the other "usual suspects," you've got to be kidding. The only loyalty those hustlers had was to "The Company" and the "money" it was always so ready to supply them with. Nixon had no one I would ever consider to be loyal to him, except for his wife, and maybe Kissinger, who was merely just another "paid" loyalist, if you will. There is no loyalty in D.C. because everyone is out for themselves, and/or for what other people can do for them to further their aspirations and their personal agendas. Anyway, being loyal to Nixon is analogous to to being loyal to Hitler or Stalin, IMHO.

******************************************************************

"Terry, the discussion isn't IF the cables exist, it's IF they ever existed. I say "Yes." For some strange reason, Ashon says "NO." I do not understand how he could assert such a thing, when we have Nixon and Ehrlichman discussing the cables in private, have Hunt testifying he created them, and Gray testifying he looked at them before he destroyed them. There are numerous other references to the cables."

O.K. Then, please clarify for me, if you will, which cables we are referring to:

The supposed "original ones," such as those referred to by L.P. Gray...?

"I distinctly recall that I burned them during Christmas week with the Christmas and household paper trash that had accumulated immediately following Christmas. To this point I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of "Top Secret" state department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy Administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Vietnam."

or, the supposed "pre-fabbed ones," such as those created and referred to, by Hunt...?

"Q: And what intepretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables?

EHH: I told him that the construction I placed upon the ABSENCE of certain cables was that they had been abstracted from the files maintained in the Department of State in chronological fashion. And that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of the accumulated evidence and the cable documentation, that the Kennedy Administration was implicitly if not explicitly responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply coming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy."

Am I led to believe that I'm misreading something here? Or, are we merely being lead down another rabbit hole? "Or, are we just jerking off?"

Blazing Saddles[/color]]

[Dawn Meredith]

Follow along into Part II: The Form and Substance of Magic Nothingness

Ashton Gray

The whole world can't hardly wait to hear the rest of this pretentious gibberish.

I know we are in two seperate countries, but now I see we are also in two seperate and distinct REALITIES.

Scary Ray! Brilliant Ashton! I look forward to part two.

Dawn

[Ashton Gray]

PART III: GRAY DOES GRAY

You raise up your head

And you ask, "Is this where it is?"

And somebody points to you and says, "It's his"

And you say, "What's mine?"

And somebody else says, "Well, what is?"

And you say, "Oh my God, am I here all alone?"

Because something is happening here

But you don't know what it is

Do you, Mister Jones?

—Bob Dylan

Mr. Gray! I'm so happy you were able to be exhumed, so to speak. You don't mind if we just sit here in the graveyard where it's quiet and chat, do you? You're really Mr. Speer's star witness, and I know that you, having been Acting Director of the FBI, would never tell anything but the truth, and that you weren't actually working directly with John Dean to railroad the whole thing CIA's way—(we're just going to overlook that little park bench thing between you and Dean for now)—so I would be so grateful if you could climb up here and clear this whole "forgeries" thing up.

It's very, very confused right now. So for the sake of everyone's sanity, here in the No-See-Um Zone, let's please, for the love of God, get right to it. Now, the first thing that we simply have got to get established, and I mean right now, is that you saw what Hunt says he forged, which is TWO cables. He at least did stick religiously, in everything he said about these "cables," to having forged TWO cables, and then Dean came in and just stabbed him in the back. It was ugly, and I'm glad you slept through it.

Dean simply must have gotten it all wrong, and I know that you got what you say you got from Dean, so could you please corroborate Mr. Hunt before this whole "cables" thing just disintegrates? Somebody needs to. Apparently you finally succumbed to the temptation to peek into those mysterious brown envelopes that Dean had made for you, and you saw something. So tell us what you saw in the one, and only one, envelope you've testified had something to do with cables in it.

• L. PATRICK GRAY: To this point, I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire, I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of Top Secret State Department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language, but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Viet Nam.
  I had no reason then to doubt the authenticity of the cable, and was shaken at what I read. I thumbed through the other cables in this file. They appeared to be duplicates of the first cable.
  

They appeared to be what?

• L. PATRICK GRAY: They appeared to be duplicates of the first cable.
  

One cable. One lone cable. With a whole file folder full of duplicates of...

Mr. Gray, do you have any idea what this graveside testimony is doing to Mr. Speer right now?

Let me get this entirely contained in the brain: somehow, E. Howard Hunt was able to forge one cable that alone, all by its little self, with absolutely no contextual continuity with all the other authentic State Department cables, was a smoking gun pinning the murder of two major world figures on the Kennedy administration—but of course WHO in the Kennedy adminstration just slips your mind.

