Jump to content
The Education Forum

Douglas Caddy and the CIA


Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My own thought on the CIA’s involvement in Watergate is this: There is no doubt that the June 17, 1972 arrests stemmed from the discovery by Frank Wills, a security guard, of a piece of tape on a door in the Watergate complex building that housed the Democratic National Committee.

Does this clear the CIA of any involvement in Watergate? I would answer in the negative. There is ample evidence posted by Forum members that the CIA knew something was afoot, which stemmed from the contacts made with it by White House personnel and by Hunt and Liddy prior to June 17, 1972.

The CIA is in the information gathering business. Thus, sooner or later the CIA might have made the strategic decision to act somehow on whatever information it had of Hunt’s and Liddy’s activities, perhaps adversely to Nixon’s interest. Or it might have saved the information for purposes of blackmailing or threatening Nixon.

However, it did not have to reach a decision. Frank Wills, the security guard at the Watergate complex, saved the CIA from having to do this by finding the piece of tape and sounding the alert, which led to the arrests of the five burglars and the subsequent unraveling of the Nixon administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you rightly say, the Watergate burglars were caught because of James McCord’s tape. However, the reason that journalists connected up the burglary with the CIA was McCord’s statement in court on the morning after his arrest. McCord voluntarily told the court that he had been a former employee of the CIA. He did not need to do that. That triggered off a series of events that eventually brought down Richard Nixon.

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

John, I will have a new topic started in the Watergate forum within 24 hours from the time stamp on this post that addresses this exact issue. It's entitled "Hunt, Dean, Gray and the CIA Bait-and-Switch," and describes in detail the precise bait-and-switch that the CIA already had set up going in that would first direct attention to CIA (which they knew they couldn't avoid, since they were using double agents), then dramatically switch all attention off CIA and fully and permanently onto the White House.

As for Mr. Caddy's statment that he has answered all questions related to his possible involvement with CIA, I would direct forum readers to the topics Douglas Caddy, Hunt, Liddy, Mullen, and the CIA and Who Was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When? for a host of unanswered questions that go pertinently to involvement with and cooperation with CIA interests, "employment" by CIA not withstanding.

I've read everything that Mr. Caddy has written in this forum, and nothing I've seen that he has written answers those many outstanding questions at all.

I write this here with a full understanding of the friction that stands between me and Mr. Caddy, for which I'll take full responsibility. But in the second thread I linked to above, I attempted, in good faith, to address even that:

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

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

As for any "tag-teaming" between John and me...

:ice

John: if you want to tag-team with me, hire a secretary for me. I can't even get around to doing the dishes, much less conspiring with anybody.

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.
I also understand why you are unwilling to admit to being a CIA asset.

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

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

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

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

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

Ashton is not always as polite as he should be.

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

However, he is clearly very knowledgeable about Watergate

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

and has raised some very important questions.

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Douglas Caddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton is not always as polite as he should be.

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

I must have missed this. Can you provide examples where Ashton called Doug Caddy and Pat Speer a xxxx?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever Mr. Caddy was or was not, is or is not, he has been kind enough to be here on the Forum and tell what he knows/thinks of real events and real players in Watergate and other events connected and I'd personally hope that persons wouldn't badger him so much as to induce him to leave the Forum. We would be better served if there were more persons actually involved in the events we talk about here - not less!

All right, Mr. Lemkin. I'm going to defer completely to your seniority here, and to your own wisdom on this. I'm posting below the 52 questions I have asked Mr. Caddy in one of the threads I started in the Watergate forum: Who was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When? While many of these questions go, obviously, directly to who Mr. Caddy was representing, and when, several of them also go to a possible, and in my view very likely, hidden links between Mr. Caddy and CIA—which he has steadfastly denied, which denials I understand you to accept at face value.

Accepting, arguendo, your presumptions, I am submitting these questions not to Mr. Caddy, but to you, with the respectful request that you act as an ambassador of good will and good faith; and that you, in your sole discretion, comb through these 52 questions, filtering them for "badgering," halitosis, or any other offensive vestige; and, having bowlderized and disinfected them to your complete satisfaction, that you select any number, however small—out of 52 possibilities—that you think might have enough merit to place on a velvet cushion and 'umbly submit to his personage.

The reason I am submitting this respectful request to you is that these questions have been lying fallow in the field of the Watergate forum now for over two weeks, and Douglas Caddy, central to Watergate, and central to every last one of these 52 questions, has not deigned to answer a single one. Not one.

Now, I realize that we have a resident "Questions Exorcist" in the forum who is a great protector and defender of Mr. Caddy, and who has already attempted an exorcism on these questions in the originating thread, apparently in an effort to justify Mr. Caddy not going anywhere near this demon work. So you also have my permission to sprinkle them with Holy Water, just in case.

Therefore, I 'umbly tender these questions to your charge and trust, with only this one fervent request: that you do not, under any circumstance, desecrate, profane, or contaminate any of these questions, or insult my intelligence beyond reparation, by accepting a no-answer or evasion on any of them, then misrepresenting that as having been an "answer." This includes any form or version of "I already answered this before" worm-outs, because if he had, I wouldn't have asked them. He hasn't. Period.

With that:

This message combines all the questions I asked Douglas Caddy in three separate messages at the beginning of the above captioned thread. The questions arise out of clear contradictions and omissions in the record regarding when and under what circumstances Mr. Caddy purportedly was hired to represent various actors in Watergate.

In the original three messages where these questions reside, I include comparative testimony and accounts on these events from Douglas Caddy, E. Howard Hunt, and G. Gordon Liddy, which clearly demonstrate significant contradictions. I recommend reading those articles for a better understanding of the questions.

Quite a few of the questions below go to those contradictions. There is a fundamental principal at work: when two "facts" are contradictory, one is false, or both are false. Both can't be true. Both might be false. To assume either is true is a fool's game. (We are honored to have a grand master of that game in this thread. He also styles himself as a masterful critic of questions. And where would civilization be today without someone to keep a constant vigilant watch on questions?)

On other important points, the record is silent, and I have asked some questions in an effort to solicit the cooperation of Mr. Caddy, with his unique percipient knowledge, to provide information to fill in those gaps.

QUESTIONS FOR DOUGLAS CADDY SET I

These questions arise from the article containing Douglas Caddy's own statements and accounts of events related to Watergate, in which there are contradictions and incongruous events that seem to have no explanation (such as knowing which aliases the arrested men had given to police, or knowing what Liddy's role had been in order to brief Caddy's law partner).

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

QUESTIONS FOR DOUGLAS CADDY SET II

These questions encompass and compare Hunt's account and Mr. Caddy's own accounts and statements, addressing not only contradictions in the various accounts, but also omissions of information that reasonably would be expected to be in the record, without which certain claims, statements, and event simply make little or no sense. As in all cases, I'm not foolish or naive enough to make the rash assumption that either of two conflicting "facts" automatically is true. Nor do I assume that one has to be false. One might be true. If two or more people are lying to cover up the truth, though, obviously all "facts" they present will be false, and the truth remains an unknown. I'm trying to get to the truth.

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

QUESTIONS FOR DOUGLAS CADDY SET III

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

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

UPDATE:

Given that the resident Questions Exorcist is an attorney and I am not, and given that he has invoked the Great Gods of Privilege with his mystic incantations on behalf of Mr. Caddy (which he has no standing to do), I am including below several points from my entirely lay understanding of the subject as they may or may not be relevant to all the foregoing, with the express caveat that this doesn't remotely pretend to be legal advice or opinion, but only my own personal opinion from my limited lay knowledge:

