Ashton, are you ready to concede the Diem cables existed? I'd rather not spend my time proving you wrong on this point, but if you insist, I will. Believe me, you should just concede this point and focus on your other poiints.

[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jun 30 2006, 01:29 AM' post='66711']
Ashton, are you ready to concede the Diem cables existed? I'd rather not spend my time proving you wrong on this point, but if you insist, I will. Believe me, you should just concede this point and focus on your other poiints.
[/quote]

So, where's the beef?? Prove him wrong already.

Dawn

Maybe Pat's off trying to find Hunt and get him to forge some cables now so Pat can actually have something to talk about.

Ashton Gray

Ashton, you are the king of obfuscation. Do you or do you not believe the Diem cables existed? Are you really willing to say that Hunt, Colson, Lambert, Ehrlichman, Dean, Nixon, and Gray, all lied about the existence of these cables? Are you really that far gone? If Hunt was part of the conspiracy, and willing to lie about the cables, why wouldn't he have just made the cables? Do you think it was beyond his ability, or the ability of his purported co-conspirators at the CIA, to fake cables?

Do I really need to print the excepts of Hunt's and Gray's testimony, and the Watergate transcript of April 28 1973 to demonstrate you wrong? Are you so over the edge that you can't concede you were just bluffing about the cables, and that they actually existed?

Perhaps what Mr. Gray is trying to tell us is that Howard Hunt would never stoop so low as to forge cables designed to falsely implicate JFK in the assassination of Diem.

For those who came in late to the "Pat Speer Phantom Diem Cables Show," below is the actual record of events leading to this topic that he created, which he started with no substance at all, but a school-yard taunt directed at me. Mr. Speer elected to omit the record that I provide below of the genesis of this topic—for reasons that I believe will be painfully apparent to any rational reader from the record itself:

1) In a completely inappropriate thread, the Alfred C. Baldiwn thread, Speer threw in everything including the kitchen sink, the cabinets, and the contents of the pantry in an attempt to take the thread off-topic and keep it off topic. This is no idle statement. I've provided the link to that thread, and I called him on it several times in that thread. Go see for yourself. Among just one of his off-topic red herrings was a challenge to me regarding purported "forged Diem cables" (having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Alfred Baldwin) which I reproduce here in pertinent part:



2) I responded thusly:



3) Mr. Speer responded thusly:



4) Oh, well then: having not been slapped down big time in quite some time, I would have paid admission to see my own slapping down. Therefore, I hastened to accept Mr. Speer's gentlemanly offer to read back through his Watergate materials and slap me down big time on certain non-negotiable conditions going to his continuing efforts to take the Alfred Baldwin thread off-topic:



5) So did Mr. Speer make good on his bluff and go start the thread then, on June 23, 2006, and lay out his purported case for the Phabulous Phantom Cables in order to slap me down big time? What do you think, gentle reader? Well, I regret to inform you that he did not. No, he did exactly what could be expected: he continued to attempt to sabotage the Alfred Baldwin thread with it, and instead of acting on his chest-thumping bluff, whiffed and weasled:



6) Some of you may think at this point that I'm somehow making this up, that it just couldn't be like this, that I must be forging forum messages from Speer the way Hunt supposedly was forging these no-seeum "cables." But no; no, it happened just this way. Of course I responded the only way any any decent person could do—I accepted his surrender:



And there, a week ago, with Mr. Speer's back-down on the slap-down, the Phabulous Phairy Tale of the Phantom Cables ended. Or so I thought.

I don't know if his own whiff made him churlish, but Mr. Speer has almost been acting like Mr. Smear by attempting to tar me with every despicable, repugnant, revolting brush he could find. So far he's trotted out at least these pathetic paste-on smears trying to stick them onto me:

• Holocaust denyers
• space aliens
• black helicopters
• Jonestown cyanide Kool-Aid massacres

You probably think I'm trying to smear Mr. Speer by accusing him of such debased tactics without cause, but ask him yourself. It's in his record.

So I've put up with all that oblique name-calling from him ("just consider the source, and go on about your business," my Daddy used to say), but then he trailed along behind me—sort of reminiscent of that floating skull in the "Red Meat" comics—into another topic I had started called Who Was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When? and tried to sell me a handful of Douglas Caddy evasion as an "answer" to questions I had asked Mr. Caddy about the Phantom Phone Call from Mrs. Barker, and at that point I'd had enough. And I made the following vow to Mr. Speer:



Well, ever since then, of course Mr. Speer has been tailing along after me into every thread—sort of reminiscent of that floating skull in "Red Meat"—making cat-calls and bullying taunts and saying "Diem cables, Diem cables, Diem cables" in every off-topic place he can spread the fertilizer. (It's in the record. I couldn't make this up.) And of course he still hasn't laid out his purported case for the Phantom Diem Cables.

I wonder why not.

And I'm hereby going on record to say that although my two vows recorded in this message would seem to be contradictory—only because Mr. Speer weasled on the cables the first time I called his bluff, and so folded before I cut all correspondence with him—I try in good faith to honor my word, even when others go back on their own word. So I am on record here as saying that on this one specific, narrow, clearly defined subject of these purported forged cables, I'm calling Mr. Speer's bluff again, and I will honor my vow to answer him on the cable issues alone, once he stops spewing his meaningless taunts, and make the "case" he said he was going "slap me down big time" with.

He won't. He'll whiff again. I've called his bluff—twice now—and he won't turn over his cards.

Honest people I know who actually have a case to make just make it: they don't waste endless hours of other people's time crowing about it. They just make it.

That's why he still hasn't made his case, and that's why he won't. Because when he does, I'm going to wipe the floor with it and hand him the dirty rags to take out to the trash, where they belong.

Dawn said it: where's the beef, Mr. Speer?

I'm calling you out. Again.

Ashton Gray

Sorry, Mr. Gray, you guessed wrong. AGAIN. You avoided answering my questions. I wanted to see if you actually wanted to debate this point. You dragged your feet on it. Now you're trying to say I'm afraid of you and your incredibly detailed understanding of history. So here goes.

For those just joining the fray...Mr. Gray has asserted that most of what we know about the Watergate affair, after numerous government hearings and dozens of books written by participants and journalists, is a cover story designed to hide some bigger and scarier story which only he seems to understand. Central to his theory is that the CIA framed Richard Nixon by orchestrating the botching of the Watergate break-in. Central to his theory is also that there was no first break-in, and that ALL the so-called Watergate burglars, men whose lives were side-tracked and nearly ruined by their involvement in the affair, willingly screwed up their lives in order to bring down Nixon, a man to whom a number of them, including G. Gordon Liddy, were by ALL indications, fiercely loyal. In order to sell this theory--that these men were willing to ruin their lives to bring down Nixon-- and account for the fact that these men said NOTHING before the election, whereby Nixon could have been VOTED out of office--Mr. Gray has stated further that this was part of the plan, that the men remain silent till after the election, whereby they could ensure Nixon's re-election and the subsequent appointment of Gerry Ford to the vice-presidency. He asserts that this was one of the overall objectives of the plan--to make Gerry Ford-- a man who, despite many years in Washington, had never run for President, the new President. While this plan is already ludicrous on the face of it--why oh why would these men deliberately get caught in JUNE if they weren't gonna spill the beans till the next year--there is another pertinent question. Wasn't there an EASIER way to remove Nixon from office? These are the kinds of questions I've tried to ask Mr. Gray, who has tried to avoid them as best he can. (His attitude seems to be that since he's convinced the "official" story is a lie he is perfectly within his rights to harrass men such as Caddy and Baldwin wiith meaningless or nearly meaningless questions, but that he is under no obligation whatsoever to have his theory make the least bit of sense.)

One of my questions centered on a series of fake state department cables whose creation was admitted by Howard Hunt in both his testimony before the Watergate Committee and in his memoirs. These cables were designed to make Nixon's long-time rival John F. Kennedy look personally responsible for the murder of the leader of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem. The revelation that Hunt had created these cables and tried to get them published in Life Magazine, under the guidance of Nixon and his special projects (read dirty tricks) advisor Charles Colson, would have been a huge bombshell, far bigger than Nixon's involvement in a break-in. If these cables existed and if Hunt did not reveal them when he had the opportunity to use them to bring down Nixon, then Gray's entire theory that Hunt deliberately arranged for Nixon's downfall should be called into question. As I lack the capability to scan printed testimony into my computer, and convert it into text, and as I am a slow typist, I will limit this initial post to two parts: the testimony of L.Patrick Gray and the April 28, 1973 transcript of a meeting between Nixon's Chief Political Advisor John Ehrlichman.

First: the April 28th transcript. This transcript came one day after L. Patrick Gray admitted that he was given Hunt's cables by John Dean and that he had subsequenttly destroyed the cables. Along with this admission Gray resigned from his job as acting FBI Director. The next day Ehrlichman, who had advised Dean to get rid of the cables, came to Nixon's office to discuss the situation. This is one week after John Dean had told Nixon that his top aides Ehrlichman and Haldeman would have to go for Nixon to save his presidency. Dean was later to tell the Watergate investigators that Nixon had played dumb in this conversation, and that Dean had had the feeling that Nixon was saying things designed to make himself look innocent, as if the conversation was being taped. Ehrlichman, like Dean, had never been informed of the White House taping system. This is obvious in the transcript. SOURCE: ABUSE OF POWER: THE NEW NIXON TAPES by Stanley Kutler.

"RN:...(In) the plumbers operation, the papers said it was something regarding some letter that Hunt prepared from, alledgedly, a fake letter from Kennedy on the Diem thing or something.
JE: Yeah.
RN: But that of ocurse is totally, totally out of our ken. Have you ever heard of such a Goddamn...
JE: Yes, sir. (Sarcastically) That leads directly to your friend Colson...
RN: Goddamn it. I never heard of it, John. What, that a fake letter was--
JE: No, it's a cable.
RN: But a fake one?
JE: Yeah.
RN: From John F. Kennedy?
JE: Well, that is what it is alleged to be.
RN: Oh, my God. I just can't believe that. I just can't believe that. The whole--you remember, you were conducting for me--you and Young were conducting a study of the whole Diem thing and the Bay of Pigs thing.
JE: That's correct. That's correct.
RN: But, John, you will--of my recollection is correct, I just said get the facts.
JE: Well, I don;t know where Colson got this inspiration, but he was very busy at it.
RN: And he had told that there was a fake letter or a fake cable?
JE: YES!
RN: I should have been told about that, shouldn't I?
(NOTE: IT SEEMS OBVIOUS AT THIS POINT THAT NIXON WAS TRYING TO GET ON THE RECORD THAT HE DIDN"T KNOW ABOUT THE FAKE CABLES. BUT LOOK HOW EHRLICHMAN, WHO DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THE TAPING SYSTEM, RESPONDS.)
JE: Well, I'm not so sure but what you weren't.
RN: By whom?
JE: I don't know. I don't know.
RN: No, I wasn't told about anything, a mistake. I mean, the only thing I was ever told about, you remember I said that the thing that you did for Life magazine?...That's the only thing I ever heard about the Diem thing.
(NOTE: WILLIAM LAMBERT OF LIFE MAGAZINE HAD A MEETING WITH HUNT IN WHICH HUNT SHOWED HIM THE FAKE CABLES. WHEN LAMBERT SAID HE WOULDN"T PUBLISH THEM WITHOUT HAVING THEM AUTHENTICATED, HUNT REFUSED TO GIVE THEM TO HIM. THESE WERE THE ONLY DIEM CABLES DISCUSSED WITH LIFE MAGAZINE. NIXON IS HEREBY ADMITTING HE KNEW OF THE CABLES AND THAT THEY EXISTED. THE ONLY QUESTION IS IF HE SPECIFICALLY KNEW THEY WERE FAKE.)
JE: Well, that's a part of the transaction.
RN: But was the fake thing in that?
JE: Right, that's what I believe. I could be wrong on this.
RN: You didn't know there was anything fake in that, though, did you? You didn't tell me anything about that, John.
(NOTE: NIXON HAS NOW PUT EHRLICHMAN IN A CORNER BY INSISTING THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE CABLES. HE IS OFFERING EHRLICHMAN A WAY OUT, HOWEVER, IF EHRLICHMAN WILL ONLY STATE, FOR THE TAPED RECORD, THAT HE DIDN"T KNOW ABOUT THE CABLES. EHRLICHMAN, HOWEVER, IS UNWITTING OF NIXON"S GAME AND FAILS TO PLAY ALONG.)
JE: Well, I'd have to go back and check my notes. But my recollection is that this was discussed with you.
RN: Well, I'd be amazed at that. I mean, I must say that I knew that a lot was done. I mean, I knew that we were making a study, but I didn't know we were putting together something that was totally fake to send to Life magazine or something like that on Kennedy and Diem.
JE: Well, I could be wrong on this. I'll try and get the time to check my notes tomorrow before I come up.
RN: Well, yeah. Well, I've got to know about this. If I'm in, I mean, if I'm in that kind of position, I'm in a position I just didn't know about, believe me. I have--throughout this this thing, I must say, I have not known (unintelligible)--I didn't know about the Watergate and I didn't know about the other thing. But I knew we were checking all this. But my God, I didn't know they were faking stuff involving that on Kennedy.
JE: Well, as I say, I got this second-hand.
RN: From Young and Krogh?
JE: No, no, no. I think Chuck (COLSON) told me one time.
RN: Well, he sure didn't tell me. You didn't tell me, did you?
JE: I don't know whether I did or not. As I say, I'd have to go back and check...
RN: Another one of those things. Well, thank God. Thank God it wasn't used.
JE: Yeah, that whole thing, that Hunt--and it was mostly a Hunt-Colson thing--ran off in a lot of strange directions that I really don't have a lot of information on."

My fingers are tired. I'll have to come back to Pat Gray's testimony later. But the point is made. Neither Ehrlichman nor Nixon had the slightest doubt the cables existed. The only question, at least according to Nixon, was whether or not he knew the cables were fakes. Ehrlichman certainly seemed to think Nixon knew they were fakes. Why shouldn't we?

John (Simkin)

I just received a hateful PM from this Daniel Dunne character. I have fwd it to you. (As well as to the people it concerned besides me). Ashton and Terry.

There is a concerted effort on this forum to cause serious dissent and it is NOT coming from the person about whom all this concerns as he is merely the messenger here. If people don't like his message, DON"T READ IT. He (Ashton) has said, repeatedly now, that he will no longer respond to Pat Speer, Raymond Carroll and now Daniel Dunne who has posted some lunatic fringe thing on the Politiacal conspiracies part of the forum , reference to- who else- Ashton- on some aburdly named thread "Response to the New Messiah"

I am actually quite tempted to post what he sent to me. He is CRAZY and extremely hostile.

POSTERS ON THIS FORUM BE PUT ON NOTICE THAT HATE PM'S TO ME WILL PROMTLY BE SENT TO THE FORUM ADMINISTRATOR. THEN THEY WILL BE DELETED FROM CLUTTERING UP MY IN BOX. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF LETTING THIS CRAP SLIDE. THIS DOG AND PONY SHOW HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH AND I AM NOT ABOUT TO BACK DOWN OR BE INTIMIDATED BY SOME WET-BEHIND -HE EARS-FORUM TROLL.

The PM function is for communicating with someone with whom you may have something to ask/answer etc, and do not wish to do it publicly. It should not have to be said that to harrass someone is a misuse of this function key, and that such misuse will be immediately reported.

For the record-for those who still do not GET it: Ashton is no longer responding to these people. He has better things to do with his time. As do I and as does Terry.

But we all have your f****** number pals.

As for me I now intend to utilize the "ignore" function key on this forum for the above three names. (Pat, Ray and Dan) like I did when little Ms. Lynne Foster was doing this internet troll stuff. It sure made life and the forum easier.

I apologise for the length of this post. I only wish I did not have to make one but it's reached the point where reasonable minds are not permitted to simply differ. It's become terribly ugly.

I can "do ugly" but why bother?

This is exactly what these people want. It's just another MO. Same story different day.
Dawn

Robert,

I think I can safely speak for the vast majority, if not all the people that read the posts on this Forum that you would never be mistaken for someone else.

Your posts are inimitable in both style and substance. I invariably find myself agreeing with your logic and admiring the way you express your ideas.

Mike Hogan

Daniel Dunne has never posted on this thread, which is devoted to the Diem Cables. I don't see how your post belongs here, unless your purpose is simply to disrupt the thread.

I hope it is just an unhappy coincidence that you posted this directly after Part I of Pat Speer's report on his research into the Diem cables. You were one who challenged him to produce this research, and as soon as he begins to do so, you intervene with your totally unrelated Daniel Dunn problem. You are quite right to forward an offending PM to the moderator, but quite out of line, IMHO, in barging into Pat Speer's research (Pat has nothing in common with Daniel Dunn that I know of) with your personal tale of woe.

Whatever differences there are between you and me, I'll give you my personal guarantee that none of Pat Speer's posts on this will be allowed to get lost in other traffic or be overlooked in any way. Speaking just personally, I'd like to see him be allowed to get his entire case made sequentially without interruption of any kind and announce when he's done. I'd even be happy if he would repost his first message with the tape transcript and pick back up where he left off.

Ashton Gray

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

"Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive and not giving Forum members enough credit, but I'd like to make clear that Daniel Wayne DUNN [no "e" on the end] is NOT to be confused with yours truly, Robert Charles-DUNNE [with an "e" on the end.]

Thanks."

Trust me, RCD. This DWD with no "e" on the end, couldn't hold a candle to you. Plus, he turns like a rabid dog on you when you try to explain something to him.

Kinko's has workstations with scanners and OmniPage OCR software. Always happy to help.

Ashton Gray

I'm sorry Dawn was subjected to Daniel's temper. He's no disinformationist. He's actually hard at work researching the RFK killing for the November Lancer conference. I don't approve of his insulting any Forum member.

P.S. for the record, Dawn, a troll is someone who joins a forum, usually using a fake name, only writes on one issue, insults other members, and posts many links to articles supporting their "research," quite often written by themselves under a different name.

P.P.S. Who's Huntley Troth again?

