Inside Job: How Nixon Was Taken Down

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

INTRODUCTION

People
can be misled by deliberately distracting them. This fact is basic
to all forms of "magic," meaning prestidigitation. The
performer seeks to persuade members of the audience to focus their
attention on something peripheral, when the real action lies elsewhere.
A skilled performer can do this "as if by magic."

The
mainstream media use a very similar strategy in crucial events.
The public is reminded of the official version of what is a turning-point
event. Nothing is said of other aspects of the event. It is assumed
that the public will forget. Prior to the Internet, this was a safe
assumption. It no longer is.

Let
me give you an example. We have all heard the analogy of the elephant
in the living room. Out of politeness to the host, no guest says
anything. If no one says anything for a long enough period, people
tend not to notice the beast any more. It becomes background noise
(and odor). When they move on to another dinner party, they tend
to forget that the elephant was ever there.

I
am now going to present three videos. They are videos of the largest
documented elephant in the largest living room in human history.
Nothing else matches it. Some of you may have seen video #3: it
was on national TV. Yet after its broadcast, this elephant was dropped
down the memory hole. Memory holes are designed to accept elephants.
People have heard about this one, but they have long forgotten it.
Only by deliberately ignoring it can those in charge of reminding
people to think about certain details be confident that the official
version of the event will be believed.

The
event took place eight hours after a more famous event. That event
was 9/11. But this event was also part of 9/11. It is the event,
more than any other event, that does not fit the official explanation.
It fits a few of the unofficial explanations.

Watch
the video.
On my computer, QuickTime is automatically activated.

"Name
that event!" What event was it? Do you remember? Can you identify
it by name? Probably not.

Don’t
tell me Orwell was wrong in Nineteen
Eighty-Four
. The memory hole strategy works.

Now
watch a different video of the same event.
Think about what
you are watching. How can this be true? How can the sequence have
taken place? What’s wrong with this picture?

Then,
for the capper, watch the third version. Listen to the verbal comments.
The commentator is Dan Rather. Millions of people saw this video
and heard what he said. He never said it again. Neither did any
other national media commentator. Watch and listen. There is a movable
right-left button at the bottom of the image’s screen if you have
QuickTime installed. You can rerun the video by using your cursor
to move the button to the left. Then
click the play button again.

All
right, for those of you who are still confused at what this is,
I’ll refresh your memory. This
is the collapse of Building 7 of the World Towers complex.
It
took place at 5:20 p.m., over eight hours after the previous collapses.
This is the third largest building in history to collapse, yet it
is essentially forgotten by the public. Building 7 was a block away
from the first two.

As
you have seen, the building collapsed from the bottom. It fell straight
down — just as North and South towers did. This caught Rather’s
attention. In a moment of extreme indiscretion, he said this:

It’s
reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television
before, when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed
dynamite to knock it down.

He
only said it once. But, because of the Web, we can hear him say
it over and over.

Why
did it collapse? Because it was deliberately demolished. Despite
all the chaos of that day, there was time to “pull it.” Evidence?
Click this for a recording.

In
the midst of that day’s chaos, a team of highly skilled professionals
was assembled in less than eight hours to demolish the building.
How? This time frame in itself is remarkable: hours, not days. How?
There were fires on the upper floors.

The
team clearly had the protection of the authorities. They blew out
the foundations of an insured building. By common law, a fire department
can legally destroy property to keep a fire from spreading. I ask:
“To where?” For
more details and an amazing video, click here.

[You
will probably not be able to turn off the first video if you watch
the first five minutes. If you're at work, you are now forewarned.
The report is from Alex Jones, or as he is known by cognoscenti
on the Left, "Rush Limbaugh's Rush Limbaugh."]

This
is not the sort of thing that the American public wants to hear.
So, they do not hear it in the mainstream media.