  • The party seeking the protection of the privilege must be an actual or prospective client. The purported early-morning discussions between Hunt, Liddy, and Caddy therefore invoked no privilege vis a vis the five burglars unless Hunt and/or Liddy already, themselves, were legally established as agents for any or all of them. Even then, see "disclosure to third parties," below.
  • The communication must be between the client and an attorney acting as counsel for the client.
  • The communication must be made in confidence, outside the presence of third parties. "Public" communications are not protected. Every question I have asked is pursuant to public communications from Caddy, Hunt, and Liddy.
  • The purpose of the communication must be to secure or provide an opinion of law or legal assistance. The privilege does not protect the underlying facts, general legal discussions, business or other non-legal advice. Please note that during the afternoon of June 17, 1972, Caddy is on public record saying that the burglars are "not my clients." I'm even trying to ascertain, first, whether that was true or an extraordinary public lie. If it were true, then there is no privilege to claim.
  • The privilege must be asserted. The privilege does not automatically attach, and it must be claimed at the time of demand by a third party. Pretty much all of the questions I've asked have not been asked before, and no privilege has been asserted for them.
  • The privilege is easily lost or "waived" by disclosures to third parties. The privilege can be lost by voluntary disclosure. Also, involuntary or accidental disclosure may destroy the privilege. Everything I've asked about is pursuant to exactly such public disclosures.
  • The privilege does not attach to communications in furtherance of an ongoing or prospective illegal activity. In addition, the privilege does not apply when an attorney defends himself or herself against charges of wrongful conduct. There is ample suggestion in the record, to me, of wrongful and even incompetent conduct, and I'm trying to get those impressions cleared away. I would think Mr. Caddy would be enthusiastically helpful in doing just that.

With great anticipation, I remain, yer 'umble servant,

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, wait a moment....Ashton...I do not take Mr. Caddy's word at face value and have not stated what I think he was or was not. Further I was not saying you were badgering him. I was simply stating what I was stating - nothing more, nothing less. Please don't read into it. I have no sway with him and have never met nor emailed nor even exchanged any Forum emails about him but two...

Okay, Peter. Sorry. I really don't blame you at all for not wanting to get in the middle of this. :hotorwot:D

At least my questions are in the record here, and I think anybody with a modicum of sense can see that they certainly are not some kind of gratuitous abuse—as they've falsely been portrayed. They are serious questions in an attempt to resolve serious issues.

And I completely agree with you (and more than a few others) about the importance of Watergate. I believe that when it falls, the truth about the JFK assassination will topple into the world's lap. And right now, what's left of Watergate is being propped up with a few toothpicks, and those are showing heavy strain. It's why I'm concentrating so much effort on it. As I said in that forum, there is all the evidence needed sitting in that forum right this minute showing it to have been nothing but a CIA domestic black op against the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States during time of war. And that is Treason, by statute, on its face.

.........and I was totally against anyone with such a nice hat ever being considered for removal from the Forum.

Ahhh, it's just some old stuff CIA had left over from disguising Hunt and Liddy. It's to keep people from finding out that I'm really L. Patrick Gray.

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Whatever Mr. Caddy was or was not, is or is not, he has been kind enough to be here on the Forum and tell what he knows/thinks of real events and real players in Watergate and other events connected and I'd personally hope that persons wouldn't badger him so much as to induce him to leave the Forum. We would be better served if there were more persons actually involved in the events we talk about here - not less! Besides, anyone who can post the lines above, can't be all bad....in my book.

I appreciate your above comments. Until the arrival of Ashton Gray and the ensuing chaos in the Forum, I had attempted to answer all questions posed to me about Watergate and the Kennedy assassination to the best of my ability. Apparently Mr. Gray, with the tacit encouragement of our moderator, has seen fit the change the character of the questions posed so that they are initially framed on false premises. I have neither the time nor energy nor inclination to answer such questions, which any objective observer would readily see are unprofessional and designed to mislead the reader.

I shall continue to answer questions posed by other Forum members to the best of my ability when such questions reflect an honest intention to elicit any information that I may possess about these two historical events.

In case you missed the recent posting I made in the Watergate topic under the thread dealing with Ashton Gray's violations of the Board's Guidelines, I am reproducing this below. My posting reflects another reason why the questions posed by Mr. Gray are not deserved of my answers:

Forum members and readers of this thread are invited to contrast what Ashton Gray has written about the first break-in at Watergate and the documents below from Wikipedia. The dates of Huntley Troth writing on this topic in Wikipedia and those of Ashton Gray in our Watergate Forum appear to be suspiciously aligned. Huntley Troth even makes note in Wikipedia of the virus that appeared in the Spartacus Forum on virtually the same day of its appearance.

In Wikipedia an alert observer who apparently can spot a phony writes about Huntley Troth:

“What I forgot to mention: The already dubiously looking name given by the original author is nothing but an unimaginative anagram of "Only the Truth". I leave it to others to check out how reliable Wikipedia contributions are whose authors claim that they possess the truth.”

