A Concise CIA-Pentagon Papers-Watergate Timeline

[Ashton Gray]

At the outset, I apologize deeply and sincerely for the length of the following introductory paragraphs, but I believe they address core issues predicate to the timeline that follows, which I originally posted in the JFK Assassination forum in response to Daniel Wayne Dunn. You are welcome to skip these introductory comments entirely and go straight to the raw data in the timeline below. It might be at the peril of grasping the gravity and scope of what is at issue. It might not.

Some of my detractors have launched rather shameless and scurrilous attacks on me and on the information I have posted in the Watergate forum concerning CIA's role in the Pentagon Papers operation, and in the subsequent related events leading up to what is popularly known as "Watergate." I even have my own personal ankle-biter following me around to every thread I post in, yapping the same tiresome yaps tirelessly for no other purpose than to disrupt discussion of, and to distract attention from, the facts at issue.

I don't care what the trolls growl and spit and snarl about me, personally, as long as they're able to spell my name right. (One even tried to put me in direct lineage with the CIA's bald-pated marionette, L. Patrick Gray.) But when they start making obscene attacks on the data (which most of these few have done without bothering to read it, by their own admissions), they get my very focused attention.

One of the straw men that has been trotted out by these detractors so they could beat it to death is a variation of this: to hold the CIA accountable for CIA culpability is to "let Nixon off the hook."

I can only just barely bring myself to imagine, on a purely theoretical level, such a naive, either/or, black-and-white, wholly simplistic "gimme one bad guy to demonize and hate" world view, and even then I don't waste any time on it.

Instead, I have what these people apparently consider to be a strange idea of justice: I think all guilty parties should be held accountable for their own specific crimes, and none should be either "let off the hook," or held accountable for anything that they are not guilty of, regardless of who they are.

To that end, I have compiled and condensed and presented an extensive body of comparative data that in sum makes a very compelling case for CIA complicity in activities for which no person or persons ever truly have been held accountable at all—including Nixon. It comprises a completely uninvestigated, untried set of serious possible offenses, which may even reach to and include TREASON and related offenses, as defined at USC 18 Part I Chapter 115, §2381 et seq.:

• § 2381. Treason
  Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
  § 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
  Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
  § 2382. Misprision of treason
  Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
  § 2384. Seditious conspiracy
  If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
  § 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
  (a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
  Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
  Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
  (b ) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
  (c ) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
  (d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.
  

What obviously escapes these "Nixon or the CIA—Pick One" advocates is that the above has nothing to do with a single individual named Richard Milhouse Nixon; it has to do with the Office of the President of the United States as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States during times of war.

It's about the Office of the President, not about whoever's butt happened to be warming the Oval Office chair at the time without benefit of Febreze. What was done was an assault on the Office of the President during time of war, and was a massive costly and destructive hoax and fraud on other vital institutions during time of war, including Congress, which has war powers. Period.

So if, in reading the material I have posted, you are among the few unfortunates who for whatever reason are unable to make this grave and pertinent distinction, do us both a favor: don't click the "REPLY" button on anything I post. It will only waste your time and the time of other readers here, not mine, because I won't be responding to such posts anymore.

Here is what I originally posted to Daniel Wayne Dunn in the JFK forum in response to one of his posts:

Nixon was not an idol to (his own) "elite fascist guard," but instead (seen by them as) a mere unsophisticated rube? Contending that is letting Nixon off the hook, as is contending he "was merely a puppet whose wims and idiosyncracies were becoming a liability to their secret teams real agenda." ...I guess since Speer and me are the only ones who care enough to fight about this, I'll have to stay in the fight --- and begrudge you fun folks the time wasted when more important things are pressing. But we all have to choose what we consider as important, and right now it's pretty clear that this should be it.

I already answered this partially, Daniel, but since you've opened the door, and since you feel that right now this should be considered important, I considered it important enough to give you a little more "fleshed out" response.

I realize that this is the JFK forum, and while I'm going to post an appropriately introduced version of this message in the Watergate forum, I'm posting it first in response to you here—since Mr. Caddy elected to put my name in lights in this forum as an accused forum pariah, and since you and one or two others have taken the opportunity not only to imply that my research and presentations on the CIA's role in Watergate are the deluded pursuits of a borderline loon, but also to build a totally specious "case" that to render unto CIA what is CIA's in regard to Watergate is somehow to "take Nixon off the hook."

Therefore I've created this timeline for you, a condensed version of the excellent timeline I've referred to repeatedly. I've excerpted relevant events just for you. In doing so, I've expunged all references to the "S word," or to what else the CIA might have been doing simultaneously, because I don't want you or Mr. Speer to start shaking uncontrollably or to run to your black helicopters again, as Mr. Speer seems wont to do. We don't need to address possible CIA motive in order to see events: who was doing what when.

So here is your own personal version of a relevant portion of that timeline, and I'm going to name it in your honor in the Watergate forum. I have taken it up only to the purported "first break-in" of the Watergate because I consider that entirely sufficient. At the end I will make an effort to sum up as succinctly as possible what I understand your position to be. Without further ado:

CIA-PENTAGON PAPERS-WATERGATE TIMELINE

Friday, 10 April 1970

Richard Helms has rubber-stamped E. Howard Hunt's "early retirement" and has written a letter to Robert R. Mullen on behalf of Hunt, urging Mullen to hire him. Mullen is head of a public relations firm in D.C. that is a front company for CIA. One of the Mullen offices, in Stockholm, Sweden, is "staffed, run, and paid for by CIA." Also at the Mullen firm is Douglas Caddy.

