-Caveat Lector-
an excerpt from:
The Breaking of a President 1974 - The Nixon Connection
Marvin Miller, Compiler
Therapy Productions, Inc.©1975
LCCCN 7481547
--[1]--
Organized crime will put a man in the White House some day—and he won't know
it untill they hand him the bill.
Ralph Salerno
Former New York City Police Officer
CRIME, BIG BUSINESS AND WATERGATE
Richard Nixon had-and still has-far more to hide than his White House tapes.
For example, it is little known that the former President of our great
country made his first big money by operating a little South Pacific gambling
casino while he was in the Navy, and that the proceeds of this venture were
invested in his first political race. The equally little-known fact that
Nixon participated in a burglary of his dean's office while he was a student
at Duke University Law School has also, oddly, not been commented upon in all
the millions of words written about the subsequent Watergate and Ellsberg
burglaries. And, most important of all, it is almost entirely unknown to the
general public that Nixon has maintained contacts with people directly
connected with organized crime, since his very first venture into politics.
These astonishing but verifiable facts, which will be detailed in their
proper place in this volume, would perhaps be of little direct importance to
understanding Watergate, if crime in the United States had not developed into
a powerfully organized force without the American public being aware of the
changes. But since organized crime has made determined efforts to keep its
true influence on events invisible, every fact, no matter how small,
illuminates the hitherto hidden connections between organized crime, big
business and politics.
The President, of course, has been trying to confine the Watergate
investigation to the bare facts of the original burglary at the offices of
the Democratic National Committee. But despite all his desperate and
overly-obvious attempts to limit the investigation, it is becoming very clear
that the Watergate burglary was just the visible tip of an immense, submerged
iceberg of government corruption. Since much is already known about the
involvement of large corporations and intelligence agencies, it would be an
obvious over-simplification to state that all of the Watergate scandals were
"caused" by President Nixon's hidden relations to organized crime. Yet
without understanding this connection, which involves tracing as best we can
the even more hidden relation of organized crime to big business, we really
can't understand why our government became so undemocratic, so willing to
resort to violence and deceitful behavior towards its own citizens.
"Crime" is much different now from what it has been in our country's history.
The post-World War II multi-national corporations, and political parties
intelligence apparatuses involved in Watergate are also substantially new
forces which function quite differently from the corporations, parties and
spies of the past. Only by understanding these differences, only by having
the maximum knowledge possible of what went wrong, can the citizens of these
United States transform the federal government from the loathsome spectacle
it has become, to a true vehicle for the inalienable rights of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.
In the first two volumes of this series, The Breaking of a President, 1974,
our aim has been to give the American public a day-by-day chronology of all
the emerging facts about Watergate. Without such a score-card there are just
too many names, too many episodes, and too many inter-relations to keep
clearly in mind. But now that the story has been carried forward from the
original burglary to the impeachment procedure in Congress, it is possible to
begin exploring why Watergate took place, not simply what happened.
CRIME TODAY
Most of us think of crime either as the sensational exploits of safely dead,
famous personalities like John Dillinger, Al Capone and Lucky Luciano, or in
terms of our own tragic personal experiences with those individuals or small
gangs who perpetrate the growing number of street crimes: the burglaries,
robberies, auto thefts and larcenies (any theft not involving force, violence
or unlawful entry). Many people are affected by these street crimes. The FBI,
for example, estimates that in 1965 there were 1,173,201 burglaries, 762,352
larcenies of over $50, 486,568 auto thefts, and 118,916 robberies involving
force or the threat of force.
According to the President's Committee on Law Enforcement and Administration
of Justice, the total cost to the public of all these street crimes in 1965
was 614 million dollars, a truly astronomical sum. However, the President's
Commission goes on to say that illegal gambling, which we shall see is mostly
controlled by organized crime, involves seven to fifty billion dollars
annually, and at least one third of this almost inconceivable number of
dollars goes into the pockets of the bookmakers and their crime bosses.