Do I have this completely correct, Mr. Gray? Could you repeat it just so I don't make any false step here?

• L. PATRICK GRAY: I do not recall the exact language, but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Viet Nam.
  

Oh. It implicated "officials." Just some unnamed "officials" of the Kennedy administration. Of course it did. And you just can't recall any of their names, or what they said in this "Single Cable Theory" that got two world leaders assassinated. This is better than the Kennedy assassination: one magic cable could bring down TWO major leaders completely on the other side of the world. And you actually crawled off somewhere to rot, leaving that transparent, ridiculous lie as your legacy? This is what Mr. Speer has his "case" <SPIT!> built on?

Nahhhh, you wouldn't lie, would you, Mr. Gray?

I know you wouldn't lie, because here's what Mr. Speer said about the weight of your completely honest testimony. In fact, it was his big bazooka in his Bazooka Joe comic farce:

On August 3, 1973, former acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray testified before the Watergate Committee. He'd been forced to resign after John Dean came forward admitting the existence of the cables, and that he'd given the cables to Gray. Upon resignation, Gray admitted he'd destroyed the cables.

Here is the relevant part of his testimony:

"I distinctly recall that I burned them during Christmas week with the Christmas and household paper trash that had accumulated immediately following Christmas. To this point I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of "Top Secret" state department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy Administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Vietnam."

Now, isn't that interesting, Mr. Gray? Mr. Speer found that to be the "relevant part of your testimony." Whereas I just found that it completely impeached the last shred of a story that Hunt had, and also was a completely hare-brained "Single Cable Theory," which even Hunt was never so damned stupid as to claim. And that's saying a lot!

I also wonder why Mr. Speer cut off the part of your "relevant testimony"—the part about about there being nothing but duplicates of the ONE cable in the ONE folder that had any cables at all.

There are so many strange, strange "confessions" in the No-See-Um Zone, Pat.

Speaking of which, before you crumble into dust before our very eyes, let's revisit the other half of the "relevant" testimony Mr. Speer carefully selected: the burning. Oh, yes: the cheery Christmas fire. Before we start exploring the actual circumstances under which these no-see-um cables supposedly went up in smoke, I'm sure you recall—you probably have it as your epitath—your fellow Connecticut resident, Lowell Weicker, just about cried telling the world how much truth you had brought to them, and what a fine, fine, honest, believable fellow you were.

(Hmmmmm. Who else was from Connecticut that Weicker seemed to want to hold hands with? The name escapes me. Baldhead? No; that's you, Mr Gray. Sorry. Baldfaced? Was that it? I think that rings a bell, but I digress. It'll come to me.)

Back to the Great Hunt Forged Cable Burning: I have this strange story from TIME magazine, May 7, 1973. Now, you say in your "relevant testimony" that you burned these cables at your home in Stonington, Connecticut, after Christmas 1972—and only after taking them first to your apartment and putting them on a closet shelf under your shirts, then taking them back to your office, then taking them out to your house, keeping them in a chest-of-drawers, unopened, for almost six months. No, I wasn't grinning. No, sure, I believe you. But let me read you this TIME magazine thing, which is weird:

• ...[A]t a meeting in Ehrlichman's office on June 28 [1972], Dean had handed the folders to Gray with the remark: "These papers should never see the light of day."
  Even though his own agents at the time were searching for Hunt to quiz him about Watergate, Gray obediently took these files home, put them in a closet over the weekend, then carried them to his office and discarded them in a "burn bag" to be destroyed. Although some other FBI officials do not believe him, Gray claimed he did not even look at the papers to see what he was burning.
  

It's hard to feel embarrased for a cadaver, Mr. Gray. But this is just about too much. You're Mr. Speer's big star witness, and you're just lying every time you open your desiccated bony mouth about anything.

In fact, wasn't it your good, good buddy, Lowell Weicker, who was also so very sweet with—BALDWIN! That's his name! Right! You know, I didn't think I could find a bigger pack of liars than that bunch that Baldwin hung out with over Memorial Day weekend 1972, but I think you and Mr. Dean are running neck-and-neck with that rat pack poor old Mr. Baldwin got taken in by. Of course both sets have Hunt in common, and that helps.