Enough
of this information was made public by mainstream media sources
so that it’s not easy to call this a systematic cover-up. But because
people have very short memories, it is not necessary to engineer
a complete blackout to cover up something very big — in this
case, 47 stories. It is only necessary to ignore certain evidence
and refrain from asking certain questions. Like the dog that Sherlock
Holmes observed in retrospect — the dog that did not bark —
so is the question that never gets asked by investigators. Why doesn’t
it get asked?

I
am making a simple point. An event seen by millions of people so
recently can still be dropped down the memory hole. Embarrassing
questions are not aired before the general public. No one asks:
"What is that elephant doing here?"

It
is time to consider a far less visible elephant.

Part
1

DEEP
THROAT: THE SIDESHOW SOLVED!

The
identity of Deep Throat is modern journalism’s greatest unsolved
mystery. It has been said that he may be the most famous anonymous
person in U.S. history.

This
is the assessment of John O’Connor, author of the July, 2005 Vanity
Fair article, “I’m the Guy they Called Deep Throat.” If this
really was modern journalism’s greatest unsolved mystery, then modern
journalists have got way too much time on their hands.

Deep
Throat. For days after Vanity Fair’s story appeared (May
31), the media were filled with Deep Throat stories. "Washington’s
oldest mystery is solved!"

This
shows that Washington is still as dumb as a post, and has a newspaper
to prove it: The Washington Post.

Deep
Throat was a sideshow in 1973, and still is.

Deep
Throat never had what it took to unseat Richard Nixon. Neither did
Woodward and Bernstein. One man did. He remains anonymous.

In
the initial contacts with Woodward, Deep Throat merely confirmed
what W&B had dug up on their own. He was not a supplier of new
information until much later.

The
real supplier of new information never talked with Woodward or Bernstein.
They never knew he was the reason why all the President’s men sank
with the Good Ship R. M. Nixon. He was buried so deeply in the bowels
of the government that I call him Deep Sphincter.

"FOLLOW
THE MONEY"

W.
Mark Felt was on target when he told Woodward to follow the money.
He did historians a great favor by getting this phrase into the
English language — not that most salaried historians are willing
to do this. But anyone who is trying to uncover the source of crucial
decisions ought to begin with the trail of digits in our era that
we call money.

Nevertheless,
this is only one avenue from the here and now back to square one.
The other major trail is the loyalty trail. This procedure is what
I have called "follow the oath." When we discover to whom
or to what a man has sworn allegiance, we learn a great deal about
him. We must also look carefully at the sanctions, both positive
and negative, that is imposed to maintain his allegiance.

When
men keep their mouths shut about a really big secret, there has
to be fear in the picture. Men love to brag about the big deals
they have been a part of. Eventually, they feel compelled to take
credit. W. Mark Felt held back for over three decades, but finally
he went public. "Yes, I did it. I’m the one!" It is the
cry of the four-year-old on the day care playground: "Look
at me!" Call it a Felt need.

The
man who takes his biggest secret to the grave was a serious player,
or at least a serious observer.

He
who exposes a damaging secret is hailed by the enemies of his victim
and is vilified by the victim’s supporters. Mr. Felt is now experiencing
both traditional responses, which come with the territory. His critics
cry:

"Disloyalty!"
Nixon’s enemies cry: "Higher duty!"

Different
strokes from different folks.

But
the person who actually made the difference — the one who brought
Nixon down — says nothing. The press says nothing. The greatest
Watergate secret of all remains a secret.

TRUNCATED
CHAINS OF COMMAND

Woodward
and Bernstein kept writing stories about the Committee to Re-Elect
the President. Nixon’s team was not very forward-looking when they
chose this name for their organization. Its acronym later became
CREEP. (The other possible acronym, CRP, also created PR problems.)
I challenge readers to come up with a real-world organization with
a negative acronym to match CREEP. CREEP crept on behalf of a man
universally regarded by his enemies as a creep. CREEP was perfect
for the newspapers.