Loan-sharking, an organized crime activity barely secondary to gambling, is
also estimated to be a multi- billion -dollar business with multi-billion
-dollar profits. Later we shall see why these activities are so profitable,
but for now these figures show that the crimes of violence which directly
affect the public on the streets and in the home are only a small part of a
much larger story. For purposes of comparison, the total United States outlay
for national defense functions in 1965 was 50 billion dollars, and that
included the entire operation of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the
atomic energy program, civil defense, military construction and much else.
THE POWER OF ORGANIZED CRIME
Organized crime, as described in the report of the President's Commission,
"involves thousands of criminals, working within structures as complex as
those of any large corporation, subject to laws more rigidly enforced than
those of legitimate government. Its actions are not impulsive but rather the
result of intricate conspiracies, carried on over many years and aimed at
gaining control over whole fields of activity in order to amass huge profits.
"The core of organized crime activity is the supplying of illegal goods and
services-gambling, loan-sharking, narcotics, and other forms of vice-to
countless numbers of citizen customers. But organized crime is also
extensively and deeply involved in legitimate business and in labor unions.
Here it employs illegitimate methods—monopolization, terrorism, extortion,
tax evasion—to drive out or control lawful ownership ... and to exact illegal
profits from the public. To carry on its many activities secure from
governmental interference, organized crime corrupts public officials."
Robert F. Kennedy, when he was Attorney General of the United States,
illustrated the power of organized crime simply and vividly. He testified
before a Senate sub-committee in 1963 that the physical protection of
witnesses who had cooperated with the federal government in organized crime
cases often required that those witnesses change their appearance, change
their names, or even necessitated that they leave the country. When the
government of a powerful country is unable to protect its friends from its
enemies by means less extreme than obliterating their identities, surely it
is being seriously challenged if not threatened.
The report of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement explains that
organized crime has the same objectives as legitimate businessmen: money and
power. However, the ethics the criminals adhere to, the regulations they
obey, the procedures they use, are private and secret ones that they devise
themselves, change when they see fit, and administer summarily and invisibly.
In other words, organized crime is just more free in its enterprise.
"Organized crime affects the lives of millions of Americans, but because it
desperately preserves its invisibility, many (perhaps most) Americans are not
aware how they are affected, or even that they are affected at all. The price
of a loaf of bread may go up one cent as the result of an organized crime
conspiracy, but a housewife has no way of knowing why she is paying more. If
organized criminals paid income tax on every cent of their vast earnings,
everybody's tax bill would go down-but no one knows how much ...
"Organized crime exists by virtue of the power it purchases with its money.
The millions it can throw into the legitimate economic system gives it power
over the lives of thousands of people and over the quality of life in whole
neighborhoods. The millions of dollars it can throw into the legitimate
economic system gives it power to manipulate the price of shares on the stock
market, to raise or lower the price of retail merchandise, to determine
whether entire industries are union or non-union, to make it easier or harder
for businessmen to continue in business."
The many millions of dollars that organized crime can spend on corrupting
public officials gives it power to cripple or murder people inside or outside
the organization with little fear of punishment, to extort money from
businessmen, to conduct legal and illegal business without regard to
administrative regulations, to avoid payment of income taxes, and to secure
public work contracts without competitive bidding.
The Commission concluded, therefore, that "the purpose of organized crime is
not competition with visible, legal government, but nullification of it. When
organized crime places an official in public office, it nullifies the
political process. When it bribes a police official, it nullifies law
enforcement." Later in this volume, as the generalities of the Commission are
given historical flesh, the obvious relation of these conclusions to the
Watergate scandals will become painfully clear.
THE WEAKNESS OF UNORGANIZED CRIME
The non-organization individual involved in street crime is often forced into
a relation with organized crime whether he likes it or not. Most often this
situation arises as a consequence of an arrest when the criminal may have
need to contact a loan shark to meet the cost of bail and legal fees. The
loan shark usually is working with cash advanced by a crime boss and must
charge an interest rate many times higher than the legal bank rate, a loan
source usually not available to a thief. The need to meet the excessive
premiums of the loan shark forces the criminal to engage in more frequent
criminal activity, often risky enough to result in new arrests. Then
additional legal costs result, and increasing indebtedness to the loan shark
occurs. The final outcome is that the loan shark has the option of giving
direction to the activities of the street criminal through his organized
crime connections, and another "free lancer" may have come under the full or
partial domination of the organization.
