THE AGENCY / TIES

McCord, the Mullen Company and Helms

The CIA ties, case by case.

RECORD / AT A GLANCE

PARTLY TRUE

The ties, the Mullen cover, the destroyed tapes and the burned papers are documented. That the CIA planned or ran the break-in is unproven, and McCord himself wrote that it was not a CIA operation.

THE EVENTS / THE CLAIM / THE RECORD

The chronology.

READ THE FILE

Evidence & assessment.

Open an article for its evidence, labeled AI assessment and numbered sources. Read the complete static edition ↗

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

10 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

DOCUMENTED The CIA question

“Hunt worked for a CIA cover firm, the Mullen Company.”

Robert R. Mullen and Company provided cover for CIA officers abroad, and Hunt worked there while he was a White House consultant.

Who says it: Senator Baker’s report.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

DOCUMENTED The CIA question

“The CIA destroyed its own tapes after Watergate.”

In January 1973 the CIA destroyed recordings, including Helms’s calls, days after the Senate asked it to keep evidence.

Who says it: Senator Baker; the CIA.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

DOCUMENTED The CIA question

“A CIA officer was at McCord’s home when papers were burned.”

After the arrests McCord’s wife burned papers with CIA officer Lee Pennington present, and Baker’s report charged that Pennington destroyed documents.

Who says it: Senator Baker.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

PARTLY TRUE Access vs. wrongdoing

“The CIA under Helms hid records about Watergate.”

The agency destroyed recordings, including Helms’s calls, in January 1973, just before he left. What they held is unknown, and no link to planning the break-in is shown.

Who says it: Senator Baker.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

UNPROVEN The CIA question

“Helms used the CIA’s secrets to protect the agency against Nixon.”

The CIA declined to keep up the cover-up pretext, and later destroyed recordings. Use of secrets as leverage is argued, not shown.

Who says it: Some historians.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

All 99 rated claims ↗

OPEN THE RECORD

Sources & limits.

Numbered citations in each article identify the relevant sources. These records have different purposes and evidentiary weight.

  1. TIME: “The CIA: Some Foolish Mistakes”, on Senator Baker’s CIA report, 15 July 1974 ↗

    Contemporary summary of Howard Baker’s minority report on the CIA and Watergate. Used because the CIA reading-room copy of the report could not be opened when checked; the report itself drew no firm conclusions.

  2. Rockefeller Commission report, 1975: White House/CIA contacts and Watergate, printed pp. 180–207 ↗

    Executive commission investigation of CIA activities. Its conclusion was no evidence of Agency participation or advance knowledge of the Watergate burglary; it also criticized other assistance and responses. Not proof that every secret activity is known.

  3. Ford Library: James W. McCord Jr. letter to Judge John Sirica, 19 March 1973 ↗

    Image and citation of the letter filed in United States v. Liddy (NARA, Record Group 21). Sirica read it in court on 23 March 1973; the letter is dated 19 March.

  4. Nixon Library — June 23, 1972 smoking-gun conversation: trial transcript ↗

    Prosecution trial transcript of the June 23 conversation, selected excerpts rather than an omniscient narrator. Audio remains the underlying evidence; transcript includes uncertain words.

  5. House Judiciary Committee — Report on the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon (1974) ↗

    Contemporary House Judiciary Committee impeachment report and evidentiary account. Committee conclusions were not a Senate conviction or a criminal verdict against Nixon.

← The Watergate Files hub: the history, the full timeline and every file

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFilesWatergate shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings appear here when JavaScript is on.

On X

Posts from the daily snapshot appear here when JavaScript is on. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFilesWatergate.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.