In the Watergate forum reference has been made that Ashton Gray is the name of Canadian porn star.

I leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions of whether Ashton Gray may actually be Huntley Troth or whether both of these are made-up names for someone who actually may be an undisclosed third party. Or whatever or however the bizarre case may be. In any event the credibility of Ashton Gray and Huntley Troth is being questioned in the Watergate Forum and in Wikipedia.

From Wikipedia::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/Huntley_Troth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Watergate_first_break-in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the arrival of Ashton Gray and the ensuing chaos in the Forum

Just for those marking their scorecards at home: "the ensuing chaos," strangely enough, only swirls around four people: you and Alfred Baldwin (both Watergate figures), and two forum members who have uniformly attacked and attempted to smear me without provocation, while sabotaging threads related to you and Baldwin where I've been trying to get some straight answers to straight simple questions, both of those posters uniformly CIA apologists and naysayers for any CIA involvement in Watergate, when the evidence is clear that it was a CIA black domestic op from the "leak" of the Pentagon Papers straight through your representation of the "burglars." I just don't want anyone to get lulled into falsely believing there's been other "chaos." That's really a pretty small set where "chaos" has been concerned.

Other correspondence I've had with others member of this forum has been respectful and pleasant, and has dealt with relevant issues. Apparently you find it offensive that that happens to include John Simkin. Okay. Get over it. Or don't.

I had attempted to answer all questions posed to me about Watergate and the Kennedy assassination to the best of my ability. Apparently Mr. Gray, with the tacit encouragement of our moderator, has seen fit the change the character of the questions posed so that they are initially framed on false premises.

Heh. Well, yes: they're framed on the false premises built into your own self-conflicted testimony, and its relationship to testimony of co-conspirators of yours, Hunt and Liddy, with which it clashes like plaid and polka dots.

If you want to keep being in a snit with me just because you can't get your own conflicting stories to make sense, and if you want to continue to refuse to answer any questions that I've written just becaue I have the unmitigated gall to bring these contradictions to your attention for your disposition, that's all right. I don't mind.

Comparing my writing style to Huntley Troth's, though: well, that's just a little bit catty if you ask me. That just cuts to the quick.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

both of those posters uniformly CIA apologists and naysayers for any CIA involvement in Watergate, when the evidence is clear that it was a CIA black domestic op.

I believe I may be one of the two posters referred to here by Mr. Gray. I defy Mr. Gray to produce even a scintilla of evidence to support his assertion that I am a "naysayer for the CIA." or that I ever suggested that Watergate was NOT a CIA black domestic op. The only place I ever suggested that Watergate was not a CIA op. was in Ashton Grey's very disorderly mind.

I have referred earlier to my admiration for Jim Hougan's book, where I first saw this theory presented, and I have seen nothing in the intervening years to disprove the basic thrust of Hougan's theory. In this respect, I think my views sharply diverge from those of Messrs Caddy & Spears.

quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 10 2006, 02:09 AM' post='67779']

Heh. Well, yes: they're framed on the false premises built into your [Douglas Caddy's] own self-conflicted testimony, and its relationship to testimony of co-conspirators of yours, Hunt and Liddy, with which it clashes like plaid and polka dots.

Ashton Gray

Mr. Gray wants us to believe that Mr. Caddy has said some things that are in contradiction. An example he sometimes uses is the lunch with Bernard Barker and Howard Hunt. Mr. Caddy has told the story twice, and both times he said that the main topic of conversation was the Bay of Pigs, yet Mr. Gray finds a contradiction between two versions of the story, when the two versions are in fact identical. Mr. Gray's theory is that the real subject of the conversation must have been something else. Having no evidence to support his theory, a reasonable man would throw it on the scrap heap with his other disappointed theories and move on to something more fruitful.

But not Mr. Gray. If Mr. Caddy's evidence does not support Ashton Gray's pet theory, then Mr. Caddy must be [censored].