But back to your good buddy Weicker. I do believe that you went and confessed to him about this burning of Hunt's stuff, didn't you? And isn't Weicker himself the one who broke it to the press right at the most crucial time to do the most possible damange? You were really rubbing up on Weicker in Congress about this, weren't you? And he was just eatin' it up. Let's peek in on your Congressional testimony, answering Weicker, where you're talking about that meeting with Mr. Peterson with Attorny General Kleindienst leading to your resignation:

• L. PATRICK GRAY: We both sat in chairs in front of the Attorney General's desk, and I told them that I had spoken with you [senator Lowell Weicker]. I did not say to them that you had talked to the press, even though you had told me that you did. You said to me, "You're probably going to be the angriest man in the world at me for talking to the press," and I said, "No, you ought to be the angriest man in the world at me." I did not say that you had given this information to the press, but I said I believe Senator Weicker knows all about this because I have spoken to him.
  

Now that was a real Hallmark moment between you and Lowell. Except, Pat: I don't seem to recall your saying anything to Mr. Weicker about a "burn bag" to be destroyed. That's those things that get picked up and carted off somewhere for incineration. But that's what Weicker told the press. So if that isn't what you had told Weicker, then Weicker lied, too. Is that what you say you had told him? That you used a "burn bag" in your office sometime in early July 1972, long, long before Christmas? Let's just check. And I love how Talmadge calls you "Captain":

• SENATOR TALMADGE: One or two final things; I think my time's about expired, Captain. I believe you made a denial to someone that you burned the papers last Christmas, during the Christmas celebration, during that period in Connecticut. Who did you to?
  PATRICK GRAY: To Assistant Attorney General Henry Peterson on April 16th of this year [1973] in my office.
  SENATOR TALMADGE: And did you make any other denial that was a fabrication or falsehood?
  PATRICK GRAY: [Long pause] Well, I didn't tell the whole story, the correct story, to Senator Weicker. I testified to that yesterday, that, uh—
  SENATOR TALMADGE: You failed to volunteer it at that time, or did you tell an outright falsehood?
  PATRICK GRAY: To Senator Weicker?
  SENATOR TALMADGE: Yes.
  PATRICK GRAY: I told him an outright falsehood. I said that I burned those papers on the 3rd day of July in the wastebasket in my office at FBI, and it was not true. I didn't tell him the truth.
  SENATOR TALMADGE: All right, that's twice, now, Captain, that you yourself have admitted that you told a falsehood.
  

Heh. That was pretty ugly, Pat. Wonder why Weicker would lie to the press? Maybe he thougt your story about burning the files in a wastebasket in your office was just too stupid for anybody to swallow. All that smoke. Even McCord's "smoke alarm" bug he lugged into DNC on June 17 wouldn't have helped you there. (Did you ever wonder how McCord thought nobody at DNC would notice a big clunky thing that appeared on their wall overnight? Don't let yourself think about it, Pat. You'll crumble to dust.)

I wonder why your namesake, Mr. Speer didn't consider that part of your testimony "relevant," where Talmadge nailed you for telling flat out lies TWICE while "confessing"? Somehow, I found it very, very "relevant," but Mr. Speer didn't seem to. Of course, I'm not trying to peddle a totally malicious fiction like he—

Pat? Where did Pat Gray go? Pat? Things really disappear here in a hurry. Just, <POOF!>

Hmm. There's just this little pile of putrifaction and dust here where all that lying was going on a minute ago. Well, let's see what else I've got left from my trip to the No-See-Um Zone besides the pocket lint I brought in: I've got a microscopic little bit of confetti here: a pinch of Thermofax confetti, a sneeze of Xeroxed confetti, some "spliced cable" shred threads, and my personal favorite: the colorful "Single Cable Theory" confetti. Not much. Hardly a thimbleful. I'll just sprinkle it onto this little pile of putrifaction, dust my hands of all of it, and leave it here for Mr. Speer as a fitting memorial to his "case" for the Phantom Phorged Cables.

ESCAPE FROM THE NO-SEE-UM ZONE

Please do not laugh—any more than you have to.

—Senator Sam Ervin, Jr. during Watergate hearings

Leaving the No-See-Um-Zone is easy: you just walk away and don't look back. If you do look back, you're liable to see Pat Speer kneeling and whimpering over the dust of lies and some dirty confetti where his case for the No-See-Um Cables had been, clutching to his breast the Alfred Baldwin logs that never existed, tuned in to "bugs" over which no signal ever comes, trying to get the space aliens in his Black Helicopter to beam him out and take him to the Continental Room at the Watergate for the good-old-fun-filled-days of the Ameritas Dinner.

Happy trails, Pat.