Nevertheless,
tracing money into CREEP and back out to one of the burglars was
not the same as tracing anything illegal to Nixon. Nixon could always
say that he had nothing to do with the minions at CREEP. This is
what every senior decision-maker says whenever some unsavory machination
hits the headlines. It works most of the time.

The
minions are either loyal or afraid. When threatened with serious
negative sanctions, they may reply:

"I
was just following orders!" But these unwritten orders always
seem to have originated no higher than the rank of staff sergeant
or its organizational equivalent. Somehow, with the exception of
My Lai, such orders do not originate at the commissioned officer
level, and never at the field-grade officer level. There is always
a break in the chain of command, usually quite low on the chain.
The only exception is when a nation loses a war. The Nuremburg trials
followed the orders all the way up. But these post-World War II
trials were unique in the history of peacetime.

Nixon
lost the Watergate war. Yet in the midst of that war, he was in
a safe position with respect to CREEP’s flow of funds. Here, he
knew what he was doing. He was out of the loop. The Democrats had
almost succeeded in scuttling him on the payola issue in the 1952
Presidential campaign, and only his deservedly famous "Checkers"
speech saved him. Overnight, Checkers became the most famous dog
in American political history, the dog that saved Nixon’s career.
Eisenhower had been prepared to drop Nixon from the ticket, but
that speech went to the hearts of Republicans in the heartland.
Nixon survived. Never again would he let himself be implicated in
wrongdoing by this sign on his desk: "The bucks stop here."

Yet
in August, 1974, Nixon resigned. How did this happen?

THE
SMOKING TAPES

Two
events led to Nixon’s removal: one public, one private.

The
first event was the televised admission by Alexander Butterfield,
under questioning by a Republican Senate staff lawyer, Fred Dalton
Thompson (later to become an actor who often played a Senator, then
a U.S. Senator, and now an actor who plays the New York City District
Attorney on Law and Order), that Nixon had bugged the White
House. The Secret Service had tape-recorded all of Nixon’s conversations,
beginning in early 1971. By this public admission, he became the
most important of all the public players.

Butterfield
had been Deputy Assistant to the President. He had been recommended
by Haldeman. He worked with the Secret Service on security matters.
He had been in charge of secretly taping the Cabinet meetings.

In
late 1972, he had been appointed the head of the Federal Aviation
Administration. He remained the head of the FAA after Nixon resigned.

The
recording system went on and off automatically throughout the Executive
Office Building (1) whenever it detected a voice, if (2) the system
previously detected Nixon’s electronic locator, which the Secret
Service made him wear. When he was in a room and someone started
speaking, a tape recorder came on. Again, this is according to the
official site. It is also what Butterfield told a conference in
2003. A
transcript is posted on-line, and it is a fascinating document.

This
automated system was not the recording system used in the Cabinet
Room. There, the system had to be activated manually. Butterfield
had been in charge of the manual taping system until he went to
the FAA.

On
July 13, 1973, he told Senate staff committee members about the
tapes. He testified in public on July 16, 1973. He was of course
asked about the tapes. He admitted everything.

Chief
of Staff Alexander Haig ordered the Secret Service to remove the
system on July 18. Let me check my calendar: testimony on July 16;
removal on July 18 . . . lighting-fast thinking by a retired 4-star
general!

Think
about this
chronology
:

The
first bug was planted in the Democrats’ office on May 28, 1972.

The
bungled break-in took place on June 17.

On
August 1, the Washington Post reported a $25,000 check,
earmarked for the Nixon campaign, that had been deposited in the
bank account of one of the burglars.

On
October 10, the Post reported that the FBI had determined
that the break-in was part of a campaign of spying conducted by
the President’s re-election effort.

The
tape-recording system was removed on July 18, 1973, at Haig’s request,
not Nixon’s, according to the
government’s official site for the tapes
.

Somehow,
it had not occurred to Nixon that the tapes might be incriminating.
"Let the good tapes roll!"