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

Here is the relevant part of his testimony:

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

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

Q: Now in the review of these cables did you notice any irregularity in the sequence?
EHH: I did.
Q: And at what period did the gap in sequence occur?
EHH: The period immediately leading up to the assassination of the premier of South Vietnam.
Q: Did you show the cables to Mr. Colson and offer an interpretation of them?
EHH: I showed him copies of those chronological cables, yes, sir.
Q: And what intepretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables?
EHH: I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstracted from the files maintained in the Department of State in chronological fashion. And that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of the accumulated evidence and the cable documentation, that the Kennedy Administration was implicitly if not explicitly responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply coming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy.
Q: What was Mr. Colson's reaction to your statement and the showing of the cables to him? Did he agree that the cables were sufficient evidence to show any relationship with the Kennedy Administration and the assassination?
EHH: He did.
Q: Did he ask you to do anything?
EHH: He suggested I might be able to improve on the record.
Q: And what did you understand him to mean when he said to improve upon the record?
EHH: To create, to fabricate cables that could substitute for the missing chronological cables.
Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem?
EHH: I did.
Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?
EHH: I did.
Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables?
EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables.
Q: Now are you aware from your conversations with Mr. Colson and the use of these cables any strategy that Mr. Colson had with regard to Catholic voters?
EHH: Yes, sir.
Q: Could you describe that more fully?
EHH: I believe it was desired by Mr. Colson, or at least some of his colleagues, to demonstrate that a Catholic United States Administration had, in fact, conspired in the assassination of a Catholic chief of state in another country."

Here is a more complete version of the transcript available online. It's interesting to note that the NY Times book edited out the specific references by Hunt to Life Magazine and William Lambert. Professional courtesy, I suppose.

"Senator Baker, and that is what I have been triying to do. At this early time of your employment at the White House, Mr. Hunt, did you have access to State Department cables covering the period of the Diem assassination?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Why did you have access to them?

Mr. HUNT. Because I had requested such access and it had been granted me.

Mr. DASH. Now, in the review of these cables, did you notice any irregularity of sequence?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. In what period did the gap in sequence occur?

Mr. HUNT. The period immediately leading up to the assassination of the Premier of South Vietnam.

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

Mr. HUNT. I showed him copies of those chronological cables, yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. And what interpretation, if any, did give him concerning the cables?

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

Mr. DASH. What was Mr. Colson's reaction to your statement and the showing of the cable to him? Did he agree that the cables were sufficient evidence to show any relationship between the kennedy administration and the assassination of Diem?

Mr. HUNT. He did.

Mr. DASH. Did he ask you to do anything?

Mr. HUNT. He suggested that I might be able to improve upon the record. To create, to fabricate cables that could substitute for the missing chronological cables.

Mr. DASH. Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy administration and the assassination of Diem?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. What was his response to the fabricated cables?

Mr. HUNT. He indicated to me that he would be probably getting in touch with a memeber of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables.

Mr. DASH. And were you in fact put in touch with a memeber of the media?

Mr. HUNT. I was.

Mr. DASH, Who was that?

Mr. HUNT. Mr. William Lambert of Life magazine.

Mr. DASH. What was your instruction concernign the relationship you were to have with Mr. Lambert?

Mr. HUNT. To show Mr. Lambert the contex of the other legtimate cables that I acquired from the Department of State, to permit Mr. Lambert to hand-copy the texts of the fabricated cables, but I having warned Mr. Colson previously that the cables were not technically capable of withstanding professional scrutiny, that Mr. Lambert was not to be allowed to remove the cables for photocopying purposes.

Mr. DASH. Did Mr. Lambert use the information?

Mr. HUNT. Not to my knowledge, no.

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

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. Could you describe that more fully?

Mr. HUNT. I believe it was desired by Mr. Colson, or at least some of his colleagues, to demonstrate that a Catholic U.S. administration had in fact conspired in the assassination of a Catholic chief of state of another country.

Mr. DASH. Did you show the fabricated cables to Colonel Conein?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Under what circunstances?

Mr. HUNT. Prior to Colonel Conein's appearance on a--I believe NBC-TV network special concerning Vietnam.

Mr. DASH. And did Colonel Conein use any of this infromation from the fabricated cables in his program?

Mr. HUNT. I would have to answer in these terms, Mr. DASH, that I had shown him the fabricated cables in the broader context of the overall cables, that he was then interrogated by a camera and interview crew and that I believe he made, if not specific reference to the cables I showed him, at least they reinforced his own belief that there had been direct complicity by the Kennedy administration in the events leading up to the assassination of the South Vietnamese Premier."

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

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

Well then, isn't that considered to be tampering with State's evidence?
In that respect, Ashton is right in contending there are no cables. Therefore, one is left with what is known as
"circumstantial evidence."

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

Aka, "circumstantial evidence."

"Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem?
EHH: I did.
Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?
EHH: I did.
Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables?
EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables."

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

[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jul 3 2006, 10:17 AM' post='67001']
I'm sorry Dawn was subjected to Daniel's temper. He's no disinformationist. He's actually hard at work researching the RFK killing for the November Lancer conference. I don't approve of his insulting any Forum member.

Sorry I posted on the wrong thread. My intent was never to disrupt this most important work.
As to Danny's RFK "theories" I am familiar with same, and , as usual we totally disagree, (Re Sirham=MC-myview vs his), but that is ok.
He had no right to PM me with his outrageous venom.
I wish I had posted what he wrote to me.

(I am not going to "Ignore function" on posts, as before this Watergate stuff occurred I had read all of Pat's and Ray's posts on the jfk forum and we were generally in agreement.)
Again apologise for posting on this thread.

Dawn



[quote name='Terry Mauro' post='67026' date='Jul 3 2006, 05:12 PM']
[quote name='Pat Speer' post='67002' date='Jul 3 2006, 09:14 AM']
On August 3, 1973, former acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray testified before the Watergate Committee. He'd been forced to resign after John Dean came forward admitting the existence of the cables, and that he'd given the cables to Gray. Upon resignation, Gray admitted he'd destroyed the cables.

Here is the relevant part of his testimony:

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

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

Q: Now in the review of these cables did you notice any irregularity in the sequence?
EHH: I did.
Q: And at what period did the gap in sequence occur?
EHH: The period immediately leading up to the assassination of the premier of South Vietnam.
Q: Did you show the cables to Mr. Colson and offer an interpretation of them?
EHH: I showed him copies of those chronological cables, yes, sir.
Q: And what intepretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables?
EHH: I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstracted from the files maintained in the Department of State in chronological fashion. And that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of the accumulated evidence and the cable documentation, that the Kennedy Administration was implicitly if not explicitly responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply coming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy.
Q: What was Mr. Colson's reaction to your statement and the showing of the cables to him? Did he agree that the cables were sufficient evidence to show any relationship with the Kennedy Administration and the assassination?
EHH: He did.
Q: Did he ask you to do anything?
EHH: He suggested I might be able to improve on the record.
Q: And what did you understand him to mean when he said to improve upon the record?
EHH: To create, to fabricate cables that could substitute for the missing chronological cables.
Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem?
EHH: I did.
Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?
EHH: I did.
Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables?
EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables.
Q: Now are you aware from your conversations with Mr. Colson and the use of these cables any strategy that Mr. Colson had with regard to Catholic voters?
EHH: Yes, sir.
Q: Could you describe that more fully?
EHH: I believe it was desired by Mr. Colson, or at least some of his colleagues, to demonstrate that a Catholic United States Administration had, in fact, conspired in the assassination of a Catholic chief of state in another country."
[/quote]

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

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

Well then, isn't that considered to be tampering with State's evidence?
In that respect, Ashton is right in contending there are no cables. Therefore, one is left with what is known as
"circumstantial evidence."

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

Aka, "circumstantial evidence."

"Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem?
EHH: I did.
Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?
EHH: I did.
Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables?
EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables."

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


Good response Ter.

Dawn

I'd be very grateful if Mr. Speer, after presenting his entire case so all the evidence is in view, would repost it all in an unbroken series, with any summation he'd like to make.

Then I will rebut. I can repost his exhibits myself so it's continuous, but with his cooperation it will remain in his voice.

Ashton Gray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have not (yet) cited any statements or testimony from Chuck Colsen. According to Hunt's testimony, Colsen was the instigator of the forgeries.

Did Colsen testify before the Committee, or did he describe his involvement in any other forum?

Are you done or not? Is this all you got?

Yes or no?

Is this it? I want a clear-cut statement from you when you are done presenting your alleged case for these no-see-um cables.

So are you finished? Yes, or no?

You can throw yourself down on the floor, and kick your heels, and hold your breath until you turn from red to blue, and have any kind of tantrum you want over your inane irrelevant questions as far as I'm concerned. I told you: make your case, and then when you're done I'm going to turn it to confetti before your very eyes.

And I sure hope you came packing more than what's here right now.

So are you done or not? Yes, or no?

Ashton Gray

Ashton, if that's your name, who are you to demand answers from me when you have placed yourself above answering any of my questions from day one? If you have anything to rebut the evidence presented, then rebut it. I reserve the right to counter with other evidence if I so choose. That's the way the world works.

You can call me Legion.

My entire rebuttal to your Bazooka Joe comic follies will be posted in this thread within 24 hours of the posting of this message. Watch for it.

When it's posted, fulfilling my vow to answer on the fraud of the "Diem cables," my other vow goes back into full force and effect. It's already posted in this thread. See if you can find it. You may use both hands and a guide.

Ashton Gray

QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Jul 4 2006, 12:04 AM)

Ashton, if that's your name, who are you to demand answers from me when you have placed yourself above answering any of my questions from day one? If you have anything to rebut the evidence presented, then rebut it. I reserve the right to counter with other evidence if I so choose. That's the way the world works.

Pat:

Forgive me for butting in here but it was you, was it not, who said you could "prove" your case for the the cables having been created. Like with your past "proof", you give us statements of men many of us here believe to be less than candid. That is not "proof".

Sorry to hold you to some sort of legal standard, but it was you who said you had the goods. And that you'd prove it. So seems to me you have created a catch -22 for Ashton. (When he is merely asking you to do that which you said you were going to do.) Sorry to have to resort to logic here, but B does follow A, does it not?

Ashton did answer many of your questions and respond to your points until you twisted his words until they were no longer recognizable.

So, again where's the proof? Kinda hard for someone to rebut something when the instant case has yet to be made. The floor's all yours.

Dawn

Dawn, if you don't believe that one man's sworn testimony that he created something, another man's sworn testimony that he destroyed this same thing, and a tape-recorded conversation between two other men that indicates they were aware of this item's existence, is strong evidence this item existed, I feel sorry for you. When the defense of your pet theory has pushed you to such extremes that you are ready to believe willy-nilly that a bunch of men, including the President of the United States, his top advisers, and his Attorney General, would all colloborate on a story created out of whole cloth THAT MAKES THEM ALL LOOK VERY VERY BAD, then it's time to take that pet for a walk. Politicians and their closest aides, as a rule, make up stories that make them look very very good. The Diem cables are the proof that Nixon was obsessed with discrediting John Kennedy, and making John Kennedy's assassination look more like the divine retribution mentioned by Johnson. I think the creation of these cables can be used to support the Yankee and Cowboy War view of history. I'm completely baffled as to how you can possibly conclude these cables didn't exist, and why you suddenly are so protective of Nixon.

To make an analogy, let's say that the creation of these cables was a war crime. We have a young lieutenant, Dean, accused of war crimes, who decides to moderate his sentence by ratting out an over-zealous sergeant, Hunt, for killing civilians at the height of the Vietnam war. This second lieutenant Dean says furthermore that he found the head of a murdered civilian in Hunt's locker and gave this head to a General Gray to hold onto. General Gray ends up leaving his command upon admission that he dumped the head in the middle of the ocean. He swears before congress he opened the box containing the head and saw that it was a head before dumping it in the ocean. Hunt confesses to killing the civilian and taking the head but swears it was upon orders of a Colonel, a top military advisor to the President. The top military advisor, Colson, says if any heads were chopped off by Hunt it was based upon Hunt's misunderstanding of one of his orders. There is, however, a tape recording of the President discussing this case with another one of his top military advisors, Ehrlichman. On this tape, the military advisor says he had a conversation with the other advisor, in which the other advisor admitted ordering the collection of civilian heads. The President responds by saying that he knew that people died, but didn't realize that his advisor had ordered their heads to be collected. There is also a Life Magazine journalist who saw Hunt with the head and the testimony of another disgraced General that he participated in the cover-up of the head-collecting.



DAWN'S considered verdict: there were no severed heads. It's all a big hoax to make the President look bad.

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

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

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

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

Terry, Ashton asserted that there never were any Diem cables. As he has claimed that pretty much everything that ever made Nixon look bad--from the Pentagon Papers to the Watergate break-in--was some sort of conspiracy against Nixon, I took from this that he felt the existence of these cables was invented as part of some master plot against poor Richard. Evidently, he'll explain it all to us shortly.

As far as loyalty to Nixon, Nixon's closest aides pretty much fell away like ancient wallpaper under the heat of the investigation. Only Liddy remained loyal. As a matter of pride, he refused to cut a deal and testify against his co-conspirators. As a result he endured a far harsher prison sentence than anyone else involved in the Watergate scandal. His loyalty was more due to his obsession with loyalty and duty than to Nixon himself, however. If you ever see his book Will, you might want to check it out. It makes for pretty interesting reading. Liddy was so obsessed with discipline and duty etc. that he actually screened Hitler propaganda in the White House to study their techniques. He also held his hand out over a fire and deliberately burned himself in order to demonstrate his loyalty. Both Magruder and Dean were reportedly frightened of him. Some of these stories made their way to Nixon. On one of the tapes where Nixon and Haldeman discuss the cover-up Nixon refers to Liddy as "that fruticake" if I remember correctly. Ashton's assertion that Liddy worked with men like Magruder, Dean, and Ellsberg, men he has openly despised and publicly insulted his entire public career, to bring down Nixon, is completely bizarre and without merit. To put it in a modern context, it's like saying Karl Rove and Joseph Wilson teamed up to discredit Bush.

THE GREAT PHANTOM "DIEM CABLES" NON-DEBATE

Unlike a mule, it's hard to know exactly which end of fictional "forged cables" to approach from. The first problem is that they are invisible.

In civilized societies, people don't try to approach invisible cables at all, much less discuss them at great length. The attempt will get you a padded room and three squares a day, plus meds, for life.

In certain barbaric cultures, though, this seems to be not only a great pass-time, but something worth millions upon millions of dollars, hundreds of books, oceans of ink, and even Congressional hearings. Personally, I'd prefer a good mule.

However: a certain person (and I won't mention any names, but his initials are "Pat Speer") has developed finger blisters typing his little heart out to sell people on this elaborate delusion and—because I wandered in here innocently, and he didn't like the cut of my hat or something—he demanded to know "what you come here for, boy," and he's followed me all over the forum trying to smear me in any depraved way he can conjure, while simultaneously begging me endlessly to explain why I won't discuss these fantasy cables and other group hallucinations with him and his small band of boorish fellow day-trippers.

So I will. Once. But only for the rational mind.

CAVEATS FOR THE RATIONAL MIND

We're about to enter the "No-See-Um Zone." It makes The Matrix look like a church day care. If you're here at all, it is hoped that you have some acquaintance already with the Official Forged Diem Cables Myth, and have read Mr. Speer's rendition in this thread, because I'm not about to seriously try to explain the existence of non-existent, invisible cables. I'm not that nuts.

And while the Phabulous Phantom Cables are funny on their face (or lack thereof), the ghoulish clowns that created them are perhaps the most unfunny wraiths that ever plagued mankind. So even to enter the No-See-Um Zone requires crossing a mine field of psy-ops techniques that the very unfunny clowns have been developing for decades. As long as you know where these deadly "mind mines" are, you can cross into the No-See-Um Zone with a cavalier lilt in your step and an appropriate sense of humor, and we can find and study the invisible cables.

Far more importantly: you can get back out with your sanity intact. Here's the first set of "mind mines" as we go in. Watch your step:

YOSSARIAN'S "MAN WHO SAW EVERYTHING TWICE"

In the book "Catch 22," the protagonist, Yossarian, has the misfortune to get laid up in a hospital bed next to a man whose malady causes him to see everything twice. It's a brilliant recursive pun on the title of the book and an absolutely hilarious piece of literature. It also describes an almost deadly trap for the mind.

E. Howard Hunt, a veteran CIA covert operative, purportedly created the alleged "forged cables" concerning the assassination of South Viet Nam President Diem. Sitting directly on your path to the invisible "Diem cables," you cannot avoid a mention of E. Howard Hunt's per diem as a White House consultant, because it's also part of the contents of Hunt's safe. Did you just see something twice? Watch your step.

The next "everything twice mind mine" in your path, which you cannot possibly avoid in your quest to the invisible cables, is a simple name: "Fielding." That's not a "mind mine," you say. It's just a name. Watch carefully: of only three people in the entire world who ever claimed personally to have seen these purported cables, one of them, E. Howard Hunt, is heavily associated with a purported "break-in" at the office of a psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis Fielding. Got a good grip on that? Okay, now: one of the only two other people in existence who claimed to have handled and seen the purported forgery is John Dean, and he just happens to have a personal assistant—who also handles the contents of Hunt's safe, but doesn't see the purported forged cables—whose name is Fred Fielding. Did you just see something twice? Are you feeling a little dizzy yet? No?

Well, there's the psy-op rule of three to get you so spun around and confused that you'll believe anything, so we ought to be on the lookout for at least one more (and there are plenty more):

Please notice that not directly in the middle of the "This Way to the Invisible Cables" path, but just to the side where you can't possibly miss it, is a big smiling, waving Larry O'Brien, Chairman of the DNC. He's the "victim" of the main act of mayhem, which also, of course, involves Hunt. If you follow the "forged cables" path all the way to where the invisible cables disappear (several times, but that's another "mind mine" we haven't gotten to), you simply can't avoid a guy named Paul O'Brien suddenly appearing in the path, startling you. Did you just see something twice? Who the hell is Paul O'Brien? Oh, well, he's just a guy. He happens to be "former-CIA," just like Hunt, but somehow he's suddenly at CREEP, involved with Hunt's wife, Dorothy, spinning envelopes of cash around your head in so many different directions at once that you soon feel like the nucleus at the center of an atom of Federal Reserve notes.

If you haven't sunk down in the poppy field of duplicate words and names yet and gone totally unconscious, just slip past the O'Brien dopplegangers and the gates will open into the promised land: The Land of the No-See-Um Cables. Or is that "cable"? Is there one forged cable? Are there two forged cables? How many forged cables are there? Just exactly what is it we're looking for, and how will we recognize it?

Well, just step right in, and we'll ask whoever we can find in here who's actually seen them. There sure seem to be a lot of people standing around...

A CAST OF HUNDREDS. WELL, TENS. WELL, A FEW...



It is almost like a wax museum in here. Or a house of mirrors. There seem to be so many people standing around who we just know have seen these no-see-um invisible cables. Let's see who's in the cast of characters, and find out who actually says themselves, for themselves, that they saw them:

• Richard "Tricky Dicky" Nixon: Surely ol' Tricky Dick saw them, right? But there's not a word anywhere in the record—from anybody, much less him—that he ever saw the purported cables. So we can't ask him how many there were and what they said. Moving on...
• Charles Colson: Hmmm. Well, he just stands there mum, thumping the Bible. Hunt says that Colson saw them. Hunt says that Colson ordered them. But Colson just smiles and thumps the Bible and doesn't say a word about ever seeing any forged cables. So we aren't going to get anything out of him about how many there were and what they said. But he's arm-in-arm with...
• William "Bill" Lambert: Hey! It's the Life magazine reporter who Hunt also says saw the cables. Now, why is he so damned chummy with Colson? Ohhhh, that's right: Lambert published the big smear piece that Colson wrote on Democratic Senator Tydings in 1970 that caused Tydings to lose his seat, even though the allegations were all proven false after the election! That's why you two good Christian men are so cozy. Hey, Bill: you wouldn't let these goons just use your name to put over a big fraud, as sort of a quid pro quo, would you? You Operation Mocking Bird boys aren't that low-life. Are you? Did you ever say anywhere, yourself, that you actually saw any cables? Oh. "Ask Hunt." Sure. No problem. Sorry to have interrupted the prayer meeting.
• Lucien Conein: Okay, this just seals the deal right here. I mean, this is Mr. CIA Black Ops himself, and if anybody is going to back Hunt to the hilt, it's this one. So what do you say, Lucien? Did you ever say anywhere that you actually saw any such forged cables? Because Hunt tells us very powerfully and forcefully that you got the forged cables worked into a national network show, so you must have said it on national television, right? Because here's what Hunt says exactly: "I would have to answer in these terms: ...that I had shown him [Conein] the fabricated cables in the broader context of the overall cables, that he was then interrogated by a camera and interview crew and that I believe he made, if not specific reference to the cables I showed him, at least they reinforced his own belief that there had been direct complicity by the Kennedy administration in the events leading up to the assassination of the South Vietnamese Premier." But... But...

And phantom eyewitness after phantom eyewitness shimmers and thins and disappears entirely until there's nobody left in the hall of mirrors except three, and only three people in this entire CIA-manufactured universe who actually claim, themselves, by their own testimony, to actually have laid eyes on these magic forged cables. And who would these three be?

• E. Howard Hunt
• John Dean
• L. Patrick Gray

Now we're getting somewhere. Now we can ask the real, admitted, confessed eyewitnesses to this world-shaking piece of forgery just exactly what the form and substance and content of these history-making cables were. Or was it a cable? Do we even know exactly what kind of Holy Grail we're on the "Hunt" for? How will we know it if we see it? We're so close now we can almost touch it. Or touch them. Or whatever. Almost. We just have to question these only three eyewitnesses to history.

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

Ashton Gray

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

Part II: The Form and Substance of Magic Nothingness



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. HUNT:

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

MR. HUNT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOHN DEAN:

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

JOHN DEAN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART III: GRAY DOES GRAY

Ashton Gray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Jul 4 2006, 04:26 PM)

QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Jul 4 2006, 02:42 PM)

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

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

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

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

Dawn

PART III: GRAY DOES GRAY



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

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

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

L. PATRICK GRAY: To this point, I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire, I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of Top Secret State Department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language, but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Viet Nam.

I had no reason then to doubt the authenticity of the cable, and was shaken at what I read. I thumbed through the other cables in this file. They appeared to be duplicates of the first cable.

They appeared to be what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

...[A]t a meeting in Ehrlichman's office on June 28 [1972], Dean had handed the folders to Gray with the remark: "These papers should never see the light of day."

Even though his own agents at the time were searching for Hunt to quiz him about Watergate, Gray obediently took these files home, put them in a closet over the weekend, then carried them to his office and discarded them in a "burn bag" to be destroyed. Although some other FBI officials do not believe him, Gray claimed he did not even look at the papers to see what he was burning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ESCAPE FROM THE NO-SEE-UM ZONE



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

Happy trails, Pat.

Ashton Gray

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

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

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

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

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


Dawn

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

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



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

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

Thank you in anticipation.

QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Jul 4 2006, 11:36 PM)

QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Jul 4 2006, 08:43 PM)

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

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

QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Jul 4 2006, 08:43 PM)

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

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

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

Thank you in anticipation.

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

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

I do have a life and an actual legal career. I am not here to make arguments for Ashton, legal or
otherwise. He does quite well on his own. And I spoke with Terry today, so you are wrong, she is having some time crunch problems and has not devoted her every waking second to this forum. She "gets" Ashton. And I am certain you and Pat do as well..

So ball's in Pat' s court here.

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

Dawn

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

Ex-FBI Chief: Watergate Docs Outed JFK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Ashton

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

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

So I will. Once. But only for the rational mind.

Ashton Gray

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

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

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

Ashton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ashton

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

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

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

There is a witness missing from the debate so far. Neither I nor Pat Speer has access to the testimony of Chuck Colson, a key player in the forgery issue (if there was a forgery). Apparently Ashton Gray does have access to all the Watergate testimony and the facilities to scan them. Could I impose on Mr. Gray and ask that he kindly post the relevant parts of Colson's testimony, so that we have a more complete record on this issue.

No, that isn't your reading: that's your spin. That's your twist. That's your own fraud. That's your own willful misrepresentation of my position. That's your own slime on this forum. It ain't mine. Don't attribute your mealy-mouthed, evasive, incomprehensible obtuseness to me. I didn't hire you to represent me. I wouldn't have you represent me if you were paying me 50 times your own hourly rate.

What I've said, and have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt repeatedly—which you well know, since you read every word I write—is that my opinion is that Hunt is guilty as sin of a knowing, willful fraud on the courts, on Congress, and on the people of the United States. I've laid out ample evidence of that regarding Memorial Day weekend 1972 CIA op.

Now I've demonstrated in this thread the extremely high probability that Hunt was willfully and knowingly and collusively involved with John Dean and with L. Patrick Gray in perpetrating yet another fraud on the courts, on Congress, and on the people of the United States in perjured testimony about forgery and destruction of evidence. And I've made it very clear that in my prudent and extremely well-informed opinion, the alleged destruction of evidence never took place at all, and that the planned and knowing and willful hoax was a wholesale assault on the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America during wartime, which in my opinion is ample evidence to call for an immediate, if not sooner, investigation of the following offenses, as defined at USC 18 Part I Chapter 115, §2381 et seq., for all living co-conspirators:

§ 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.

And if you still can't understand my position, and still have some delusion that I'm declaring Hunt "innocent," it's little wonder that you believe in the existence of invisible cables.

Ashton Gray

Thanks for the express revelation that you are tag-teaming.



I ain't your page or clerk. I'll post what I want to post "at a time and place of my choosing."

Ashton Gray

I think your argument is rock solid—right up to the last sentence.

Seriously, there's absolutely no evidence of Gray having destroyed evidence. Not only is there no evidence of it, there are at least three conflicting stories by Gray himself of his purported "destruction of evidence," meaning that the best evidence is that a hoax was created about the destruction of evidence and the whole thing is yet another elaborate lie by people supposedly "confessing." (Gee, sounds awfully familiar.)

There's also a complete contradiction in Gray's own statements, as I documented above, about his ever having had in his possession any such discrediting information on Kennedy.

Then with Hunt, Dean, and Gray, we have three completely contradictory descriptions of purported "forged cables" (or cable—gee, losing count sounds awfully familiar). The only thing that there's evidence of at all is collusion between Hunt, Dean, and Gray to give "confessions" that are total, whole-cloth fictions. (Now, where have I run into something similar before?)

And here's why the question of "did he destroy, didn't he destroy" isn't even a fork in the road, but a perfect trap in the road:

Any way you try to figure any outcome from the stories, it all could only harm the Nixon White House.

• As I quoted from Hunt earlier in this thread, he claimed that the authentic cables were damning to the Kennedy administration without forgeries (something also not stipulated by me, but his claim)—which destroys the entire motive for forging cables in the first place.
• The purported "forgeries," like every one of Hunt's storybook operations, went absolutely nowhere. Nowhere! Forgeries had nothing whatsoever to do with what Conein said in his interview. But the unevidenced claim of their existence, by three people in "confessions," sure helped to bring down the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces during wartime.
• Since the purported forged cables (damn, it's hard to talk about complete fictions) couldn't be used, ever, for anything besides "personal edification" (Hunt)—whatever the hell that means—then why would any such forgeries have been kept at all? (That, of course, assuming that they ever had been made at all, which they weren't.) According to Hunt, the goddamned non-things sat in his safe collecting dust for almost eight months! Even assuming, arguendo, that there ever were any forgeries, the only possible use of keeping them was damage to Nixon! (And of course, the whole thing is completely circular since the safe way to damage Nixon—without any evidence of much larger crimes against the perps themselves—was just to claim the existence and say they were destroyed. It's a perfect, self-proving and inescapable trap, with relatively minor consequences to the perps if there's no evidence, but major consequences to the perps if there is evidence.
• If they'd had actual dirt on the Kennedy administration, they would have used it, just as you argue above. Not to use it, or ever even let Nixon know of its existence, was only to undermine Nixon.
• To simply "confess" that such dirt on Kennedy existed (when it didn't), but then was destroyed by Nixon administration officials, was to bring down Nixon.

It just goes on forever. In a giant circle.

On the "forged cable(s)" issue alone there's one absolutely staggering datum that emerges once the fraud is stripped off and just a little bit of sanity is allowed to rise to the surface:

There is no way in HELL Hunt and Colson actually would have allowed such self-incriminating evidence to sit in Hunt's White House safe for that long, when Colson's secretary, Joan Hall, and the Secret Service had the combination! If those forged cables ever had existed, they weren't "political dynamite" against the Kennedy administration at all, because Hunt himself says that his (never existant) forgeries could not stand any scrutiny. The only "dynamite" they ever could have been was against the Nixon administration, and they would have been nooses around the necks of Hunt and Colson if they had existed! It would have been hard evidence of attempting to frame actual people with names in the Kennedy administration with murder. That's exactly why I raised that point again and again in my articles above: that nobody ever says anything about these alleged forgeries except that it was "officials" of the Kennedy administration or "persons" within the Kennedy administration. They keep the whole thing completely anonymous and vague except the Kennedy name. And of course the Kennedy brothers were conveniently dead at all relevant times and unable to defend themselves against any of it. That's how these scum work

It's just a goddamned putrid lie from bow to stern. There isn't a smudge of truth anywhere in it. There were no "forged cables." There were no letters from JFK about his "peccadiloes." These people iinvolved in this are exactly what I said before: soul-less, lying scum, just empty golems absent the slightest integrity who will say anything, no matter how depraved, that serves their own purposes, and will happily swear on a Bible to tell their lies.

I'm also going to post a whole article on no other subject than the day Hunt's safe was "drilled open," and where who was throughout that day, including Hunt checking and inventorying the contents of his safe that morning! It's just beyond any kind of suspension of disbelief that after the Watergate arrests had taken place and his name was already linked, that he would go into the EOB very early that morning, inventory his safe contents—including the purported "forgeries" and the briefcase of electronic equipment—then close the safe back up leaving all this "incriminating evidence" there, with Joan Hall and the Secret Service crawling all over the place, having TOLD Joan Hall that "the safe is loaded," and saunter over to Mullen to be there when Bennett arrived.

And, sure enough, Dean comes along and gives Intel Cult Member Woodward and the press a big gratuitous sensationalistic story of having Hunt's safe DRILLED OPEN—when he knew damned well that Colson, Joan Hall, and Secret Service crawling all over the place could have just turned the knob at any time and opened the safe.

You just start spitting like a cat at the insanity!

It's just fraud, fraud, fraud, hoax, hoax, hoax, straight down the line, following an exact script, with John Dean and L. Patrick Gray working together with Richard Helms like the three stooges. I haven't even started posting Helms's flood of lies in testimony. Oh, but I will be.

Ashton

I have never seen Pat so silent. I can only assume he's preparing his rebuttal.
He posted earlier on the JFK assassination debate.

Unless- gasp- you've convinced him, Ashton.

Lightbulb moment here ???

Just wondering.

Dawn