Ashton Gray

Edited July 4, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Dawn Meredith]

The sound of silence is deafening. But Pat is likely off enjoying his 4th of July.

No doubt Mr. Carrol may have some pearls of wisdom, for which I will wait, on pins and needles.

Well done Ashton, you have made your case. I await the rebuttal.

If people STILL don't get it I will have to begin to question I. Q. level here.

I certainly would not ever conceive of dreaming there are disinformationists in our midst

Dawn

(What a ride.....it's like being sent back to 73 and re-living the Watergate hearings, only this time with relevent and logical commentary. ) ('Bout damn time)

[J. Raymond Carroll]

No doubt Mr. Carroll may have some pearls of wisdom, for which I will wait, on pins and needles.

I am sure something will occur to me, after Pat Speer has had his opportunity for rebuttal.

Well done Ashton, you have made your case. I await the rebuttal.

Since Mr. Gray's style is somewhat, how shall I say, circumlocutous, and since you can understand it, perhaps you Dawn, would be kind enough to summarize his arguments in a nice legal manner so that they are a little less opaque. I am sure Terry Mauro is not the only one who has difficulty deciphering what Ashton really means.

If there are any relevant legal issues, perhaps you would point them out to us also. As I see it up to now, Pat Speer alleges that E. Howard Hunt is guilty of forgery, while Ashton Gray says that Hunt is innocent.

Thank you in anticipation.

[Dawn Meredith]

No doubt Mr. Carroll may have some pearls of wisdom, for which I will wait, on pins and needles.

I am sure something will occur to me, after Pat Speer has had his opportunity for rebuttal.

Well done Ashton, you have made your case. I await the rebuttal.

Since Mr. Gray's style is somewhat, how shall I say, circumlocutous, and since you can understand it, perhaps you Dawn, would be kind enough to summarize his arguments in a nice legal manner so that they are a little less opaque. I am sure Terry Mauro is not the only one who has difficulty deciphering what Ashton really means.

If there are any relevant legal issues, perhaps you would point them out to us also. As I see it up to now, Pat Speer alleges that E. Howard Hunt is guilty of forgery, while Ashton Gray says that Hunt is innocent.

Thank you in anticipation.

YOu're a lawyer. You figure it out. If you'd bother to read the other Carl Oglesby thread you'd see that I have my hands full here trying to down load and snail mail all this stuff TO Carl as he is not online. (BUT IS PARTICIPATING HERE WITH HIS EXPLICIT PERMISSION, VIA HIS OLD FRIEND OF NOW 33 years, ME.)

So please do not interrupt the post where his book is being scanned. It's a holiday here and I have been at this all day.

I do have a life and an actual legal career. I am not here to make arguments for Ashton, legal or

otherwise. He does quite well on his own. And I spoke with Terry today, so you are wrong, she is having some time crunch problems and has not devoted her every waking second to this forum. She "gets" Ashton. And I am certain you and Pat do as well..

So ball's in Pat' s court here.

Have a good one. (I defer to what Mike HOgan posted re your thoughts )

Dawn

[Michael Hogan]

According to Newsday

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/26/140956.shtml

Ex-FBI Chief: Watergate Docs Outed JFK

Speaking out for the first time since the Watergate scandal ended his career, former acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray revealed Sunday that documents the White House ordered to him to hide implicated President John F. Kennedy in political and sexual misconduct.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," the 88-year-old Gray described a June 28, 1972 White House meeting with Nixon counsel John Dean, where Dean handed him a mysterious envelope.

"Dean told me that this envelope contained papers that were removed from [Watergate co-conspirator] E. Howard Hunt's safe, [saying], 'They have nothing to do with the Watergate investigation - but they must not see the light of day.'"

"The first set of papers in there were false top secret cables that indicating that the Kennedy administration had much to do with the assassination of the Vietnamese president," Gray explained, indicating they were counterfeit.

But a second set of files pulled from Hunt's safe, he suggested, were authentic.

"The second set of papers in there were letters purportedly written by Sen. Kennedy [before he became president] involving some of his peccadilloes."

"I looked at those papers [for the first time five months later] as I burned them," he told "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos.

Gray said he believes that the Nixon White House wanted him to get rid of the documents as part of elaborate plan to make it look like he destroyed key evidence related to Watergate - thereby turning him into a fall guy.

After Gray admitted to destroying Hunt's files during confirmation hearings in 1973, Nixon withdrew his nomination to be FBI Director.