Men
later went to jail because of what was on those tapes. Some of them
knew that the tape machine was running when they spoke the words
that sent them to jail. Haldeman knew. Others may have known. Yet
we are supposed to believe that they never told Nixon, "Turn
off the tape recorder."

I
have my choice of conclusions: (1) Nixon and his assistants simply
forgot about the recorders; (2) they thought that no one would gain
access to the tapes before the statute of limitations ran out for
them, and they cared nothing about future historians’ assessments
of their personal integrity; (3) Nixon did not have control over
the recordings.

Most
commentators say #2 was the reason: Nixon’s desire for accurate
records for writing his memoirs. It
turns out that recorders had been installed by Eisenhower, Kennedy,
and Johnson.
We have learned that Roosevelt had a primitive
recording system installed. Johnson had advised Nixon to start recording
his conversations. He told him that he was using tapes to write
his memoirs, which were published in 1971. Nixon at first resisted
the suggestion, but in early 1971, he asked Butterfield install
the system.

From
the day he had the system installed, he lost control over his Presidency.
He was leaving a record of everything he said.

Butterfield
and others have pointed out that Nixon was incapable of operating
any mechanical device. This was why Butterfield had to turn on the
recorder in the Cabinet room. This was also why Rose Mary Woods
got blamed for the missing 18 minutes. No one close to the President
believed that Nixon could have erased it by himself.

This
means that Nixon from the beginning knew that he would have to have
the tapes transcribed by a third party. Whatever was on them, a
third party would know.

Also,
he would have to listen to a staggering number of tapes before getting
any section transcribed. In less than three years, there were 3,700
hours of tapes. There would have been over three more years of taping
on the day Haig removed the system.

In
his post-Presidency writing, how could he identify the tape of a
specific meeting? By coordinating his appointments calendar with
the dates on the tapes. If he could do this, so could the person
in charge of the tapes, if he had access to the appointments calendar.
The Secret Service controlled the tapes, which were stored in a
room under the Oval office. Nixon
did not personally control the tapes.

There
was one simple way that he could get away with "I am not a
crook": remove all the tape recorders and destroy all the tapes
— assuming there was only one copy. Haig finally pulled the
plug. Too late. At that point, destroying the tapes would have been
obstruction of justice. On June 18, 1972, it would not have been.

Someone
was determined to keep those tapes rolling. Nixon did not remove
the system; Haig did, on his own authority, the official version
says. But, by then, it was legally too late to destroy the tapes.

INVESTIGATIVE
REPORTING

Beginning
no later than Nixon’s resignation, a competent reporter would have
followed more than the money.

He
would have pursued these questions:

Who had something
to gain from the tapes?

What did
he have to gain?

Who had the
power to leave the tapes running?

How did he
gain this power?

To whom was
he loyal? Why?

What sanctions
were over him?

Why did Nixon’s
senior staff talk on tape?

Why didn’t
they say: "The tapes go or I do"?

What sanctions
did they face for quitting?

To whom were
they loyal?

The
tapes provided enormous leverage against Nixon.

The
question is: For whom? And this: Starting when?

After
Butterfield’s testimony, Nixon’s opponents had far more leverage
than before, but it was still insufficient leverage. They had to
get access to all of the tapes, but the courts refused to grant
this. Congress was not allowed to go on a fishing expedition. In
effect, the prosecutors had to have a warrant issued by the court,
meaning Judge Sirica. They had to be able to identify specific discussions
related to suspected crimes, not discussions in general.

Nixon
soon invoked "executive privilege." The courts were unwilling
to give carte blanche to the two Watergate committees to turn their
staffs loose on those tapes — not unless the Supreme Court
authorized this. The Supreme Court did not do this until after the
lower courts and Congress had access to the crucial segments of
the tapes.