Monday, 13 April 1970

Daniel Ellsberg quits Rand in California, flies to Boston and signs a contract at MIT. He remains, though, a "consultant" for Rand.

Friday, 1 May 1970

E. Howard Hunt ostensibly "retires" from CIA. He goes to work for the Mullen company in D.C. There, he is told by Robert Mullen that he and Douglas Caddy have been selected by Mullen to take over running the CIA front company soon, when Mullen retires.

Tuesday, 5 May 1970

Daniel Ellsberg flies to Washington, D.C. and is there for three days, flies to St. Louis for a day, then flies back to D.C. [FORUM NOTE: Caddy wouldn't answer the question of whether he or Hunt had been in touch, either directly or through intermediaries, with Ellsberg.]

Thursday, 28 May 1970

A CIA Covert Security Approval is requested under Project QK/ENCHANT for the "retired" E. Howard Hunt.

August 1970

Just four months after E. Howard Hunt, James McCord "retires" from CIA.

September 1970

Daniel Ellsberg stops seeing Beverly Hills psychiatrist Lewis Fielding.

November 1970

Douglas Caddy leaves the Mullen firm to work for Gall, Lane, Powell and Kilcullen. Around the same time, E. Howard Hunt becomes a "client" of Caddy and of Gall, Lane. Caddy consults with Hunt regarding wills and "other matters." Around the same time, G. Gordon Liddy is approached by Robert Mardian, asking Liddy to take a position that Mardian describes as "super-confidential."

February 1971

A hidden taping system is installed in the Oval Office of the White House.

Saturday, 17 April 1971

E. Howard Hunt is in Miami and meets with Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez, and Felipe De Diego. Bernard Barker has a history of almost seven years with CIA. Eugenio Martinez is on "retainer" with CIA. [NOTE: A little over four months later, these same three men will be involved with Hunt in a purported break-in of the offices of psychiatrist Lewis Fielding, ostensibly in response to Daniel Ellsberg having leaked the Pentagon Papers. But the Pentagon Papers haven't been leaked to the press yet, and won't be for almost two months.]

Early June 1971

Daniel Ellsberg makes "a series of phone calls" to psychiatrist Lewis Fielding shortly before the Pentagon Papers are published. Around this same time, Douglas Caddy meets with E. Howard Hunt and Bernard Barker at the Army-Navy Club in Washington, D.C. [NOTE: Caddy will claim that this is the one and only time that he ever met Bernard Barker.]

Saturday, 12 June 1971

The day before the "Pentagon Papers" are published, Morton Halperin, Leslie Gelb, and Defense Department official Paul Nitze make "a deposit into the National Archives" of "a whole lot of papers." [NOTE: This turns out later to be copies of the not-yet-published Pentagon Papers that will make Daniel Ellsberg famous and launch everything that later comes to be known as "Watergate."]

Sunday, 13 June 1971

Daniel Ellsberg, having highest possible clearances from CIA, leaks the "Pentagon Papers." The New York Times publishes the first of three installments of secret documents that have been passed to Times reporter Neil Sheehan by Daniel Ellsberg. [NOTE: Ellsberg had been connected to Sheehan in Viet Nam by CIA's Edward Landsdale and CIA's Lucien Conein.]

Tuesday, 15 June 1971

G. Gordon Liddy is abruptly transferred from being "Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury" to "Staff Assistant of the President of the United States," part of the White House Domestic Council. Liddy is supplied with White House credentials.

Monday, 28 June 1971

Daniel Ellsberg is indicted for the leak of the Pentagon Papers.

Wednesday, 30 June 1971

The Supreme Court rules 6-3 that the government has not shown compelling evidence to justify blocking further publication of the Pentagon Papers.

Thursday, 1 July 1971

David Young—who is with NSA—is appointed to the White House Domestic Council to work with Egil Krogh. On or about the same date, Carol Ellsberg, Daniel Ellsberg's ex-wife, calls the FBI. She tells them that Daniel Ellsberg had seen a psychiatrist. She says that Ellsberg has "assured her" that he "had told this analyst all about what he had done" (referring to the Pentagon Papers). She volunteers the name of the Beverly Hills psychiatrist: Lewis Fielding. [NOTE: Daniel and Carol Ellsberg have been living apart since January 1964, divorced since 1966. Daniel Ellsberg didn't begin with Fielding until two years after the divorce, in March of 1968 (see), and had quit seeing Fielding in September 1970 (see)—nearly a year before "what he had done."] On or about the same date, John "Jack" Caulfield, Staff Assistant to President Nixon, has created a 12-page political espionage proposal called "Sandwedge." Ostensibly as part of it, Anthony Ulasewicz has rented an apartment at 321 East 48th Street (Apartment 11-C), New York City. G. Gordon Liddy is given the complete "Sandwedge" plan. [NOTE: The apartment is in close proximity to the lab and school of CIA's Cleve Backster. It provides a backstopped New York address and phone. Note, too, that the reference for date of Sandwedge is a document in the National Archives titled "7/71 Sandwedge proposal," despite most anecdotal accounts placing it later in 1971.]

Friday, 2 July 1971

CIA Director Richard Helms is pushing behind the scenes to get E. Howard Hunt into a position connected with the White House in response to the Pentagon Papers having been leaked. H. R. Haldeman tells Nixon that Helms has described Hunt: "Ruthless, quiet and careful, low profile. He gets things done. He will work well with all of us. He's very concerned about the health of the administration. His concern, he thinks, is they're out to get us and all that, but he's not a fanatic. We could be absolutely certain it'll involve secrecy... ." On the same day, Charles Colson sends a memo to H. R. Haldeman with a transcript of a phone conversation he had with E. Howard Hunt the previous day—which he happened to record. Colson says: "The more I think about Howard Hunt's background, politics, disposition and experience, the more I think it would be worth your time to meet him."

Wednesday, 7 July 1971

E. Howard Hunt is hired as a "White House consultant" while keeping his full-time job at CIA front company Mullen. Hunt is supplied with White House credentials.

Thursday, 8 July 1971

The day after starting with the White House, E. Howard Hunt has a private meeting with CIA's Lucien Conein, Hunt's acquaintance of almost 30 years. [NOTE: Conein had been part of the team that Daniel Ellsberg had gone with to Vietnam, headed by CIA's Edward Landsdale, where Ellsberg had been connected up with reporter Neil Sheehan.]

Tuesday, 20 July 1971

E. Howard Hunt has a private meeting with CIA's Edward G. Landsdale. [NOTE: Landsdale had taken Daniel Ellsberg and Lucien Conein to Vietnam in 1965-66, where Ellsberg had been connected up with reporter Neil Sheehan.]

Thursday, 22 July 1971

E. Howard Hunt goes to CIA headquarters and meets privately with Deputy Director of CIA Robert Cushman.

Friday, 23 July 1971

The CIA supplies E. Howard Hunt with counterfeit ID in the name of "Edward J. Warren." Hunt meets CIA's Stephen Greenwood in a CIA safehouse where a fake driver's license and other ID material, plus a disguise, are given to Hunt.

Saturday, 24 July 1971

Based on a memorandum by Egil Krogh and NSA's David Young, the Special Investigations Unit is established at the White House under them. It comes to be known as the White House Plumbers. [NOTE: David Young gives the unit its nickname, supposedly because it is there to "stop leaks." It never stops a single leak, or accomplishes anything effective regarding security leaks. Liddy and Hunt are already established in their positions weeks before the unit is created. The creation of the Special Investigations Unit does nothing to alter the operational status or position of either of them. Young is running everything that leads to the Fielding office break-in. Young will later be given immunity by Watergate prosecutors, then will report the Fielding "burglary," backed up by CIA-supplied photos]

Friday, 30 July 1971

A highly secure facility has been set up in Room 16 of the Old Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House that G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt use. It includes a secure phone used "mostly to talk to the CIA at Langley."

Early August 1971

G. Gordon Liddy is in regular communication with "State and the CIA," having direct conversations with CIA Director Richard Helms. Liddy is briefed by CIA on "several additional sensitive programs in connection with his assignment to the White House staff." Liddy is also making regular trips to the Pentagon. E. Howard Hunt is making regular trips to the State Department. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations at the time is George H.W. Bush (Sr.)

Monday, 2 August 1971

CIA psychiatrist Bernard Malloy comes to Room 16 and meets privately with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt.

Friday, 6 August 1971

E. Howard Hunt again meets clandestinely in a CIA safehouse, this time with CIA's Stephen Greenwood and also with CIA's Cleo Gephart. Hunt purportedly discusses CIA providing a "backstopped address and phone" in New York city. Hunt also asks for CIA to provide phony ID and a disguise for "an associate"—G. Gordon Liddy. [NOTE: Hunt is asking for ID and disguise for Liddy prior to any proposal to break into Lewis Fielding's office. Also, there's already a backstopped address and phone in New York city at 321 East 48th Street, Apartment 11-C, New York City, set up by Anthony Ulasewicz as part of the Sandwedge proposal, which Liddy and Hunt have. See 1 July 1971.]

Wednesday, 11 August 1971

CIA psychiatrist Bernard Malloy again comes to Room 16 and meets privately with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt. Soon after, Liddy and Hunt recommend an attempt at surreptitious entry for "acquisition of psychiatric materials" on Daniel Ellsberg from the files of psychiatrist Lewis Fielding. They claim the need, first, for a "feasibility study" of Fielding's Beverly Hills office

Friday, 20 August 1971

The CIA supplies G. Gordon Liddy with counterfeit ID in the name of "George F. Leonard." Hunt and Liddy meet CIA's Stephen Greenwood (called "Steve" in Hunt's account) in a CIA safehouse where a CIA-created fake driver's license and other ID material, plus a disguise, and a camera are issued to Liddy.

Thursday, 26 August 1971

E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy fly to Los Angeles. Hunt takes pictures of Liddy, in his CIA-issued black wig (which doesn't disguise him), standing in front of psychiatrist Lewis Fielding's office door, with Fielding's name on the door. Liddy also takes pictures of Hunt in his CIA-supplied non-disguise. The photos are taken with the camera supplied to them by CIA.