In the above referenced ABC interview, Gray also said that:

"I was presented an envelope; I think it was about 8½ by 11," Gray said. "Dean told me that this envelope contained papers that were removed from Howard Hunt's safe, they had nothing to do with the Watergate investigation, but they must not see the light of day."

Gray said he didn't look at the papers at the time, instead putting them in a locked, "heavily secured" FBI storage unit. (emphasis mine}

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/st...3440&page=3

"I was not really interested in what was involved there," Gray said. "They told me it didn't involve Watergate."

[Terry Mauro]

No doubt Mr. Carroll may have some pearls of wisdom, for which I will wait, on pins and needles.

I am sure something will occur to me, after Pat Speer has had his opportunity for rebuttal.

Well done Ashton, you have made your case. I await the rebuttal.

Since Mr. Gray's style is somewhat, how shall I say, circumlocutous, and since you can understand it, perhaps you Dawn, would be kind enough to summarize his arguments in a nice legal manner so that they are a little less opaque. I am sure Terry Mauro is not the only one who has difficulty deciphering what Ashton really means.

If there are any relevant legal issues, perhaps you would point them out to us also. As I see it up to now, Pat Speer alleges that E. Howard Hunt is guilty of forgery, while Ashton Gray says that Hunt is innocent.

Thank you in anticipation.

*********************************************************

"As I see it up to now, Pat Speer alleges that E. Howard Hunt is guilty of forgery, while Ashton Gray says that Hunt is innocent."

What?!?!?!? Please site exactly where he says that Hunt is innocent? Here we go 'round in circles...

[Ashton Gray]

"As I see it up to now, Pat Speer alleges that E. Howard Hunt is guilty of forgery, while Ashton Gray says that Hunt is innocent."

What?!?!?!? Please site exactly where he says that Hunt is innocent? Here we go 'round in circles...

It appeared to be Mr. Carroll's bid to slouch toward neutrality.

Ashton

Edited July 5, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

Since Mr. Gray's style is somewhat, how shall I say, circumlocutous, and since you can understand it, perhaps you Dawn, would be kind enough to summarize his arguments in a nice legal manner so that they are a little less opaque.

I knew I should have put this part in bold the first time:

• Ashton Gray:
  [Pat Speer] has followed me all over the forum trying to smear me in any depraved way he can conjure, while simultaneously begging me endlessly to explain why I won't discuss these fantasy cables and other group hallucinations with him and his small band of boorish fellow day-trippers.
  So I will. Once. But only for the rational mind.
  

Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

I believe Ashton was inferring that the cables do not exist NOW. I don't remember him saying that they never existed, at all.

I think you're absolutely correct, Terry, that until the point of your post that I'm quoting, I had not made any explicit, categorical statement to that effect—even though it has been my position at all relevant times—because in every instance, Speer had raised the issue of the purported forged cables in threads where it was entirely off-topic, and I had steadfastly refused to become a party to his undying efforts at thread sabotage.

I had referred to the no-see-um forged cables briefly as "CIA-generated fiction" in a message of mine quoted earlier in this thread, but I wrote that in a context where, as I can see now in retrospect, the time frame is ambiguous. I never addressed the subject any further at all while waiting for Speer to make good on his strut.

It seems clear from the time stamp and placement of your message that you posted it even as I was in the process of posting my three-part article on this.

Ashton

Edited July 5, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[John Simkin]

According to Newsday

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/26/140956.shtml

Ex-FBI Chief: Watergate Docs Outed JFK

Speaking out for the first time since the Watergate scandal ended his career, former acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray revealed Sunday that documents the White House ordered to him to hide implicated President John F. Kennedy in political and sexual misconduct.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," the 88-year-old Gray described a June 28, 1972 White House meeting with Nixon counsel John Dean, where Dean handed him a mysterious envelope.

"Dean told me that this envelope contained papers that were removed from [Watergate co-conspirator] E. Howard Hunt's safe, [saying], 'They have nothing to do with the Watergate investigation - but they must not see the light of day.'"

"The first set of papers in there were false top secret cables that indicating that the Kennedy administration had much to do with the assassination of the Vietnamese president," Gray explained, indicating they were counterfeit.

But a second set of files pulled from Hunt's safe, he suggested, were authentic.

"The second set of papers in there were letters purportedly written by Sen. Kennedy [before he became president] involving some of his peccadilloes."

"I looked at those papers [for the first time five months later] as I burned them," he told "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos.

Gray said he believes that the Nixon White House wanted him to get rid of the documents as part of elaborate plan to make it look like he destroyed key evidence related to Watergate - thereby turning him into a fall guy.

