DOCSLIB.ORG

Murder Suspect: G. Gordon Liddy G. Gordon Liddy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Murder Suspect: G. Gordon Liddy G. Gordon Liddy Murder Suspect: G. Gordon Liddy G. Gordon Liddy was born November 30th 1930 in Brooklyn, New York. He started as a attorney after joining the army and fighting in the Korean War. He also was the youngest Beaurea Supervisor in the F.B.I He later became a prominent figure in the Nixon administration and served many jobs and positions before heading the Committee to re-elect the president in 1972. This organization known as CREEP was used to help stop important leeks of Nixon campaign and presidential material. The CREEP leaders were closely related to the so-called “Plumbers” and were paranoid about the opposition to Nixon. Liddy, who had early been seen as somewhat of a loose cannon, did find many “democratic plots” and eagerly searched for a way to embarrass and discredit democratic candidates. The biggest scandal Liddy ever organized was the break in at the Watergate Complex. Later on, after his 5 men were caught he would be tried and incarcerated for conspiracy, burglary, and illicit wiretapping. Liddy, an unbalanced man, would be about a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10 for killing Nixon seeing as he feared serving 20 years in federal prison. Murder Suspect a) Eldridge Cleaver: Cleaver was a political activist, writer and serial rapist best known for being an early leader for the Black Panthers in the late 1960’s and early ‘70’s. After getting out of jail on a rape conviction in 1966, Cleaver became a Presidential nominee on the “Peace and Freedom” party. Cleaver was shot during the Oakland riots in 1968. Later, in the 1980’s, Cleaver became conservative, and was a member of the Republican Party. b) After COINTELPRO’s attempts to break up the Black Panthers, Cleaver advocated the escalation of armed resistance into urban guerilla warfare. Cleaver was strongly against Nixon’s use of the FBI to try and break up the Black Panthers and other radical groups in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s. c) Cleaver’s main motive to assassinate would be to stop Nixon and the Nixon administration from using the FBI to try and break up and infiltrate the Black Panthers. Likelihood of conspiracy to kill Nixon: 7 d) Ho Chi Minh e) f) Ho Chi Minh was President of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam from 1945- 1969. He led the People’s Army of Vietnam and the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War. Ho Chi Minh wrote in a letter to Richard Nixon in August 1969, “The longer the war goes on, the more it accumulates the mourning and burdens of the American people.” This shows the determination of Ho Chi Minh to get the Americans out of South Vietnam. Later in the letter, Minh mentioned that “[his army was] determined to fight to the end, without fearing the sacrifices and difficulties in order to defend their country and their sacred national rights.” Minh had strong feelings towards getting the Americans out of South Vietnam no matter the tolls. In order to reach peace, Minh felt that the Americans needed to leave South Vietnam and end the war of aggression. Ho Chi Minh would have had a strong desire to assassinate Richard Millhouse Nixon. This would have made it easier for the communist North Vietnam to take over South Vietnam. The United States would no longer be focused on the Vietnam War should there be a different President. However, Ho Chi Minh died the morning of September 2, 1969 from heart failure at his home in Hanoi. The likelihood that Ho Chi Minh assassinated Richard Nixon on August 7, 1974 is a 0 out of 10 because Minh himself was already deceased. g) Woodward and Bernstein h) Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were two reporters of the Washington Post, responsible for cracking the Watergate scandal, which lead to the resignation of President Nixon. Woodward and Bernstein took interest in the break-in that occurred in the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters at the Watergate Complex in Washington DC. The two men teamed up and found a connection between the burglars and president Nixon’s re-election committee. Their reporting revealed that the burglary was staged by officials of the Nixon administration and the Committee to re-elect the president. Their reporting also uncovered the political “dirty tricks” played within the white house- they included wiretapping, burglary, and disruption of Democratic Party Activities. If Woodward and Bernstein worked together in murdering President Nixon, their motives could’ve been spurred by their disgust in the corruption present during Nixon’s presidency and the want to instate a more competent president or possible paranoia and fear that Nixon was going to work to silence them. Person: Hubert Humphrey Hubert Humphrey was a twice serving senator from Minnesota then was the Vice President under Lyndon B. Johnson. Hubert Humphrey was part of the democratic party and was a nominee in the 1968 election against Richard Nixon. Nixon’s defeat of Hubert Humphrey in 1968 was a close call in terms of popular votes: 31,783,783 to 31,271,839. However the score of the election (in terms of electoral vote) was much more embarrassing. The count of electoral votes was 301 to 191 in favor of Richard Nixon. Such a humiliating electoral defeat is ample enough reason for Hubert Humphrey to hate Richard Nixon. I would rate the likely hood that Hurbert killed Nixon a 6 out of ten because while he had motive, he was elderly and lacked ability. Mao Since the death of Richard Nixon, the CIA has compiled a list of suspected assassins, agents, and political leaders. After a lot of research, the main suspect has been narrowed down to the Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong. Ever since Nixon's visit to Russia, Mao had suspected foul play. By assassinating Richard Nixon, Mao hoped to shaken any pacts between the Soviet Union and the United States. By planting objects such as the Cuban cigar near the body (Cuba had been a puppet of Russia for some time), the Chinease government felt that they could slowly shift the blame onto Russia, bringing at best unstable relations but more than likely mutual destruction. This destruction would have allowed for China to become the worlds largest power in place of the United States. With Mao's failing health, he has little to lose Robert F. Kennedy Robert F. Kennedy, brother of president John F. Kennedy, was an increasingly popular political leader in the 1960’s. During his brother’s presidency, he was appointed the attorney general. In 1964, he easily won the senatorial election in New York. In March of 1968, he announced that he would be running for president in the upcoming election. In this election, he would be running against Richard Nixon. