Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

On Deep Throat & Rehnquist .....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 12:15 PM
Original message
On Deep Throat & Rehnquist .....
on one of the longer threads regarding "Deep Throat's" identity, some speculated on His Honesty William Rehnquist. Others noted he was a judge, not part of the Nixon Administration. In fact, he was the Assistant Attorney General under Nixon before being rewarded with an undeserved seat on the bench. As AAG, he helped to do such things as write the legal "justification" for invading Cambodia, and to press the attacks on the media.

While I suspect "Deep Throat" is a composite of people who provided intelligence resource/ reporter Woodward with the information needed to remove Nixon from office, I had not really considered men like Rehnquist and Ford as likely. What a surprise it would be if either were part of that composite!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
justiceischeap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. If we are to believe Woodward
Deep Throat is real and is a man, not a composite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Key point:
You are right. "If we are to believe Woodward" is perhaps the question to consider more than who he might identify as DT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. True, but Berstein met with Deep Throat, as well, and I believe
Berstein.
Therefore, Deep Throat probably is a real person (singular) and probably a man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Well, that's easy
Bernstein clearly has not had the connections (or career) that Woodward has had. If it were a composite, it is possible -- even likely -- that Woodward would not have introduced Bernstein to all of them. Look at Woodward's career: he surely has a lot of connections that most journalists don't enjoy. It's almost like he uses journalism as a cover for his real profession.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. bingo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. Composite vs individual
Of course, if the rule is to wait until 'he' is dead, then that makes it impossible for the deceased to deny the claim. Clever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarianJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. I've Heard 3 Names As Possibles,...
...and each would be a shock to me!

Al Haig
Pat Buchannan
Julie Nixon Eisenhower!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasSissy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
34. Wasn't DT in the FBI?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. I sincerely doubt Woodward relied on DT, alone
Information from one anonymous insider is just gossip. If another anonymous insider confirms it, then maybe it's worthy of publication.

I think DT was a person. I also think other people had to confirm his information before Woodward and Bernstein stuck their necks out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. DT was not "anonymous"
There is a difference between an anonymous source and a confidential source. He/They identified himself/themselves to Woodward. An anonymous source would be one that didn't identify who they were when they gave the info, e.g. a call in the middle of the night with a voice saying "Follow the money *click*"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. Sen Robert F. Bennett who ran the Mullen & Co CIA front should be
a prime suspect on the composite/literary device Woodstein used to get information on record when attribution was impossible.

Read http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/07.03.97/scoop-9727.html
and then delve into "Secret Agenda" by Jim Hougan for a better understanding of 'who is Robert Woodward' ... the real key to finding Deep Throat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberty Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
7. Rehnquist was likely a source to Woodward on "The Brethren."
So they may well have a history of collaborating.

Woodward has backed off earlier promises to reveal the source behind his expose book on the Supreme Court. Originally, he said he'd name names when the source died. But after the deaths of several justices, he said he couldn't do so without risking revealing his source through process of eliminiation (ie, it's someone who is still alive and on the court.)

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1030821212697
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shopaholic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Now that's interesting
Thanks so much for posting that link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hector459 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
21. Anybody remember when Nixon appointed Renquist the stories about
Renquist being a druggie? Experimented with LSD and other drugs and was smashed during much of his law school days? I am trying to find those articles through a Google but I just wondered if anyone else remembered those stories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. I think his law school days
were significantly earlier than the popularity of LSD. Keep in mind that the real controversy about his confirmation came not from his being a wild & crazy type of guy, but rather about his being a racist who was intent upon keeping blacks and Hispanic from being able to vote (or live in "public housing"). He was a law clerk for Justice Robert jackson in 1952, when he wrote a memo he entitled "A Random Though on the Segregation Cases." TIME magazine published it in 12-6-71. In essence, the memo advocated Plessy v Ferguson, the 1896 case that upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine. Seventeen years after Brown v Board of Education, this could have derailed his nomination to the bench.

What did His Honesty Rehnquist do? Lied under oath, of course. He was guilty of perjury. Just as he was again in 1986, when he became Chief Injustice. He lied, and though everyone knew he was lying, he was seated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
begin_within Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
10. So Nixon appointed Rehnquist as a type of "hush money"....?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diamond14 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
14. it's NOT ford.....ford just never had it in him to do ANYTHING at all

ford represented Grand Rapids, Michigan, in the House of Representatives for 25 years, and never passed a bill...never even INTRODUCED a bill...

that's why the 'powers that be' selected ford...because he was one of the very few members of Congress that had NO RECORD of sleezy conduct....



When Congress cut off the WAR funding, ford was such a do-nothing Commander-in-Chief, that he just SAT THERE and let this happen:

Authorized personnel and civilians rush to board a Marine helicopter during the evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, April 29, 1975.


U.S. Navy personnel aboard the USS Blue Ridge push a helicopter into the sea in order to make room for more evacuation flights from Saigon, April 29, 1975
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. However, Ford was on the Warren Commission
and he was one of the members who went to Dallas to interview Jack Ruby. He was also the member who refused to bring Ruby to Washington even after Ruby told him it was not safe for him to talk where he was. And if anyone knew how unsafe the Dallas jail could be, it was Jack Ruby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
33. Ford was a player.
He played a role beyond the fumbling, kind uncle of our nation. He was not a good person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. Rehnquist smokes
Does he drink scotch?
Woodward noted that Deep Throat was a smoker and that he drank Scotch. "Aware of his own weaknesses, he readily conceded his flaws," the reporters wrote. "He was, incongruously, an incurable gossip, careful to label rumor for what it was, but fascinated by it. . . .He could be rowdy, drink too much, overreach. He was not good at concealing his feelings, hardly ideal for a man in his position."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/deepthroat.html

I'm having a hard time imagining Rehnquist as the one, though. Surely he would've known that icing Nixon would derail the burgeoning Republican ascendancy for at least a decade, even if he felt that detente with Russia and normalization with China was treachery. Just a few more years of suffering Dick and Republicans could've shoehorned a more hawkish GOOPer into the presidency. I dunno. Or maybe the old racist couldn't bear Nixon's impotence against the rise of Black Power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevCheesehead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Hmm....incurable gossip?
Sounds like Poppy to me. But as far as I know, he ain't at death's door (unless you count life with Bar as a death sentence).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Nixon was removed
because he did not have the purity that the far right demanded. Never forget that after 1973, Nixon flirted with the idea of starting a third party. I'll avoid the temptation to list 100 books that people should read; instead, just review Stephen Ambrose's "Ruin and Recovery: 1973-1990."

The far-right thought that getting rid of Nixon would lead to a more pure strain of their type in power. Ford was not their man, and Reagan actually came close to being pushed on the party in '76. When Carter got in, the right knew he would fail in ways that insured their being able to put Reagan in office.

I've come to think that is why there were a few sources that fed the story to the media. Some may well have been concerned that an unstable criminal was holding the reins of power. As odd as it may sound, Haig had more of a conscience and spine than the rest of the administration combined. Buchanan was pushing the "New American Revolution" that has served as the model this administration is using today, but he wasn't as Machiavellian as Rehnquist. I could believe that Rehnquist was an active participant in the destruction of Nixon.

There was a serious question about his lack of ethics raised when he was put on the Supreme Court. I believe that Vince Bugliosi covered it in detail in his book on the theft of the 2000 election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. In just a few more years
Reagan could've succeeded Nixon. Ford was a national non-entity who only benefitted from the advantage of incumbency and a party (and nation) roiled by the turmoil of Watergate. The disgrace that tainted the Republicans helped extend the reign of a Democratic majority (except for a few years in the Senate) in Congress for 20 years. If DP was a hard right partisan(s), he was a monumental dumbass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I'm not sure.
Keep in mind that in '72, Nixon was blamed by the far-right for the loses of congressional seats. The democrats made gains in the House and Senate. The #1 issue was Vietnam: while the democrats & left were hostile to Nixon for stretching the war out, the right wing was furious at him for beginning to pull out.

It's possible Reagan could have followed Nixon had he served out his term, but I think it would have been very, very unlikely. Looking at Reagan in '68 and '76, there is no real evidence that he could have.

Rehnquist's history is one of being on the extreme right. As you probably know, in '62 he worked in Phoenix in an effort to deny black and Hispanics the right to vote; and in '64, he campaigned openly for Goldwater. That puts him in a different part of the republican party than Nixon. It also is the part of the republican party that became far more extreme than Goldwater.

Regardless of if it were Rehnquist, Watergate furthered the agenda he was promoting. Nixon's fall opened the door for a right-wing take-over of the party and the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. Suppose it wasn't the Republican Party but GHW Bush?
Bush gained a lot by Nixon's disgrace. Bush had wanted the VP in 1968 and 1972.

Suppose Nixon had not been disgraced and forced to resign? Another Republican from his WH probably would have been elected in 1976, running on the "successes" of the Nixon administration, notably opening trade with China.

There wasn't going to be any role for GHW Bush. And Poppy wouldn't have liked that.

Just saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Poppy was RNC chairman during Watergate, no?
and Poppy wrote a letter asking Nixon to resign in that capacity. IIRC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Remember that Nixon
liked Bush when no one else of significance did within either the party or the administration. Nixon gave him the two positions that led to his being able to serve as VP. Nixon was a "quiet" advisor to Bush while he was VP and president; in fact, Nixon helped Bush's '88 campaign.

Bush, much like Nixon, was never fully trusted/accepted by the extreme right wing. His position on Nixon's resignation was not a significant force or determining factor. He jumped on board when the majority of republicans knew Nixon had to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. So you are saying that Poppy is unlikely to have wanted Nixon out?
Maybe we underestimate W and the people who made him king. Rove and others were part of the Nixon WH. They bided their time after Watergate and emerged in the 1980s with W as their point man.

I don't think W is very bright. I think he's a useful tool for the brains behind the throne. They ran W because he appealed to the religious fundamentalists. But who encouraged W to become the next Pat Robertson?

It seems to me that what we're seeing today is the culmination of a very clever plan that began in the early 1970s, if not earlier, to take over the country (and the world, since in their way of thinking, the country rules the world).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. While it might be hard
to place Rove in the Nixon administration, there is a clear sub-group of people (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc) that were, and who then formed the Reagan administration. Then there was progression to the Bush1 and eventually Bush2 administrations.

Within this group, its important to be aware of the personality clashes: Rumsfeld, for the best example, was in every republican administration but Bush1. The two hold each other in contempt.

But what is far more important is to consider specific goals. When one reads Pat Buchanan's memo to Nixon which outlined the goals for his second term, it reads EXACTLY like this administration's stated goals. Just one example is the idea of breaking the Great Society programs in 1972 is occuring today in the failure to fund social programs. It is part of the struggle between the service society versus the ownership society. The Bush plan for social security merely is an attempt to remove any contribution the upper class makes to the welfare of the elderly and disabled.

Rehnquist in 1962 worked hard to disenfranchise black and Hispanic voters in Arizona. Think of Florida in 2000! Amazing. As late as 1985 he told a reporter that there was as good a legal argument to support the separation of races in America as there was for integration (see New York Times 3-3-85).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. Rehnquist is a pig who never, ever should have gotten on the SC
much less been made Chief Justice. It's a travesty.

I think Rove was in college faking Democratic flyers during the Nixon WH? Then he was scooped up by the Ford administration as a brilliant young thing, much the way that chimpy is finding and grooming young Republicans.