After Gray admitted to destroying Hunt's files during confirmation hearings in 1973, Nixon withdrew his nomination to be FBI Director.

In the above referenced ABC interview, Gray also said that:

"I was presented an envelope; I think it was about 8½ by 11," Gray said. "Dean told me that this envelope contained papers that were removed from Howard Hunt's safe, they had nothing to do with the Watergate investigation, but they must not see the light of day."

Gray said he didn't look at the papers at the time, instead putting them in a locked, "heavily secured" FBI storage unit. (emphasis mine}

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/st...3440&page=3

"I was not really interested in what was involved there," Gray said. "They told me it didn't involve Watergate."

Of course these documents did involve Watergate. We have to ask what was the motivation of Nixon’s aides to destroy documents that implicated John and Robert Kennedy in assassinations of foreign leaders, etc.? Was it not in their interest to expose the illegal behaviour of the Kennedys? This would have hurt the Democrats and Edward Kennedy, and would have helped them win the 1972 presidential election. Yet Gray definitely destroyed these documents. The only way this makes sense is that Gray destroyed forged documents that falsely implicated the Kennedys in wrong-doings. Nixon knew that once these documents were examined by experts, it would have been clear that they had been forged. Then the hunt (no pun intended) would have been on to discover who was trying to smear the Kennedy family. The investigation would have discovered it was E. Howard Hunt and his friends at the CIA who had been forging documents on behalf of Nixon.

[Ashton Gray]

According to Newsday

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/26/140956.shtml

"The first set of papers in there were false top secret cables that indicating that the Kennedy administration had much to do with the assassination of the Vietnamese president," Gray explained, indicating they were counterfeit.

But a second set of files pulled from Hunt's safe, he suggested, were authentic.

"The second set of papers in there were letters purportedly written by Sen. Kennedy [before he became president] involving some of his peccadilloes."

Thanks, Michael. The part I quoted just above is stunningly, staggeringly, overwhelmingly, stupefyingly demonstrative and characteristic of the inexpressible depravity—just sheer, thoroughgoing, undiluted evil—that sloughs like leperous flesh from these CIA minions everywhere they crawl.

The claim of knowing what was in any "second set of papers" (as though one existed at all)—never mind the scurrilous, debased, never-to-be countered or confirmed smear against Kennedy—is completely contradictory to Gray's sworn testimony in Congress (and there's a giant surprise, I bet.):

• PATRICK GRAY: I merely thumbed through the second of the two files and noted that it contained onionskin copies of correspondence. I did not absorb the subject matter of the correspondence, and do not, today, of my own knowledge, know what it was.
  

I don't know where CIA gets them. The incredulity that visits the mind when confronted with such a void of anything even resembling decency or truth or honor is beyond the scope of words.

The single greatest hurdle I have in trying to compose articles to post here on all of this is deciding which of the thousands of falsehoods and contradictions to omit. I rather arbitrarily omitted reference to the purported "'heavily secured' FBI storage unit" because Gray claims in testimony that at one point he brought the envelopes (or folders, depends on when he's telling it) from his apartment to his office and "placed them in my personal safe." And the way these crummy bastards slice-and-dice language, their lap-dogs can say, "Oh, well, his personal safe in his office was a 'heavily secured' FBI storage unit." Don'tcha know.

Anyway, there's no shortage of completely unresolvable contradictions for the lap-dogs to chew on (including the new one you provided the opportunity to have documented above), and thank you very much for the contribution.

Ashton

Edited July 5, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[J. Raymond Carroll]

"As I see it up to now, Pat Speer alleges that E. Howard Hunt is guilty of forgery, while Ashton Gray says that Hunt is innocent."

What?!?!?!? Please site exactly where he says that Hunt is innocent? Here we go 'round in circles...

It appeared to be Mr. Carroll's bid to slouch toward neutrality.

Ashton

In order to discuss this in a "rational" manner, we need to be clear on what the opposing arguments are. Pat Speer has alleged, unambiguously, that Howard Hunt is guilty of the crime of forgery, to wit, forgery of certain state papers with the intent to mislead others into believeing that the Kennedy administration was complicit in the assassination of Diem. This is a very serious charge, and Pat Speer did not make it lightly.

As I understand Ashton Gray, he is arguing that Hunt is innocent of the charge and that in fact no forgery took place. To my reading, that is the bare essence of the argument.

Apparently Terry Mauro reads Mr. Gray to say something different than what I think he is saying, so I would ask Mr. Gray to kindly clear up the confusion before we go any further.