Friday, 27 August 1971

E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy fly back to Washington, D.C. CIA's Stephen Greenwood meets them at the airport, where Hunt gives Greenwood the film for developing by CIA. Greenwood delivers prints to Hunt the same day. The CIA keeps a copy of the photos of Liddy and Hunt (in CIA-provided "disguises" that don't disguise them at all) mugging in front of Lewis Fielding's identifiable door. [NOTE: The CIA later turns their copies of the photos over to Watergate investigators, which results in all criminal charges against Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon Papers to be dropped.]

Saturday, 28 August 1971

On a Saturday, Hunt and Liddy purportedly are in Room 16 when Liddy tells Hunt that the plan to do a break-in of Fielding's office is approved, but that the two of them are not "to be permitted anywhere near the target premises." [see 27 August 1971, immediately above.] E. Howard Hunt then purportedly calls Bernard Barker in Miami and asks if Barker can "put together a three-man entry team." Barker calls back to say it will be Barker, Eugenio Martinez, and Felipe De Diego. [NOTE: As luck would have it, this happens to be the same three men Hunt had met with in Miami two months before the Pentagon Papers were published. See 17 April 1971.]

Friday, 3 September 1971

A break-in takes place at the office of psychiatrist Lewis J. Fielding in Beverly Hills, California. The break-in is made obvious by the smashing of a window. Accounts of the break-in are irreconcilably conflicting. According to Bernard Barker, E. Howard Hunt, and G. Gordon Liddy, the three Cubans—Barker, Martinez, and De Diego—had entered the office and searched thoroughly, and there was no file on Daniel Ellsberg anywhere. According to Lewis Fielding, there was a file on Ellsberg in his office, which Fielding says he found on the floor the next morning. Fielding claims it was evident that someone had gone through the file. The same night, Hunt and Liddy are in New York City—where Hunt has made an issue of needing "a backstopped address." They check into the Pierre hotel and remain in New York through at least Sunday, 5 September 1971. [NOTE: There is no physical evidence that either Liddy or Hunt had been in Los Angeles at all for the Fielding office break-in. Only the anecdotal claims of the co-conspirators account for the whereabouts of Hunt and Liddy that weekend. This is similar to the later purported Watergate first break-in that involves the same personnel.]

October 1971

E. Howard Hunt is in telephone contact with CIA Chief European Division John Hart, and has several telephone conversations with CIA Executive Officer European Division John Caswell. [NOTE: L. Patrick Gray will later order FBI to hold off on interviewing Caswell.]

Friday, 15 October 1971

E. Howard Hunt meets privately with CIA Director Richard Helms.

Early November 1971

CIA's James McCord, purportedly retired in August 1970, signs a contract with the Republican National Committee to handle "security." The contract is in the name of "McCord Associates, Inc." [NOTE: The corporation will not be created until several weeks after the contract is signed; incorporation papers are not filed until 19 November 1971 (see) in Maryland.]

Friday, 19 November 1971

CIA's E. Howard Hunt contacts CIA's Office of Security Director Robert Osborne. On the same day, CIA's James McCord files incorporation papers in Maryland for McCord Associates, Inc., ostensibly a security company, but the incorporation papers say nothing about providing security, and the company is not licensed for security. Included on the board are McCord, his wife, and his sister, Dorothy Berry, who works for an "oil company in Houston." [NOTE: Berry later claimed she had "no idea" she had been listed on the board. Also, the Gulf Resources and Chemical Corporation—an "oil company in Houston" that controls half the world's supply of lithium—will later provide checks that get converted to traceable $100 bills for part of what becomes known as Watergate. See 15 April 1972.]

Wednesday, 8 December 1971

E. Howard Hunt is in touch with senior CIA officer Peter Jessup, who is with the National Security Council staff. On or about the same day, Hunt meets privately again with CIA's Lucien Conein.

Sunday, 12 December 1971

NSA's David Young meets with Egil Krogh and CIA psychiatrist Bernard Malloy.

Thursday, 16 December 1971

CIA's E. Howard Hunt is in Dallas, Texas—an airline hub. Lt. George W. Bush is living in Houston, Texas. He is a pilot trained on T-38 Talons, a type of plane used as a chase plane.

January 1972

G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt are collaborating on a "political espionage" plan to replace the Sandwedge proposal. One of the items they have factored into the budget, ostensibly for "political espionage," is a chase plane. [NOTE: Budgeting and planning for this "chase plane" comes up over and over, but it is utterly ludicrous for any kind of "political espionage" purposes.]

Monday, 10 January 1972

G. Gordon Liddy is in New York city at the apartment Ulasewicz has established at 321 East 48th Street, Apartment 11-C.

Early February 1972

G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt fly to Miami, home of Bernard Barker and other CIA-connected Cubans. Around the same time, G. Gordon Liddy "recruits" CIA's James McCord as a "wire man," purportedly to be able to do electronic eavesdropping for "political espionage" purposes. [NOTE: At the time, Liddy has no approved budget for any such activities, nor are there any approved plans for, or targets for, any such activities.]

Thursday, 17 February 1972

E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy again fly to Miami, ostensibly to meet with Donald Segretti (a.k.a. "Donald Simmons"). While there, Hunt is in contact with CIA's Bernard Barker.

Tuesday, 22 February 1972

G. Gordon Liddy meets with CIA personnel at Langley in connection with CIA "special clearances" he has been granted.

Thursday, 24 February 1972

G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt meet with a "retired" CIA doctor, introduced by Hunt to Liddy as "Dr. Edward Gunn," to get briefed by him on various covert means of murder for a possible assassination.

Late February 1972

E. Howard Hunt travels to Nicaragua on an "undisclosed mission." [NOTE: See entry for 3 March 1972.]

Wednesday, 1 March 1972

Douglas Caddy, who has E. Howard Hunt as a client, begins to do "legal tasks" for John Dean and G. Gordon Liddy.

Friday, 3 March 1972

Gary O. Morris, psychiatrist of E. Howard Hunt's wife, Dorothy, vanishes while on vacation on the Caribbean island of St. Lucia. No trace is ever found of the pleasure boat he had left on for a cruise with his wife and a local captain, Mervin Augustin.

Monday, 27 March 1972

G. Gordon Liddy's job abruptly changes to general counsel of the Finance Committee to Re-elect the President.

Wednesday, 29 March 1972

Two days after Liddy's job changes, E. Howard Hunt "terminates" in his paid capacity as a White House consultant—yet he keeps his office and the safe he'd used as such, and keeps his White House credentials because he continues to "work there a few hours each week."

Early April 1972

CIA's E. Howard Hunt flies to Chicago and delivers an undisclosed amount of cash in a sealed envelope to W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation. [NOTE: Dorothy Hunt later will die in a plane crash en route to Chicago carrying an envelope of cash.]

Saturday, 15 April 1972

E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy fly to Miami and deliver checks drawn on a Mexico City bank to CIA's Bernard Barker. [NOTE: Several of the checks have originated from Gulf Resources and Chemical Corporation in Houston, which at the time controls half the world's supply of lithium, used in the making of hydrogen bombs and in psychiatric drugs.]

Monday, 24 April 1972

CIA's Bernard Barker cashes a cashier's check for $25,000 at his bank in Miami. [NOTE: This $25,000, from the Dahlberg check, plus two later withdrawals by Barker will equal $114,000. See 2 May and 8 May 1972.]

Monday, 1 May 1972

CIA's James McCord contacts an ex-FBI agent, Alfred Baldwin, who is living in Connecticut. McCord purportedly doesn't know Baldwin, but wants Baldwin to come to Washington, D.C. that night.

Tuesday, 2 May 1972

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover is found dead in his home in the early morning hours. L. Patrick Gray—who has no background in law enforcement—is appointed as Acting Director of FBI. [NOTE: Hoover's death is attributed to a heart attack, and no autopsy is done. L. Patrick Gray will steer the FBI investigation of Watergate, destroy material taken from the White House safe of E. Howard Hunt, then will resign.] Alfred Baldwin meets with James McCord. McCord issues Baldwin a Smith & Wesson .38 snub-nose revolver. Baldwin is assigned to travel as a bodyguard with Martha Mitchell on "a trip to the midwest." On the same day, CIA's Bernard Barker withdraws an unspecified amount of cash from his bank in Miami. [NOTE: This is the second of three transactions by Barker that will total $114,000.]

Thursday, 4 May 1972

Lt. George W. Bush is ordered to "report to commander, 111 F.I.S., Ellington AFB, not later than (NLT) 14 May, 1972." [NOTE: Bush does not report as ordered. See 19 May 1972.]

Friday, 5 May 1972

CIA's James McCord rents room 419 of the Howard Johnson's motel across the street from the Watergate. The room is registered in the name of McCord Associates.

Monday, 8 May 1972

Alfred Baldwin returns to Washington, D.C. from his trip with Martha Mitchell. He is told by James McCord to keep the .38 revolver because "he might be going on another trip." G. Gordon Liddy, in D.C., calls CIA's Bernard Barker in Miami. Bernard Barker withdraws another unspecified amount of cash from his bank in Miami which, with two other transactions, now totals $114,000. James McCord receives $4,000 in cash from G. Gordon Liddy.

Tuesday, 9 May 1972

Alfred Baldwin leaves Washington, D.C., ostensibly going to his home in Connecticut to "get more clothes." He takes the .38 revolver with him, purportedly because he has been told by James McCord that he might be going on another trip with Martha Mitchell that is scheduled for 11 May 1972. [NOTE: Baldwin doesn't return until 12 May 1972.]

Wednesday, 10 May 1972

CIA's James McCord is in Rockville, Maryland. He pays $3,500 cash for a "device capable of receiving intercepted wire and oral communications." [NOTE: Rockville, Maryland is about six miles from Laurel, Maryland. Five days later presidential candidate George Wallace will be shot in Laurel, Maryland by Arthur Bremer with a .38 calibur revolver. See 15 May 1972.]

Friday, 12 May 1972

Alfred Baldwin returns to Washington, D.C. James McCord tells Baldwin he won't be going with Martha Mitchell so he can "turn in his gun." Baldwin purportedly gives the .38 revovler to McCord. McCord tells Baldwin to move from the Roger Smith hotel, where Baldwin has been staying, into room 419 at the Howard Johnson's motel.

Monday, 15 May 1972

Presidential candidate George Wallace is shot by Arthur Bremer in Laurel, Maryland, ending his presidential campaign and partially paralyzing him.

Wednesday, 17 May 1972

CIA's Bernard Barker makes two calls from Miami to G. Gordon Liddy, and two calls to CIA's E. Howard Hunt.

Friday, 19 May 1972

Lt. George W. Bush (Jr.), a chase plane pilot, contacts a superior officer in the reserves to discuss "options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November." The memo recording the conversation says that Bush "is working on another campaign for his dad." The memo writer thinks Bush is "also talking to someone upstairs." [NOTE: George H. W. Bush (Sr.) is U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. at this time.] On the same day, President Richard M. Nixon, about to embark on an historic trip to the Soviet Union, writes the following in a letter to Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig: "The performance in the psychological warfare field is nothing short of disgraceful. The mountain has labored for seven weeks and when it finally produced, it produced not much more than a mouse. Or to put it more honestly, it produced a rat. We finally have a program now under way but it totally lacks imagination and I have no confidence whatever that the bureaucracy will carry it out. I do not simply blame (Richard) Helms and the CIA. After all, they do not support my policies because they basically are for the most part Ivy League and Georgetown society oriented." On the same day, E. Howard Hunt makes two calls to Bernard Barker in Miami.

Saturday, 20 May 1972

Richard Nixon leaves Washington, D.C. on his trip to Austria, the Soviet Union, Iran, and Poland. He will not return until 1 June 1972. James McCord sends Alfred Baldwin to Andrews Air Force Base, where Nixon is leaving on Air Force One, purportedly because there might be demonstrations and McCord wants Baldwin to be there for more "surveillance activities." [NOTE: The "reason" supplied by McCord in testimony for this trip by Baldwin is too thin to slice, particularly in light of the amount of security surrounding Nixon's departure. Besides Air Force One, there is a fleet of White House planes at Andrews for use by VIPs and various staff connected with the White House.] On or about the same day, CIA's E. Howard Hunt flies to Miami and meets with Bernard Barker.

Monday, 22 May 1972

Richard Nixon arrives in Moscow and is toasting Soviet leaders at a dinner. On the same day, the CIA "Cuban contingent" arrives in Washington, D.C. from Miami: Bernard Barker, Frank Sturgis, Eugenio Martinez, and Virgilio Gonzalez. They are in D.C. purportedly to carry out a "first break-in" on the following weekend of Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate with G. Gordon Liddy, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, and CIA's James McCord. [NOTE: There is no physical evidence that any such "first break-in" ever took place. For full coverage, see The Watergate "First Break-In Dilemma. Note also that while E. Howard Hunt claims that six Cubans arrived on 22 May 1972, the referenced criminal appeals court ruling names only four.]

Tuesday, 23 May 1972

Alfred Baldwin leaves Washington, D.C. again, purportedly going to his home in Connecticut again. No reason is given for his departure.

Friday, 26 May 1972

G. Gordon Liddy, Alfred Baldwin, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, CIA's James McCord, and several Cuban CIA contract agents purportedly are engaged in a failed attempt to break into the Watergate—the "Ameritas dinner" attempt. [NOTE: There was no such attempt at a break-in See 26 May 1972: The "Ameritas Dinner" and Alfred Baldwin.]

Saturday, 27 May 1972

G. Gordon Liddy, Alfred Baldwin, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, CIA's James McCord, and several Cuban CIA contract agents purportedly are engaged in a second failed attempt to break into the Watergate. [NOTE: But there was no such "second attempt." See 27 May 1972: The "second failed attempt" and Alfred Baldwin.]

Sunday, 28 May 1972

G. Gordon Liddy, Alfred Baldwin, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, CIA's James McCord, and several Cuban CIA contract agents purportedly are engaged in a successful "first break-in" at DNC headquarters at the Watergate. According to their later claims, McCord placed two electronic bugs in the DNC headquarters during the "first break-in," and Bernard Barker purportedly had photos taken of the office of the Chairman, Lawrence O'Brien, and of documents on his desk. [NOTE: There is no physical evidence that any such "first break-in" ever took place, or the purported two earlier failed attempts on the same holiday weekend. Barker later testified that he never was in O'Brien's office at all, and a telephone company sweep found no electronic bugs in the DNC at all (see 15 June 1972). For full coverage, see The Watergate "First Break-In Dilemma and There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate. There is nothing to account for the whereabouts of Liddy, Hunt, McCord, and Baldwin over the entire Memorial Day Weekend except the conflicting and contradictory anecdotal accounts of the co-conspirators themselves, which they volunteered when "caught" inside the building on 17 June 1972, while being represented by Douglas Caddy. See also 3 September 1971 for similarities in the purported "Fielding office break-in," including personnel involved and the use of a holiday weekend, in that case the Labor Day weekend.]

AFTERWORD: Douglas Caddy will later appear in court ostensibly representing all four of the arrested CIA-connected Cubans, plus CIA's James McCord, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, and G. Gordon Liddy, who has "special CIA clearances." Later, on Wednesday, 3 January 1973, the very day that Daniel Ellsberg goes on trial, CIA's Anthony Goldin hand delivers to the Department of Justice Watergate prosecutors copies of 10 photos of E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy taken at the office of Ellsberg psychiatrist Lewis J. Fielding, with Fielding's name on the door clearly visible. These will later be turned over to the Ellsberg court, and all charges against Ellsberg will be dropped. [NOTE: See 26 August 1971, when Liddy and Hunt flew to Los Angeles to take the photos of each other.]

