COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

Silent Coup: Dean, the call girls and the lawsuits

The 1991 theory, Maxie Wells, and Dean v. St. Martin’s.

← 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

Dean had a secret reason.

Silent Coup made Dean, not Liddy or Mitchell, the man behind the break-in. Its authors said a Washington lawyer, Phillip Bailley, ran a call-girl ring with a woman they identified as Heidi Rikan, a friend of Dean’s then-girlfriend Maureen Biner, and that the DNC was a source of clients. Bailley’s address book, seized by the FBI, was said to list Biner. [1][2]

On this account Dean knew, through prosecutors who visited him, that the ring could embarrass him and the White House. So he used Hunt and Liddy to find out what the Democrats had, which explains the key to the secretary’s desk. Then, when it went wrong, he ran the cover-up to protect himself, and Haig and the military used the crisis to remove a president they distrusted. [1][2]

Liddy came to believe the call-girl version and repeated it. A federal judge noted some facts that fit it, including the desk key and the phone extension. [3]

The sources

  1. John Dean’s response to Silent Coup, History News Network, 2006 ↗

    An accused participant’s rebuttal. Useful for identifying disputed claims, but not independent corroboration of his own account.

  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. 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.

What the record shows

The lawsuits, the denials and the tapes.

Dean denied it completely. He said he had met Hunt once to say hello and never directed him. His wife said she had never heard of Bailley. 60 Minutes, which had prepared a story, dropped it because the authors could not confirm the central charges. Rikan had died before the book came out and could not answer. [1]

Dean v. St. Martin’s: the Deans sued for defamation. In August 1997 St. Martin’s settled on confidential terms and returned the rights to the authors. Dean says Colodny later settled too, Liddy refused, and Judge Emmet Sullivan then ended the litigation. A settlement is not a finding either way. [1][2]

Wells v. Liddy: Ida “Maxie” Wells sued Liddy for saying she was involved with the ring. The appeals court ruled in 1999 that she was a private figure; [3] a 2001 trial ended with a hung jury and a ruling for Liddy; [6] in 2002 the appeals court ordered a new trial; [4] and in July 2002 a Baltimore jury found that Liddy had not defamed her. [5] That verdict was about Liddy’s statements, not about whether the theory is true; the trial judge said the evidence did not settle it. [6]

The theory also runs into the tapes. Nixon approved the plan to use the CIA against the FBI on 23 June 1972, and the money went to the defendants from the President’s men. Even if Dean had a private motive, the cover-up the President joined is not changed by it.

What we can’t tell you. Wells, Rikan and Maureen Dean were private people. Every allegation about them is attributed here, along with their denials.

The sources

  1. John Dean’s response to Silent Coup, History News Network, 2006 ↗

    An accused participant’s rebuttal. Useful for identifying disputed claims, but not independent corroboration of his own account.

  2. Spokesman-Review (Washington Post story): “Libel suit settled over Watergate book”, 10 August 1997 ↗

    Reports the Deans’ settlement with St. Martin’s Press over Silent Coup. Terms were confidential.

  3. 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.

  4. Wells v. Liddy, 37 F. App’x 53 (4th Cir. 2002), unpublished ↗

    Reversed the district court’s ruling that no reasonable jury could find Liddy negligent, and ordered a new trial. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent.

  5. Associated Press in the Los Angeles Times: “Liddy Did Not Defame DNC Aide, Jury Finds”, 4 July 2002 ↗

    Report of the Baltimore retrial verdict for Liddy and the jury foreman’s comments. A defamation verdict, not a finding on what the burglars wanted.

  6. 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.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

3 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.