If I understand what you are saying, there is no need to look for a secret conspiracy. What we have now is the culmination of decades of open warfare against everything that FDR began.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Right.
Rehnquist is an evil person. He is also guilty, without any doubt, of perjury. Keep in mind there are two types of perjury under the law: one is a matter of personal dishonesty (a person might lie about their age, or getting a blow job from an intern) that never leads to criminal charges; the other is to promote one's interests by benefit of the lie, and is supposed to lead to criminal charges.

Although there is solid evidence that Rehnquist was guilty of perjury, it is interesting to note the single piece of evidence he provided to support his continued lying. It was a letter by Donald Cronson, a Mobile Oil executive from London. The letter is a fine example of perjury in and of itself; however, its true value is that a foreign oil executive was advocating that Rehnquist be put on the US Supreme Court.

Rove has been schooled by the top dogs from the Nixon administration. My point was simply that he had no position of power at the time. He was a student of power. While he is a repulsive human being, he does, however, provide an interesting study into the evolution of tactics used by the virus of the far right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. He was RNC Chair, I know that. I hadn't heard about the letter.
But, logically, Nixon would not have resigned unless the entire leadership of the Republican Party had insisted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Right.
In fact, we can say for sure that the August 7, 1974 meeting with senate republican leader Hugh Scott, republican House leader John Rhodes, and senator Barry Goldwater with Nixon in the Oval Office was the official end. They informed Nixon to resign immediately.

The strange thing (or one strange thing) was that Nixon immediately called in his family and White House photographer Ollie Atkins, and over his wife's protests, had a series of pictures taken. In some, Nixon grins with pride; but by the last one, he looks like it is dawning on him that he is done. Sad. Sad he was ever president.

Keep in mind that Rehnquist was one of Goldwater's top campaigners in 1964, when the extreme right-wing of the republican party was taking form.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flying Dream Blues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
36. It seems to me that Haig might fit this description
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Haig has been one of the perennial possibles
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. I agree fully.
I think that it is highly unlikely that Haig was not one of the top sources of information. He's a strange character. It's hard to like Al Haig. Yet he has done some respectable things.

I'll start by saying his ideas on military tactics are indeed scarey. We think of the "Christmas bombings" of North Vietnam. Nixon was frustrated, because the South would not agree to the October treaty that Kissinger had hammered out with the North. So Nixon, in one of the moves that indicates an increase in psychosis from stress, begins to threaten both the north & south, though with different things. He then bombs the hell out of the north; the US payed a high price, though, including at least 15 of the 120 jets used, and numerous dead and captured pilots. Haig advocated increased bombing! My God! The North had agreed to the October plan!

Anyhow, we are all familiar with his shakey performance when Reagan was shot. "I'm in charge," with bug-eyes was not calming for the country. But, as it turns out, Haig knew that a small group from the extreme right was attempting to take the reins of power at a time when it was absolutely uncertain if Reagan would live.

Thus said, while he believes in a violent foreign policy, Al Haig understands the need for constitutional rule at home. He had to realize that Nixon was become detached from reality, and that a group from the extreme right was looking to grab those same reins of power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberty Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
22. Rehnquist recused himself from the Nixon tapes case in
Edited on Mon Feb-07-05 01:37 AM by Liberty Belle
'72 or '73, according to a poster elsehwere in DU.

That would certainly point to a conflict of interest--say, if Renny himself had been leaking the dirt on Nixon?

He also served in the military and is a smoker, two qualification Woodward has listed for Deep Throat. Does anyone know he Rehnquist also drinks scotch?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. He had to
recuse himself from the original case. He had been the Assistant Attorney General in the Administration. His goal was to move the administration sharply to the right. He was the point man for the extreme right, and his activities as AAG posed serious threats to the Constitution.

In the follow-up rulings per the Nixon case, he was one of the two in the 7-2 decisions against Nixon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrowowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
23. Who is so close
to death that Woodward has prepared his obit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarianJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
35. Obits Of Famous/Prominent People...
...are often written in advance, sometimes by years, and frequently updated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrowowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. But Woodward said
he was updating the obit now, so ....
The fellow must be very close to death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC