COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

Hunt, Liddy and McCord

A spy novelist, a former FBI agent and a CIA security man.

← Interactive guide and chronology · The Watergate Files hub: the history, the full timeline and every file · What people say ↓

The strongest version of this theory

Professionals do not fail this badly by accident.

Look at who was in that room. McCord had a long career at the CIA and left only in 1970. Hunt was a career CIA officer and a veteran of the Bay of Pigs. Liddy was a former FBI agent. TIME reported in 1974 that five of the seven burglars had been involved with the agency at one time or another. [1]

Yet the operation was full of basic mistakes. The door latch was taped horizontally, where a guard could see it, and taped again after the guard removed it. Men carried address books with Hunt’s name and White House number. McCord, a professional security officer, was the man whose job could be traced straight to the campaign.

Then McCord turned. His letter to Judge Sirica in March 1973 blew the cover-up open. And the CIA had helped Hunt before, with a disguise and photo development for the Fielding job. [2][3]

To believers, the pattern points one way: men who knew better either wanted to be caught or were following someone else’s plan.

The sources

  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. 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.

  3. Rockefeller Commission report — CIA assistance to Hunt and Ellsberg profiling ↗

    1975 executive commission findings, chapter 14 in this PDF, concerning CIA assistance to Hunt and the Ellsberg profiles. CIA assistance is not identical to CIA direction of the DNC burglary.

What the record shows

Real careers, real crimes, and their own accounts.

Each man’s role is proven. Hunt and Liddy planned and supervised both the Fielding and Watergate operations. McCord did the electronics and was arrested inside. Hunt pleaded guilty in January 1973. Liddy and McCord were convicted on 30 January. Liddy refused to testify for years. [3][5]

Their past is real too. McCord worked for the CIA until 1970; Hunt left the same year and went to work for the Robert R. Mullen Company, a public relations firm that also provided cover for the CIA. The CIA helped Hunt in 1971 at the White House’s request. [1][4]

McCord’s letter, dated 19 March 1973 and read in court on 23 March, said there had been political pressure to plead guilty and keep quiet, that perjury had been committed at the trial, and that others were involved. It pointed at the campaign and the White House, not at the CIA. [2]

Investigators looked hard for a CIA hand. The Rockefeller Commission and Senator Baker’s report found contacts, destroyed papers and slow disclosure, but no evidence that the agency planned or carried out the burglary. Senator Ervin’s summary: Watergate “came directly out of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, with the assistance of certain White House aides.” [1][4]

The sloppiness has an ordinary explanation too: a rushed second entry to fix a faulty tap, run by men who had got away with the first.

What we can’t tell you. Hunt’s and Liddy’s later memoirs and claims about other events are outside this file’s sources.

The sources

  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. 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.

  3. U.S. v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428 (D.C. Cir. 1974): conviction and evidence ↗

    Published appellate opinion reproducing the government’s trial evidence and affirming Liddy’s conviction. Appellate narrative is not a new, neutral fact-finding trial.

  4. Rockefeller Commission report — CIA assistance to Hunt and Ellsberg profiling ↗

    1975 executive commission findings, chapter 14 in this PDF, concerning CIA assistance to Hunt and the Ellsberg profiles. CIA assistance is not identical to CIA direction of the DNC burglary.

  5. Miller Center — Watergate: The break-in ↗

    University of Virginia presidential-history explanation with original FBI documents. Used for the distinction between the five arrests and organizers outside.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

2 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.

All 99 rated claims ↗

← 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 are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. 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.