FOLLOW
THE NUMBERS

We
come now to the second event, which was a connected series of events:
the heart of the Watergate investigation.

This
is not the heart of Watergate as such. We still do not know for
sure why the Plumbers installed bugs in the office of the Democratic
National Committee. We do not know why they came back weeks later.

But
the most important thing we do not know is the name of the inside
man at the White House.

There
was an inside man. On him, the outcome of the investigation pivoted.
Yet I know of only three people who have ever raised this issue
in print. I am one of them: third in a row.

I
first wrote about this in 1987. That was 14 years after the event,
or, more accurately, a related series of events. A copy of my brief
discussion is on-line. It is a section from the bibliography of
my book, Conspiracy:
A Biblical View
.

I
have never been contacted by any historian or any journalist regarding
what you are about to read. I sent it to the professor whose journalism
students did the famous investigation of Deep Throat a few years
ago. They jointly concluded that he was Fred Fielding. The professor
never replied.

Here
is the story that Woodward and Bernstein somehow missed, though
it was the central fact — not Deep Throat’s revelations —
in Nixon’s defeat and their subsequent fame. Here is what I wrote
in the
1996 revised edition of my 1987 book
.

The
Watergate investigation became a media extravaganza that seemed
to elevate the reporter’s calling to national status. Yet some of
the details of the Watergate investigation raise questions that
only hard-core conspiracy buffs ever ask. For instance, we all know
that Nixon was brought down because of the White House audiotapes.
But he refused to give up these tapes in one fell swoop. In fact,
not until 1996 were scholars given access to these tapes. Only under
specific demands by government prosecutors did Nixon turn over limited
sections of those tapes. Gary Allen in 1976 summarized the findings
of Susan Huck’s February, 1975, article in American Opinion,
the publication of the John Birch Society. Allen wrote in The
Kissinger File (p. 179):

Consider
the fantastic detail involved in the requests. On August 14th,
[1973] for example, Judge Sirica demanded the "entire segment
of tape on the reel identified as u2018White House telephone start
5/25/72 (2:00 P.M.) (skipping 8 lines) 6/2:3/72 (2:50 P.M.) (832)
complete.’" I don’t know what all the identifying numbers
mean — but you have to agree that only somebody very familiar
with the tapes would know. These boys knew precisely what to look
for! Here is another sample request:

January
8, 1973 from 4:05 to 5:34 P.M. (E.O.B.)

  1. at approximately
    10 minutes and 15 seconds into the conversation, a segment
    lasting 6 minutes and 31 seconds:
  2. at approximately
    67 minutes into the conversation, a segment lasting 11 minutes;
  3. at approximately
    82 minutes and 15 seconds into the conversation, a segment
    lasting 5 minutes and 31 seconds.

Only
Susan Huck asked the obvious question: How did the prosecutors know
precisely when these incriminating discussions took place? There
are only two possible answers: (1) someone with access to the tapes
inside the White House was leaking the information; (2) there was
a secret back-up set of the tapes in the hands of someone who was
leaking the information. Leaked information would have been illegal
for prosecutors to use in court, yet this was how they brought Nixon
down.

To
my knowledge, no reporter or professional historian has ever bothered
to follow up on this remarkable oddity, or even mention it. Nobody
ever asked: "What person was in charge of storing those tapes?"
It took one of the least known and most diligent conspiracy historians
(Ph.D. in geography) even to mention the problem. Strange? Not at
all. Normal, in fact. Such is the nature of history and the writing
of history whenever the events in question point to the operation
of powerful people whose private interests are advanced by what
appear to be honorable public activities that cost a lot of money.

This
is the elephant in the West Wing. This is what no one discussed
at the time, let alone now.

More to
come in my next article.

June
8, 2005

Gary
North [send him mail] is the
author of Mises
on Money
. Visit http://www.freebooks.com.
He is also the author of a free multi-volume series, An
Economic Commentary on the Bible
.

Gary
North Archives

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare