COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

Secret Agenda: Hougan’s case

McCord’s sabotage, the taped doors and the call-girl phone.

← 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

The burglars were working for someone else.

Hougan started with the burglary’s oddities. The tape on the doors that led a guard to the burglars was replaced after he first removed it. The lookout across the street was watching television. McCord, a skilled security man, made mistakes an amateur might avoid. To Hougan, McCord was sabotaging the operation for reasons of his own and the CIA’s. [1][3]

His second argument concerned the target. Hougan said the phone the burglars tapped was not Larry O’Brien’s but one used, through an extension on a secretary’s desk, by people arranging dates with women from a call-girl ring near the Watergate. A burglar had a key that fit only that secretary’s desk. On this reading, the White House wanted political intelligence, but the operatives on the ground had another agenda. [1][2]

Hougan was a serious journalist, a former Washington editor of Harper’s, and the book was reviewed as a work of real research. A federal judge later wrote that the call-girl theory, “or some part of it, may be correct.” [1][2]

The sources

  1. Contemporary review of Secret Agenda, preserved in the CIA Reading Room ↗

    A newspaper/book review preserved as an intelligence-file item. Archival possession is not CIA endorsement of the review or the book’s thesis.

  2. Wells v. Liddy: published district-court opinion, March 19, 2001 ↗

    A defamation ruling addressing fault, sources and evidence, not a final history of Watergate. This 2001 procedural stage was followed by an appeal and a later 2002 jury verdict; no historical truth ruling is inferred.

  3. National Archives — “Wills on Duty”: the guard who discovered the break-in ↗

    National Archives archivist’s retrospective grounded in the contemporaneous guard log and trial exhibits; distinguishes Wills’s role from later famous reporters.

What the record shows

Real puzzles, a careful judge, no finding.

Some of Hougan’s facts were accepted as undisputed in court. In Wells v. Liddy, the judge noted that burglar Eugenio Martinez had a key taped to his notebook that fit only Maxie Wells’s desk, that the phone that was tapped could be reached through an extension on her desk, and that no tap was found on O’Brien’s phone. [1]

But the same judge was careful. “This is not to say, of course, that what Bailley said was true or that the call girl theory is accurate,” he wrote. The conventional political-intelligence explanation “may be correct”, the call-girl theory may be, or neither, or both. The call-girl evidence rested largely on Phillip Bailley, a lawyer with a history of mental illness and a conviction tied to prostitution. Wells denied it under oath. [1][2]

The sabotage theory has no documentary support. McCord denied it was a CIA operation. The Rockefeller Commission found no CIA planning. Hougan’s case is a reading of anomalies, not a document or a witness. [4][5]

And whatever the burglars wanted, the cover-up was ordered from the White House. Secret Agenda is about the night of 17 June. It cannot touch the tapes of what Nixon did afterwards. [3]

What we can’t tell you. The court addressed defamation, not history. It found the call-girl theory unproven either way, not true.

The sources

  1. Wells v. Liddy: published district-court opinion, March 19, 2001 ↗

    A defamation ruling addressing fault, sources and evidence, not a final history of Watergate. This 2001 procedural stage was followed by an appeal and a later 2002 jury verdict; no historical truth ruling is inferred.

  2. Wells v. Liddy, 186 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 1999) ↗

    Appeals court opinion summarizing Secret Agenda, Silent Coup and Liddy’s call-girl account, and holding that Ida “Maxie” Wells was a private figure. Its summaries describe the books’ claims; they are not findings that the claims are true.

  3. Contemporary review of Secret Agenda, preserved in the CIA Reading Room ↗

    A newspaper/book review preserved as an intelligence-file item. Archival possession is not CIA endorsement of the review or the book’s thesis.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

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.