In contrast, any member of an organized crime group who is arrested on
organization "business" is certain to have the help of a competent attorney.
And, if he goes to jail, his family is assured of financial help until he
gets out. However, because too much publicity about violent crimes interferes
with the normal business profits of organized crime, any member of a crime
family caught in a non-authorized crime of violence is usually on his own.
Highlighting the difference between street criminals and organized crime,
even such Mafia bosses as Frank Costello are known to have spoken against
gunpoint robberies or wanton killings by members of the "outfit," in their
desire to remain invisible and profitable. Of course, an organized crime
"committee" sometimes does authorize a murder as a disciplinary procedure
against a troublesome family member or a defaulting victim, but the most
successful crime bosses have definitely discovered that it pays to maintain a
low profile for the public and law enforcement agencies.
A non-affiliated individual who engages in street crime also has to sell the
stolen goods, but often does not want to take the risk of finding a
trustworthy buyer. Therefore, many thieves sell to "fences" or receivers of
stolen merchandise who have sufficient connections with organized crime to
safely engage in resale of anything from diamonds to a truckload of meat.
Sale to a fence may cost the thief 75 per cent of the value of the goods, but
it reduces the risk of their being stolen from him or his being arrested with
them in his possession. In addition, large quantities of goods, goods that
are perishable or otherwise quickly lose their value, and goods for which
there is a specialized demand, require a division of labor and a level of
organization far beyond the resources of an individual thief.
Fencing takes care of one major problem of the criminal, but the "fix" is
just as important. The "fix" or payoff gives the criminal sufficient immunity
from law enforcement agencies to enable him to follow his occupation with
reasonable safety. The individual street criminal often has to turn to the
local fixer who has political connections and is usually tied in with
organized crime.
WHITE-COLLAR CRIME
Inevitably, crimes reflect the opportunity people have to commit them.
Whether a person has access to a criminal opportunity depends very much on
who he is, what work he does and where he lives. The common crimes of
violence are committed by the poor, the disadvantaged and the unorganized
criminal. This is clearly shown in the arrest statistics and records of the
criminal courts.
However, there is another type of crime that is directly connected with
occupational positions. They are committed in the course of performing the
activities of particular occupations, and exist as opportunities only for
people in those occupations. The rather vague term "white-collar crime" is
now commonly used to designate the occupational crimes committed in the
course of their work by persons of high status, social reputation and
substantial income level.
The "white-color" criminal is the broker who sells fraudulent securities, the
builder who deliberately uses defective materials, the corporation executive
who conspires to fix prices, the legislator who peddles his influence and
votes for private profit, the banker who misappropriates funds in his
keeping, or the financier who manipulates stock prices at the expense of the
small investor.
Edwin H. Sutherland, the author of the pioneering work on white-collar crime,
examined decisions of the courts and regulatory commissions under the
anti-trust, false advertising, patent, copyright and labor laws as they
applied to seventy of the nation's largest corporations over a period of
approximately forty-five years. He found that at least 980 adverse decisions
had been rendered against these corporations. Every one of the seventy had at
least one decision against it. 98 per cent of the seventy had two or more
decisions against them while 90 per cent had four or more decisions against
them. About 60 per cent of the seventy corporations had been convicted by
criminal courts. The average number of convictions per corporation was four.
Another study examined black market violations during World War II. This
study indicated that approximately one in every fifteen of the three million
business concerns in the country had serious penalties imposed on them for
violations of price regulations. The data suggested that the total number of
actual violations was much larger than indicated by the officially imposed
penalties.
Individual white collar crimes, in fact, often cost the public nearly as much
as the total annual cost of street crime, and it is therefore not surprising
that the names of organized crime figures are often mentioned in connection
with such huge thefts. Robert Vesco, the man accused of giving Nixon's
campaign fund a $200,000 illegal cash contribution, evidently did so in an
attempt to block a Security and Exchange Commission's investigation of a
theft of $224 million from the stockholders of a single corporation, the
Investors Overseas Service. Such thefts are incredibly complex, as evidenced
by the recent statements of Bernard Cornfeld, the former head of IOS, who
upon being bailed out from, the Swiss prison where he sat for eleven long
months, claimed that the amount of money that "disappeared" under Vesco
actually was $500 million Cornfeld says: "When the SEC says 224 million
dollars, it's talking only about 224 million it can specifically ear-mark.
There are large blocks of money that haven't been traced yet."
Billy Sol Estes, through his fraudulent financing of non-existent
fertilizer tanks, swindled an amount estimated in considerable excess of $30
million from the public by 1962 when the fraud exploded. One source estimates
the total cost of this crime was nearer $100 million rather than thirty
million. Another example of a large white-collar crime in recent years was
the DeAngelis vegetable oil scandal,
amounting to $175 million.
However, even these inconceivable thefts pale before the Electrical Equipment
Conspiracy Case of the early 1960's, involving forty-five executives and
twenty-nine companies controlling 95 per cent of the heavy electrical
industry. Several vice-presidents of General Electric and Westinghouse
Electric corporations were included in this conspiracy to rig prices. The
conspirators met secretly in motel rooms in dozens of cities, using
fictitious names and codes to conceal their crimes. This single case involved
a fraud of 1.7 billion dollars which, of course, eventually was paid by the
public in terms of higher prices.
The outcome of the Electrical Conspiracy trial was that the twenty-nine
companies were fined a total of $1,787,000, twenty-one executives were given
suspended thirty-day sentences, and seven executives were sent to jail for
thirty days. No one in the top management of the companies was even indicted,
although Chief Judge J. Cullen Ganey said in frustration: "The Department of
Justice has acknowledged that they were unable to uncover probative evidence
which would secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt of those in the
highest echelons of the corporations here involved. One would be most naive
indeed to believe that these violations of the law, so long persisted in,
affecting so large a segment of the industry, and, finally, involving so many
millions upon millions of dollars, were facts unknown to those responsible
for the corporation and its conduct."
THE PAYOFF SYSTEM
As we shall show, the very beginnings of organized crime in a single area
involved the corruption of local politicians and law enforcement officials.
These payoffs permitted the operators of the profitable illegal activities to
continue free from fear of arrest. Today, when crime is a national and
international industry and the stakes are much higher, the payoffs extend to
high figures in state and federal government. We believe this relatively new
influence of organized crime is one of the major factors behind the Watergate
Scandals and the actions of President Richard M. Nixon.
Another thread of corruption leading directly to the doors of the White House
can be traced by examining the more legitimate financial backers of Nixon,
such as Howard Hughes. Like organized crime, these special interests also
want special favors from the federal government, whether they be loans or tax
favors or protective legislation. And organized crime itself has become so
powerful, has so many billions invested in legitimate businesses today, both
to "launder" its illegal profits and provide an explanation for the
operators' affluence, that it is difficult to know where the influence of
organized crime stops and the activities of "legitimate" business begin.
THE NEW CIVIL WAR
Presidents Nixon and Johnson both found their primary economic support in the
new fortunes of the post World War II decade. They received campaign funds
from such industries as domestic oil and natural gas, from real estate
operations in Florida and in California, from aero-space, defense
contracting, mutual funds, and the new war-related industries of America's
Southern rim, a band that runs from the Western White House in San Clemente,
California, to the Eastern White House in Key Biscayne, Florida. It is as if
the defeated South of the American Civil War of the 1860's has regained an
economic power-base and is once again fighting with the Northeastern
industrialists for control over the domestic and foreign policies of the
United States. This book demonstrates that there are definite links between
this new money and organized crime, which reach right up into the White House
and to President Nixon.