Not satisfied with calling Doug Caddy a [censored] -- whether directly or by some more devious route -- he now accuses him of being a conspirator. Conspiracy is a felony crime that carries a very long prison sentance. No one should make an accusation like that against anyone without sufficient evidence, but to accuse a fellow forum member of such a serious crime, without a shred of evidence, is something that should not be tolerated by the moderators, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the arrival of Ashton Gray and the ensuing chaos in the Forum

Just for those marking their scorecards at home: "the ensuing chaos," strangely enough, only swirls around four people: you and Alfred Baldwin (both Watergate figures), and two forum members who have uniformly attacked and attempted to smear me without provocation, while sabotaging threads related to you and Baldwin where I've been trying to get some straight answers to straight simple questions, both of those posters uniformly CIA apologists and naysayers for any CIA involvement in Watergate, when the evidence is clear that it was a CIA black domestic op from the "leak" of the Pentagon Papers straight through your representation of the "burglars." I just don't want anyone to get lulled into falsely believing there's been other "chaos." That's really a pretty small set where "chaos" has been concerned.

Ashton Gray

Ashton, I'm gaining some distance on your nonsense and finally beginning to enjoy it for what it is: a complete put-on. Are you related to Andy Kaufman? The actor you use in your photo bears a slight resemblance.

So I'm a CIA apologist? What a laugh. I have no problem accepting that the CIA, once it realized Nixon planned on using them as a scapegoat for the Watergate break-in, decided to protect itself. I have no problem accepting that someone had a little talk with McCord and perhaps even asked him to come forward and talk to Sirica. I have no problem accepting that Nixon suspected as much and arranged for "The Family Jewels" to be created, and then orchestrated their release via Seymour Hersh once he was forced from office. None of these things particularly phase me.

What does upset me is your insistence that the release of the Pentagon Papers, the creation of the Diem cables and the Watergate break-ins were all orchestrated by the CIA, and that Nixon and his closest advisers were somehow blameless in these events. This, to me, is a suspiciously bizarre assertion. Probably no period in history has been covered as extensively as the Watergate period, what with dozens of the participants testifiying and/or writing their memoirs. And yet no one on the inside, outside of perhaps Colson and perhaps Nixon, ever suspected the CIA was behind it. Haldeman knew it was Colson, Dean, Mitchell, Magruder, Hunt, and Liddy. Ehrlichman knew it was Colson, Dean, Mitchell, Magruder, Hunt, and Liddy. Dean knew it was the same guys. Mitchell pointedly called the events the "White House Horrors;" he never once called them "the CIA-orchestrated horrors," as far as I'm aware.

Your contention that Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers as per instruction from the CIA is particularly bizarre. You cite this as a fact without presenting one bit of evidence, outside the fact that Ellsberg knew some people in the CIA. OF COURSE he did. Before you can be a whistle-blower you need to be close enough to smell the coffee. I was a whistle-blower in a criminal case involving the record industry. I'd witnessed and participated in numerous scams, which put me in the position of recognizing a really big scam on the employees of the company when it came along. Please cite one piece of evidence indicating that the CIA benefitted from Ellsberg's release of the papers, or helped him in any way.

In sum, I find your whole approach to history anti-human. You talk about the CIA as if it is the BORG or some other science-fiction creation. You fail to tell us why someone like John Dean, the personal attorney to the most powerful man on Earth, would take orders from a distant underling to this man, knowing full well that this underling could be fired or removed at any second by the powerful man. What was his pay-off for such an act? Some time in jail and a lifetime in fear of Gordon Liddy? It appears you fail to understand or appreciate the human drama of the Watergate scandal. Why Colson would betray Hunt. Why Hunt would lie to the Cubans. Why Liddy would hate Dean. Why Haldeman would write a book mentioning the "Bay of Pigs thing." None of these men are the least bit real to you. To you, they were not church-going men with families who tried to live good lives but got side-tracked and/or seduced by power. No, to you they were robots taking commands from some distant radio-transmitter for station WCIA, who knowingly perpetuated some gigantic and unnecessarily convoluted lie covering up that Nixon, AFTER 5 YEARS of CIA plotting, was forced from office, and CIA-puppet Gerry Ford placed on the throne. As I said before, if the CIA was so intent on putting Ford in office, why didn't it do anything to help him stay in office? I mean, George H.W. Bush was DCI--where oh where are the 1976 CIA plots against Carter?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton, I in fact, I am more inclined to your general view that Watergate was much bigger and complex than just a White House plumbers op! The events of and some players of and blackmail about Dallas seems to be involved. Also involved seems to me to be a battle between the CIA and other forces and/or persons and Nixon for power or control over certain information. The Kennedy Assassination has taught me that the 'apparent' veneer of stability and constitutional/governmental process is just that - a veneer. Under that veneer or stage set there are titanic battles by mostly unseen forces for power. These battles are not done in public view and are continuous - but occassionally can be seen as the tip of a shark fin while it is devouring something underwater. What we call Watergate seems to me to be one of those. I am even inclined to think that at some point it was decided that Nixon had to go and that was no big 'deal', they get rid of presidents all the time. Who the they is is not so easy to define.....CIA seems to fit.....but as with Dallas I think the CIA is not monolithic and there are internal wars also.

A very good analysis of the situation. Nixon was clearly one of the most corrupt politicians in American history (although I think Johnson and George H. W. Bush were worse). However, that is not the reason he was removed from power by the CIA. As you rightly say, the CIA is not “monolithic and there are internal wars”. That is why the John Paisley case needs to be examined in detail. The problem with the CIA is that officers and assets rarely go on record about its illegal activities. That is why Nixon signed his death warrant when he instructed James Schlesinger on 9th May, 1973, to issue this directive to all CIA employees: “I have ordered all senior operating officials of this Agency to report to me immediately on any activities now going on, or might have gone on in the past, which might be considered to be outside the legislative charter of this Agency. I hereby direct every person presently employed by CIA to report to me on any such activities of which he has knowledge. I invite all ex-employees to do the same. Anyone who has such information should call my secretary and say that he wishes to talk to me about “activities outside the CIA’s charter”.

The problem for Nixon was the CIA knew too much about his past activities and was able to put into operation the means to remove him from office. All the known facts about this case suggest that the CIA were closely involved in the removal of Nixon. I suspect that some of the officers involved were also the same ones who removed JFK from office. That is no coincidence. After all, it was Nixon who first tried to blackmail the CIA with reference to the JFK assassination. Who better to take the rap than E. Howard Hunt.

Mr. Caddy, I know you have been upset at Ashton - but please rise above the personal here. We are talking about our nation's hidden history and fate/future - as I think that without fully understanding Dallas and Watergate and a few other 'little' similar matters we can't understand nor properly analyze 911, the monstrous Bush Administration or whatever horrors are just around the corner....please help us. Ashton has asked a long series of quite specific questions. He asks them in a very challenging way and you take offense at that, I know...but there are many of us out here who would love to know - who need to know - who deserve to know what you know about the inter-related issues. Personally, I think America is heading for its final crisis in the next few years. I think the fact we have not 'dealt' with the events [such as Dallas or Watergate] are much [but not all of] the reason we find ourselves where we are. I don't think we have another 25 years to learn some of the details and lessons....it will be too late by then and I'm not optimistic we will still be able to chat like this then [nor that some of us will still be around...but that is another matter]. I see a real totalitarian, police-state, neo-fascist future for America [as strange as that may sound to many!] if we don't use the lessons of the past to get rid of the secret forces now pushing us in that direction. Your analysis of where we are now under Bush is generally correct in my view....do YOU think that as-yet-undealt-with/unresolved/unknown aspects of Watergate or Dallas have allowed certain persons or forces or power groups to bring us to where we are today - or that they are unrelated entirely? And, I hope you will answer Mr. Gray's questions - at least some of them. Would it help if they were asked in slightly different, less confrontatinal form by others? Sincerely,

I am not as pessimistic as you about the possibility of a “real totalitarian, police-state, neo-fascist future for America”. I say this mainly because the power of the state has been weakened by the development of the internet. The state can no longer control our minds in the way they did in the past. The only real problem we face is apathy. However, I hope when the crunch comes, the people of America will take to the streets in order to prevent the complete removal of democracy.

Doug, I would echo the comments made by Peter. I know I have upset you by allowing Ashton the freedom to ask you some awkward questions. However, I know from your recent writings, that you are on the right side and will do what you can to reveal the corruption of the political process that has been taking place over the last 60 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton is not always as polite as he should be.

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

I must have missed this. Can you provide examples where Ashton called Doug Caddy and Pat Speer a xxxx?

Ashton gray called Pat Speer a [censored] in this post on the Diem thread:

You've just read Pat Speer's presentation. Do you know? Can you say with any certainty? Well, if you didn't notice, Speer altered Colson's testimony. I noticed. Maybe he thought it would slide by. Not a chance. Here's what Colson actually said about having ever seen these purported "cables," and I'd advise you to read the following more carefully than anything you have read in your life:

  • QUESTION: Well, he showed them to you, whether they were at your direction, and let's assume they were not, you saw the cables and you knew that they were fabricated, did you not?
    CHARLES COLSON: I saw— I was aware of— I don't know that I actually physically saw one cable that was—
    QUESTION: Did you know it was fabricated?
    COLSON Yes, sir. I did.
    QUESTION: Did you tell him not to publish that cable or not to use it or destroy it?
    COLSON: Yes, sir. I certainly didn't tell him to destroy it—

Had you noticed that Mr. Speer had put a period at the end of the non-sentence, "I was aware of", attempting to make it look like it was an affirmative statement, instead of the faltering, noncommital false start it actually was? Did it sound like sort of a funny "answer" when you read Mr. Speer's fudged version? That's because it was. I'll leave you to judge Mr. Speer's motives for his subtle alteration of testimony.

Ashton Gray

Not only is he calling Mr. Speer a [censored], he is in effect accusing Mr. Speer of two felony crimes, forgery and uttering a forged document. These are the very crimes that Mr. Gray says Howard Hunt is innocent of, despite overwhelming evidence, including Hunt's own detailed confession, that Hunt did in fact forge the cables in question, and did utter the forged documents to successfully deceive the New York Times and a national TV audience.

Pat Speer has told the forum that he does not have a scanner and that he was obliged to type in various extracts from the Watergate hearings. It seems that Mr. Speer is no more adept at typing than the rest of us and he typed a period where a comma (or it's equivalent -- a dash) should have been. I would not be surprised if every member of this forum has done the same thing. I don't think it makes much difference to Colson's meaning whether it was a period or a comma, especially since punctuation in the transcript can only be the stenographer's best guess, but Mr Gray seizes on Pat Speer's typo to accuse Mr. Speer of deliberately changing the meaning of Colson's testimony in order to deceive members of the forum.

I regret I did not have time to look up some of the many instances in which Mr. Gray has accused Douglas Caddy -- directly or indirectly -- of being a [censored] As it turned out, Mr. Gray himself saved me the trouble, and he did so only yesterday (U.S time), on this very thread.

quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 10 2006, 02:09 AM' post='67779']

Heh. Well, yes: they're framed on the false premises built into your [Douglas Caddy's] own self-conflicted testimony, and its relationship to testimony of co-conspirators of yours, Hunt and Liddy, with which it clashes like plaid and polka dots.

Ashton Gray

Mr. Gray wants us to believe that Mr. Caddy has said some things that are in contradiction, therefore he is a [censored]. An example he sometimes uses is the lunch with Bernard Barker and Howard Hunt. Mr. Caddy has told the story twice, and both times he said that the main topic of conversation was the Bay of Pigs, yet Mr. Gray finds a contradiction between the two versions of the story, when the two versions are in fact identical. Mr. Gray's theory is that the real subject of the conversation must have been something else. Having no evidence to support his theory, a reasonable man would throw it on the scrap heap with his other disappointed theories and move on to something more fruitful.

But not Mr. Gray. If Mr. Caddy's evidence does not support Ashton Gray's theory, then Mr. Caddy must be [censored].

Not satisfied with calling Doug Caddy a [censored] -- whether directly or by some more devious route -- in the passage just quoted he is now accusing Mr. Caddy of being a conspirator.

Conspiracy is a felony crime that carries a very long prison sentance. No one should make an accusation like that against anyone without sufficient evidence, but to accuse a fellow forum member of such a serious crime, without a shred of evidence, is something that should not be tolerated by the moderators, IMO.

It appears that John Simkin missed these defamatory accusations against two respected forum members. I would be grateful if John would confer with the other moderator Andy Walker, and perhaps issue a joint statement to clarify whether this forum is meant to be devoted to serious inquiry, or whether it is meant to provide a platform for people to propagate vicious libels against fellow members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...