=========================

Now, Dan, given all the foregoing, allow me to see if I can sum up your position in the most pithy way possible, and you be sure to correct me if I have this wrong. (Drum roll, please.)

DANIEL: NIXON DID IT.

<Cymbal crash>

Ashton Gray

[Terry Mauro]

Whatever. As you can tell, I believe you are a fraud, "Ashton" or "Nick" or whatever your name may be. But you can, of course, prove me wrong. All you have to do is post what you have written or edited under your name. Any articles or links to articles of the Kansas City Free Press will do, just as long as it's not a "ghost-written" piece (if it's not under your name, then you didn't write it, nicht wahr?). As a quid pro quo, to prove my own bona fides, I post here an excerpt from the book I'm currently re-writing which has already been published under this copyright information:

They Will Not Follow a Stranger

© 2004 by D. W. Dunn. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the author.

First published by AuthorHouse 06/22/04

ISBN: 1-4184-6184-9 (e-book)

ISBN: 1-4184-2684-9 (Paperback)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2003097515

This is the beginning of Chapter 11:

We are limited by textual sources and the images they evoke when we try to envision an ancient figure in an historical sense. If contrary images arise due to contrary information in different texts, we are forced to examine underlying assumptions and motivations on which the texts might be based. Then we have to deal with images evoked in the midst of assessing the assumptions and motivations. And all of these will be interpreted in different ways by people, as they evoke different images and suggest different conclusions for different minds. When the subject of an historical study is an object of religious faith such considerations are magnified, and the best we can hope for is a fair appraisal of the available evidence and the drawing of merely tentative conclusions. That is unsatisfactory, since we want certainty instead of ambiguity; but it is especially relevant in a study of John the Baptist, since there is so little information about him.

Consider the figure of Apollos with which this study began. According to Paul, Apollos was a prominent leader among early Christians, on a level of authority with Simon Peter and Paul himself, who had succeeded Paul as the principal missionary for the Corinthian congregation. According to the author of Luke-Acts, Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew active at Ephesus and Corinth, who taught “accurately” about Jesus but “knew only John’s baptism.” This combined information is very suggestive and open to interpretation but one clear conclusion can be drawn: Apollos and Paul were actively involved in a movement inspired some twenty years earlier by Jesus of Nazareth and John the Baptist which had spread as far as Greece. This implies a close original association between John and Jesus; it should also make us think twice about ideas that John and Jesus were archaic figures shrouded in mystery, or that information about them can self-evidently be of dubious accuracy (a quarter of a century is not a tremendous period of time).

Then consider once more the figure of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, who ordered the beheading of John the Baptist. According to Josephus, Antipas was apprehensive about John’s popular authority and so had him captured and executed. According to the Synoptic Gospels, Antipas was upset about criticisms of adultery and so had John imprisoned. But there the Synoptics diverge, with Matthew indicating that Antipas was distressed at the prospect of the political repercussions of executing John (a perspective Josephus seems to confirm by relating that people thought Antipas’ later misfortune was God’s judgement for the execution). Mark absolves Antipas of much of the blame for the execution, making him distressed because he really thought a lot of John, while Luke presents Antipas—far from being apprehensive about anything—as pretty excited at the prospect of getting to meet Jesus. Josephus and Matthew appear to be somewhat closer to the real world than Mark or Luke.

Finally, reconsider the image of John the Baptist in Mark’s Gospel. There we find a prophet from the past who is referred to only in connection with matters pertaining to Jesus. While that is appropriate in a Christian Gospel, if we assume that Mark is the earliest Gospel, how do we account for a remote image of the Baptist? In the previous chapter a divergence was indicated among the Synoptics on the message, “repent, for the kingdom is upon you”: Matthew has both John and Jesus proclaiming it, while Luke has neither and describes general themes (repentance, teaching, good news, and so on); but Mark has only Jesus proclaiming it and not John. If the other two Gospels are based on Mark, the originality of such a message may be in doubt since it could be understood as a theme of concern to later Christians being retrojected into the past—in anticipation of Christ’s return, repentance is required. Mark presents Jesus as the authority behind the later message while Matthew has both John and Jesus as the authorities, revealing a “tendency” to associate the two men together.

But the best argument against this view and in favor of the originality of the message is how early the entire focus of Christian belief seems to have been on confessing that Christ is Lord. And Mark specifies that the Baptist’s “proclamation ran: ‘After me comes one who is mightier than I. I am not fit to unfasten his shoes. I have baptized you with water; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’ ” In the immediately following passage Jesus appears, and so John’s proclamation becomes a testimony to Jesus’ messianic identity. This tends to further argue in Matthew’s favor, since he seems less concerned with John providing testimony and immediately tells us that John’s message involved the need for repentance in light of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of Heaven (and later informs us that Jesus took up the same message).

But this brings up once more the issue of the Q Gospel and Mark’s relation to it. If the author of Mark was inspired by Q material, he appears to have been less comfortable with certain images than with others. The appearance of some questioners (QS 16) and Jesus’ comparison of the qualities of the two children of wisdom (QS 18) might have been reinterpreted to draw a sharper contrast and allow for an exposition on the church’s relationship to its bridegroom. Jesus’ tribute to John (QS 17) disappears except for the connection to Malachi 3.1 (becoming the first thing Mark indicates about John) and an oblique reference to Elijah without mentioning John’s name. And far from expressing any doubts about Jesus’ messianic identity, John is presented as proclaiming a message reduced to just those terms which express such an identity for Jesus.

If Mark’s author was unable to avoid the figure of the Baptist, it may have been all the more important to have John appear in an initial summary emphasizing his heraldic role and then presenting him more distantly. In this sense an image of John as some ancient prophet from bygone days is stressed and reinforced by a seemingly common identification of Jesus with “John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the (other) prophets.”

According to the Gospel of Mark, the message of John the Baptist was a testimony to the identity of the Messiah. This is the same testimony provided by the forerunner and witness to the light in the Gospel of John. There the Baptist’s message from QS 4-5 appears even further reduced and transformed: “This is the man I meant when I said, ‘He comes after me, but takes rank before me’; for before I was born, he already was” (John 1.15). From this we begin to see that the Fourth Gospel’s presentation of John might be an extended lyrical interpretation of the presentation of Mark, similar to the way Mark may have reinterpreted his Q Gospel source.

At John 1.23, questioners come to the Baptist and he identifies himself with the passage from Isaiah 40.3, the second passage of Mark’s opening prophecy on John (Mark 1.3). John then answers another question by referring to someone in the immediate vicinity “who is to come after” him (John 1.26-27), which results in the development of the remaining elements of John’s proclamation on baptizing with water and being unfit to unfasten. And all of this comes to an initial conclusion with the testimony that Jesus had been revealed as the one “who is to baptize in Holy Spirit” when John “saw the Spirit coming down from heaven like a dove and resting upon him”—but without mentioning Jesus’ actually having been baptized by John, and giving every indication that revealing the Messiah was the sole purpose for John’s baptizing in the first place (John 1.31-33).

The next reference in Mark involves the question on fasting disciples, which becomes an exposition on a bridegroom and his friends (Mark 2.18-22). In the Fourth Gospel there was some dispute (with “Jews”) about purification and Jesus’ popularity, which resulted in John’s deferential observations about a bride belonging to the bridegroom (John 3.25-30). The final reference by Mark involves Jesus’ authority in the temple and the validity of the baptism of John (Mark 11.29-33). This also seems to correspond with the Fourth Gospel’s story about Jesus answering a “charge” (in the temple?—see John 5.14) with an extended exposition on honor and authority (John 5.19-47) in which John’s “testimony to the truth” is brought up to remind the challengers of it for their “own salvation.”

None of these are dependent parallels in the sense that Matthew and Luke contain such parallels to Mark or Q, but they are very close thematic correspondences in the same sense that Mark’s comparison of non-fasting by Jesus’ disciples with the fasting of the Pharisees and John’s disciples corresponds closely to a comparison between John and the Son of Man in QS 18.

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

"This is the beginning of Chapter 11:

We are limited by textual sources and the images they evoke when we try to envision an ancient figure in an historical sense. If contrary images arise due to contrary information in different texts, we are forced to examine underlying assumptions and motivations on which the texts might be based. Then we have to deal with images evoked in the midst of assessing the assumptions and motivations. And all of these will be interpreted in different ways by people, as they evoke different images and suggest different conclusions for different minds. When the subject of an historical study is an object of religious faith such considerations are magnified, and the best we can hope for is a fair appraisal of the available evidence and the drawing of merely tentative conclusions. That is unsatisfactory, since we want certainty instead of ambiguity; but it is especially relevant in a study of John the Baptist, since there is so little information about him.

Consider the figure of Apollos with which this study began. According to Paul, Apollos was a prominent leader among early Christians, on a level of authority with Simon Peter and Paul himself, who had succeeded Paul as the principal missionary for the Corinthian congregation. According to the author of Luke-Acts, Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew active at Ephesus and Corinth, who taught “accurately” about Jesus but “knew only John’s baptism.” This combined information is very suggestive and open to interpretation but one clear conclusion can be drawn: Apollos and Paul were actively involved in a movement inspired some twenty years earlier by Jesus of Nazareth and John the Baptist which had spread as far as Greece. This implies a close original association between John and Jesus; it should also make us think twice about ideas that John and Jesus were archaic figures shrouded in mystery, or that information about them can self-evidently be of dubious accuracy (a quarter of a century is not a tremendous period of time)."

Dan,

Sorry for sounding like a nitwit, or mentally challenged, but I'm having difficulty making the parallels of this very well researched and written chapter, follow an analogy with the timeline of the Watergate players. For instance, who represents Apollos, Nixon? Are Hunt, Liddy, Martinez, Barker, and McCord the disciples? And, the Pharisees, do they represent the CIA, the FBI, or the DNC? I'm lost here.

Thanks,

Ter

[Terry Mauro]

Dan,

I'm lost here.

Thanks,

Ter

Being a supporter of Lyndon Larouche, you apparently are.

But good luck with it.

Dan

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

"Being a supporter of Lyndon Larouche, you apparently are."

I could be among worse company.

[Ashton Gray]

But you can feel better about one thing: I won't be here any more.

"You won't have Nixon to kick around any more." —Richard Milhous Nixon, 1962

Ashton Gray

Edited July 3, 2006 by Ashton Gray