One of the peculiar things about Watergate, that gives the still unfolding
scandal an unreal quality, is that the disclosures of the various crimes seem
to have a planned character. It's almost like a play, thoroughly directed and
orchestrated. One after another the President's men fall down. Each day there
is a new revelation, and each day the President stands more exposed. It is as
if a massive power struggle is taking place behind the scenes. In this volume
we explore the idea that the new money behind Nixon, the people who have
earned the name of "Cowboys" on Wall Street and in Washington are under
attack by their "Yankee" opponents on Wall Street and in Washington. It would
seem that the "Yankee" aim in the current battle is to win the presidency for
Ted Kennedy in 1976, and to establish an executive government that will be
more friendly to the needs of the traditionally wealthy people of this
country.
Finally, to round out our insights into Watergate, we are going to pay some
attention to the fact that the Watergate burglars and their superiors, both
in the Committee to Re-elect the President and in the White House had many
connections with the CIA, the international narcotics traffic, and the
anti-Castro movement of the Cuban exiles. We will be exploring the idea that
the "dirty tricks" developed by American Intelligence overseas as part of the
Cold War to limit Russian expansion and control narcotics, have now come home
to roost, even though the CIA itself is strictly forbidden by law from
operating domestically.
THE TRUMAN-JOHNSON-EISENHOWER SCANDALS
The number of links between Nixon and organized crime is truly amazing.
However, because the details of the actual transactions have obviously been
kept secret, we will fill the gaps by projecting into the present situation
the already known methods of collusion between crime, big business and
politicians. This is why, in this volume, we are going to take a look at how
criminal elements manipulated President Harding in the early 1920's, see how
the Mafia developed from the Italian ghettos of the beginning of the century
into just one ethnic branch of the big Crime Syndicate, and review Nixon's
political history to see where his hidden relationship to criminal elements
has surfaced.
To put Watergate in its proper political perspective we shall also take a
look at the scandals of the Truman, Johnson and Eisenhower administrations.
The profiteering of World War II helped create some of the large fortunes
being used to corrupt the federal government today.
Watergate, as the product of organized crime, American intelligence agencies,
the White House staff and lobbyists for the New Rich is certainly a new
phenomenon in this country-but it did not develop from a vacuum. In all
fairness we must observe that a former Democratic Party National Chairman at
the time of the Truman Administration, William M. Boyle Jr., was forced to
resign because of involvement in a bribery scandal having to do with
questionable loans to a private company in which he had an interest. And
Truman's appointment secretary, Matthew J. Connelly, was indicted in December
1955 for conspiracy to fix a tax case.
PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS
While Nixon's presidential pardon for Jimmy Hoffa has rightly been questioned
as a possible payoff for political and financial favors from the Teamsters
Union, the record also shows that in April 1964 President Johnson commuted
the sentence of a former St. Louis labor union official who had been
convicted of illegal kickbacks from a contractor. It then was discovered that
the man contributed heavily to the Democratic Party the next year.
In another case involving the Democratic Party, a former campaign manager for
President Truman admitted that he got the United States Board of Parole to
free Paul Ricca, Louis Campagna, Charles Gioe and Phil D'Andrea, all
well-known crime figures, after serving one-third of their ten-year sentences
for extortion. But perhaps the most famous case of executive clemency before
the Jimmy Hoffa pardon was the release of Lucky Luciano in January 1946 by
then New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican who had originally
sent Luciano to prison in 1936 for thirty to fifty years as the organizer of
New York's prostitution racket.
Ralph Salerno, former Mafia expert for the New York City Police Department
and the only police officer who was a member of the Organized Crime Task
Force of the President's Crime Commission, has been widely quoted as saying:
"Organized Crime will put a man in the White House some day, and he won't
know it until they hand him the bill." By the end of this volume the reader
will be able to judge for himself if this has already come true.
