Bear in mind the chronology. Most of the Woodward - Deep Throat communications occurred in '72, prior to the establishment of the Ervin Committee in January 73. Moynihan didn't go to India until February 73.
Is that helpful? I could go on but details here and specifics matter so the more precise you can be the more responsive I can be.
Bear in mind the chronology. Most of the Woodward - Deep Throat communications occurred in '72, prior to the establishment of the Ervin Committee in January 73. Moynihan didn't go to India until February 73.
Is that helpful? I could go on but details here and specifics matter so the more precise you can be the more responsive I can be.
All of these communications are pre-Moynihan-in-India:
"According to Woodward's book, All the President's Men, he had at least fifteen conversations with Deep Throat while investigating the Watergate scandal. This included communications on 19th June (2 phone calls); 16th September, 1972 (phone call); 8th October, 1972 (phone call); 9th October, 1972 (garage meeting); 21st October, 1972 (garage meeting), 27th October, 1972 (garage meeting), late December, 1972 (undisclosed), 25th January, 1973 (garage meeting); 25th February, 1973 (meeting in bar) ...."
Post-India are these:
"16th April, 1973 (phone call); 16th May, 1973 (garage meeting) and a meeting during the first week of November, 1973."
Moynihan was in DC the first week of November 1973 -- I have that, having had access to his papers during my time as Moynihan's special assistant, established via a letter from MacGeorge Bundy to Moynihan which states that in fact Moynihan was in DC at that time.
That really leaves only the in-person meeting of May 16, 1973, the day before Ervin opened his Committee hearings, the other communication being a phone call. Was Moynihan in the States at this time? Well, between Feb and Dec 1973 Moynihan flew to DC four times and to San Clemente once, according to the NY Times.
"Moynihan flew to Washington four times to shape the [Rupee] settlement [of Dec 1973]. (“He literally carried the papers from office to office in Congress and in the State Department, talking about it, until
he got to Henry,” said one aide) and eventually flew to San Clemente where President Nixon ... had other problems."
I see you asked more. Let me attempt your second question.
"Why would Moynihan go far, far out of his way to sabotage the Nixon administration which not only treated him well, but pretty much aligned with his "benign neglect" viewpoint."
This is a big topic which involves many concepts, including The Mole Hunt alleged to be high in the CIA, Moynihan's role as the architect if you like of steering the US government during the Cold War, in what you might call Hegelian Dialectics.
I'd suggest focus n the facts first, and the logistical realities to determine whether the claim -- my claim -- can in fact be valid, and get to the motivations and larger political purposes later, or let them simply fall into place. When you get enough facts that's what happens. It's easy to get tripped up by digging too early into motivation and philosophy based on perceived understandings.
That's not meant as a cop-out and I will understand if that's unsatisfactory but I haven't had enough coffee this morning for starters and it's again a big topic that isn't especially suited for this format. That said, to the extent you and I and others continue here, i will attempt to get pieces in where I can. I would also suggest reading my comments over here:
Bear in mind the chronology. Most of the Woodward - Deep Throat communications occurred in '72, prior to the establishment of the Ervin Committee in January 73. Moynihan didn't go to India until February 73.
Is that helpful? I could go on but details here and specifics matter so the more precise you can be the more responsive I can be.
All of these communications are pre-Moynihan-in-India:
"According to Woodward's book, All the President's Men, he had at least fifteen conversations with Deep Throat while investigating the Watergate scandal. This included communications on 19th June (2 phone calls); 16th September, 1972 (phone call); 8th October, 1972 (phone call); 9th October, 1972 (garage meeting); 21st October, 1972 (garage meeting), 27th October, 1972 (garage meeting), late December, 1972 (undisclosed), 25th January, 1973 (garage meeting); 25th February, 1973 (meeting in bar) ...."
Post-India are these:
"16th April, 1973 (phone call); 16th May, 1973 (garage meeting) and a meeting during the first week of November, 1973."
Moynihan was in DC the first week of November 1973 -- I have that, having had access to his papers during my time as Moynihan's special assistant, established via a letter from MacGeorge Bundy to Moynihan which states that in fact Moynihan was in DC at that time.
That really leaves only the in-person meeting of May 16, 1973, the day before Ervin opened his Committee hearings, the other communication being a phone call. Was Moynihan in the States at this time? Well, between Feb and Dec 1973 Moynihan flew to DC four times and to San Clemente once, according to the NY Times.
"Moynihan flew to Washington four times to shape the [Rupee] settlement [of Dec 1973]. (“He literally carried the papers from office to office in Congress and in the State Department, talking about it, until
he got to Henry,” said one aide) and eventually flew to San Clemente where President Nixon ... had other problems."
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/03/31/archives/daniel-moynihans-passage-to-india-he-didnt-realize-the-depths-of.html
See also p. 9 here:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/documents/daniel-patrick-moynihan-correspondence
I see you asked more. Let me attempt your second question.
"Why would Moynihan go far, far out of his way to sabotage the Nixon administration which not only treated him well, but pretty much aligned with his "benign neglect" viewpoint."
This is a big topic which involves many concepts, including The Mole Hunt alleged to be high in the CIA, Moynihan's role as the architect if you like of steering the US government during the Cold War, in what you might call Hegelian Dialectics.
I'd suggest focus n the facts first, and the logistical realities to determine whether the claim -- my claim -- can in fact be valid, and get to the motivations and larger political purposes later, or let them simply fall into place. When you get enough facts that's what happens. It's easy to get tripped up by digging too early into motivation and philosophy based on perceived understandings.
That's not meant as a cop-out and I will understand if that's unsatisfactory but I haven't had enough coffee this morning for starters and it's again a big topic that isn't especially suited for this format. That said, to the extent you and I and others continue here, i will attempt to get pieces in where I can. I would also suggest reading my comments over here:
https://www.stonecoldtruth.com/p/nixon-threatened-to-reveal-the-cias?utm_campaign=reaction&utm_medium=email&utm_source=substack&utm_content=post
A lot has already been laid out there.
https://substack.com/@mattcloud/note/c-70075890