THE WATERGATE COVER-UP
It was on June 17, 1972, that the burglars broke in at the headquarters of
the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate office-apartment-hotel
complex. On June 18th, John Mitchell, former U.S. Attorney General and the
President's campaign manager, issued a statement in Los Angeles: "The person
involved is the proprietor of a private security agency who was employed by
our committee months ago to assist with the installation of our security
system. He has, as we understand it, a number of business clients and
interests, and we have no knowledge of these relationships. We want to
emphasize that this man and the other people involved were not operating
either on our behalf or with our consent. There is no place in our campaign
or in the electoral process for this type of activity, and we will not permit
or condone it."
As we now know from the testimony of Jeb Stuart Magruder, the deputy campaign
director for the Committee to Re-elect the President and formerly deputy
director of White House communications, on the very next day, Monday June
19th, Mitchell was privately suggesting the destruction of incriminating
files, while John Dean had already ordered the removal of all documents from
E. Howard Hunt's White House Office-while denying any knowledge that Hunt had
such an office.
By June 20th, Tuesday, we now know that President Nixon was instructing
Ehrlichman and Haldeman: "...to insure that the investigation ... not expose
either an unrelated covert operation of the CIA or the activities of the
White House investigations unit ... and to see that this was personally
coordinated between the head of the CIA, General Vernon A. Walters, and the
acting head of the FBI, L. Patrick Gray III." Ehrlichman was instructing Dean
to shred the documents on the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg, which were
found in E. Howard Hunt's safe, and The Washington Post was running a story
headed "Whitehouse Consultant Linked to Bugging Suspects."
But that morning at the Florida White House in Key Biscayne, Presidential
Press Secretary Ronald L. Zeigler, in answering a question about the break-in
at Watergate, stated: "Certain elements may try to stretch this beyond what
it is." Zeigler described the incident as "a third-rate burglary attempt."
And, at a press conference on June 22nd, President Nixon made his first
public comment on the break-in: "The White House has had no involvement
whatever in this particular incident." As we now know, these original denials
were followed in the next few months by an attempted cover-up of all the
relevant facts by the White House Staff. In the President's own terms, there
was an attempt to "cut the losses."
CUTTING THE LOSS WITH AGNEW
Even at the stage when many of those accused in the cover-up are being put on
trial and Congress itself is moving toward the impeachment of the President,
the attempt to cut the losses is still being made. This came out very clearly
in the procedure used to remove former Vice-President Spiro Agnew from
office. A federal grand jury was investigating Agnew on charges of bribery,
extortion and tax fraud. At first Agnew denied everything, and
counterattacked by subpoenaing eight reporters and two national news
magazines in an attempt to pin down leaks about the Agnew investigation.
According to these leaks, in January 1972 the federal grand jury began
investigating political kickbacks by contractors in Maryland when Agnew was
governor and, previously, the elected county executive of Baltimore County.
Jerome B. Wolff, a former Agnew aide in his county, state and
vice-presidential jobs evidently testified, reluctantly, that contractors had
made contributions to Agnew of $1000 per week when he was county executive
and governor. The investigation reportedly involved real estate developer
I.H. Hammerman, one of Agnew's principal financial backers, and Lester Matz,
a contractor who has had business relations with Agnew. Matz, who is known to
have made large contributions to Democrats as well as Republicans, is
reported to have approached someone close to Agnew in an effort to get the
investigation canceled. He allegedly also offered to testify before the grand
jury in exchange for immunity from prosecution. Matz is the person said to
have told prosecutors that Agnew got $50,000 after he became Vice-President
from a contractor seeking federal business.
The prosecutors formally told Agnew on August 1, 1973, that he was under
investigation. He was "invited" to bring the prosecutors his post-1966
financial and tax records by August 9th, but his lawyers asked for and got an
extension of the deadline, while they determined whether Agnew's papers were
protected by the doctrine of executive privilege. Meanwhile Agnew denounced
as "damned lies" the allegations that he accepted kickbacks from Maryland
contractors and engineering consulting firms. He agreed to answer any
questions of the investigators.
On September 28, 1973, New York Times columnist James Reston reported that
Agnew was determined to fight back and to remain in office even if indicted.
Although Reston did not reveal the source of his information, he later said
he had personally interviewed Agnew.
The next day, in his speech to the National Federation of Republican Women in
Los Angeles, Agnew stated again that he was "innocent of the charges against
me," and vowed to remain in office even if indicted. Agnew's attorneys were
to appear in U.S. District Court in Baltimore on October 12th to argue a
motion prohibiting the grand jury from continuing its investigation—but in a
brief thirty-five-minute court hearing in Baltimore on October 10th George
Beall, U.S. attorney for Maryland, presented a "criminal information"
charging Agnew only with income tax evasion in 1967. Agnew then entered a
surprise plea of "nole contendere" (a legal phrase meaning "I do not choose
to defend myself," but, in this context, constituting an admission of guilt.)
U.S. District Judge Walter E. Hoffman then got assurances from Agnew to the
effect that Agnew understood that his action amounted to an admission that
the Justice Department had sufficient evidence to convict him, Judge Hoffman
then led Agnew through the terms of his deal with federal prosecutors:
-That he would resign as Vice-President. The judge noted at this point that,
"I want you to know that no federal court could legally require you to take
this action."
-That the Justice Department would halt all other prosecutions against Agnew
growing out of the Baltimore investigation,
-That federal attorneys could still file civil actions against Agnew to
recover back taxes and penalties.
-That federal prosecutors would recommend probation without supervision for a
term to be set by the court, which could also fix a fine.
Agnew agreed to these terms and his plea was accepted. The judge later set
the term of the unsupervised probation at three years and the fine at $10,000.
In April 1974, the seven judges of the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the
decision by the State Bar Association to disbar the former Vice-President
from the practice of law.
Luckily for the public, Agnew had thoroughly antagonized officials of the
Justice Department by his previous charge that they had "decided to indict me
in the press whether or not the evidence supports their position," so the
agreement between Agnew and the court allowed the Justice Department to
submit for the court record a forty-page exposition of all its evidence
against Agnew, not restricted to the tax evasion charge. Attorney General
Richardson, who has since resigned, said the evidence "establishes a pattern
of substantial cash payments to the defendant while Governor of Maryland as
well as before and since he became Vice-President." Richardson then added
that he was departing from the customary Justice Department practice in tax
evasion cases of urging a jail sentence, because of Agnew's position as
Vice-President.
The slap on the wrist given Spiro Agnew compares unfavorably with the
five-year prison sentence given to his successor as Baltimore County
executive, N. Dale Anderson, convicted on March 20, 1974, on thirty-two
counts of extortion from architects and engineers in return for county
contracts, income tax evasion amounting to $59,947, and conspiracy. Anderson,
57 years old and a former Democratic National Committeeman who succeeded
Agnew as county executive in 1966, resigned his office the week before the
sentencing. Perhaps as a concession to those who would question the more
lenient treatment given Agnew, U.S. District Judge Joseph H. Young observed
when sentencing Anderson that Anderson could be paroled at any time at the
discretion of the Federal Board of Parole and Probation.
Will it be the policy of the courts to give the lightest sentences possible
for the Watergate offenses? As we shall see in looking at organized crime, it
is part of the traditional payoff system that if and when it becomes
absolutely unavoidable to have a raid on a gambling joint, the raid does take
place-but it is agreed beforehand that the money will not be on the table, in
order to "cut the losses." And it is part of the system of payoff that if a
crime figure must then be prosecuted because of public pressure, a dismissal
or a light sentence is agreed upon in court if possible. If the crime figure
must really go to jail, then the payoff system promises that pressure will be
exerted on state governors or even the President of the United States to
arrange for an early parole, pardon or commutation of sentence. Is this the
way the Republican administration plans to "cut the losses" of Watergate when
individuals are being tried by the courts?
CUTTING THE LOSS WITH KLEINDIENST
When former Attorney General Richard G. Kleindienst was permitted to plead
guilty to a one-count misdemeanor charge of refusing and failing to answer
"accurately and fully" the questions at this 1972 Senate confirmation
hearing, thereby avoiding the serious charge of perjurywas this the latest
stage of cover-up, the latest payoff?
The statute under which Kleindienst was convicted carries a mandatory minimum
jail sentence of one month and a maximum of one year, so the stench of a foul
deal happening behind the backs of the public became very pronounced when
Chief U.S. District Judge George L. Hart Jr., who accepted Kliendienst's
plea, said afterwards that he had the power to suspend the mandatory sentence.
And what did Kleindienst do? In a "criminal information" filed by Special
Prosecutor Leon Jaworski it was noted that Kleindienst had withheld from the
Senate the fact that he had received a direct order from President Nixon to
drop an anti-trust suit action against an International Telephone and
Telegraph Corporation acquisition. Obviously, this would have been a crucial
disclosure when the whole country was wondering if ITT had pledged $400,000
for the 1972 Republican Convention in exchange for a settlement of three
anti-trust suits against ITT.
Under questioning by Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Kleindienst
brazenly testified under oath: "In the discharge of my responsibilities as
the Acting Attorney General in these cases I was not interfered with by
anybody at the White House. I was not importuned; I was not pressured; I was
not directed ...
... So there has been nothing, to my knowledge, based upon my experience and
participation or anything that I have beard here that even just by innuendo
or conjecture or implication would suggest that in this case there was any
improper conduct by anybody or interference, or anything like that. . . "
The truth of the matter, however, is that Kleindienst now recalls that John
Ehrlichman "abruptly called and stated that the President asked me not to
file the appeal." Kleindienst then told Ehrlichman that a decision had been
reached in the Justice Department to file an appeal, and to so notify the
President. Minutes later the President himself called. Kleindienst recalls
now that the conversation went like this, with the expletives not deleted;
"Listen, you son of a bitch, don't you understand the English language? Don't
appeal that goddam case, and that's all there is to it!"
Richard Kleindienst was the highest law enforcement official in the country
at the time he told the United States Senate the lie that no one in the White
House had pressured him, when the memorable conversation with Nixon cited
above must still have been ringing in his ears. By permitting Kleindienst to
make a deal of pleading to a lesser charge than perjury, the court made a
mockery of American justice and, in effect, told the American people that the
high officials involved in Watergate will be given slaps on the wrist and
nothing more.
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
In talking with reporters after the proceedings, Jaworski also revealed his
bias in saying that he saw nothing intrinsically wrong in Mr. Nixon's call
ordering Kleindienst to drop the ITT anti-trust suit. "I think the President
has a right as Chief Executive Officer to pass upon matters of anti-trust,"
Said Jaworski.
And with those few words the Chief Watergate Prosecutor told us that he too
is bending over backwards to deal with Nixon in a gentle manner, despite the
fact that Nixon used the power of the federal government to do a
multi-million dollar favor for a contributor to the Republican campaign fund.
Needless to say, it is the American taxpayer who pays the multi-millions that
ITT gained.
One of the greatest lessons to be learned from observing the war that the
American government is supposedly waging against organized crime is that when
any punishment does take place, it is usually the small operator who receives
the punishment, not the big boss. The brain behind the scenes is rarely
punished for the orders he gives his employees. Will this also be the final
outcome of the present investigation of Watergate? Is this another clue that
only the names of the actors are different while the circumstances are
similar?
As we have seen with Agnew, statements by a politician that he will not
resign when faced with criminal charges or impeachment are not worth the
paper they are written on, nor the air they are broadcast on. So it is quite
possible, perhaps even probable, that Richard Nixon will resign before the
impeachment process is finally concluded. But it is clear from the facts in
this volume that what we know of Watergate is only a fraction of what needs
to be known. Only if the American public understands and is prepared to do
battle with the new and old sources of political corruption, will it be
possible to preserve and extend democracy in these United States. If we let
the present culprits escape their proper punishment, we will be encouraging
those organized crime, big business and intelligence forces that created the
Watergate mentality to begin with.
pps 241-251
--[cont]--
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
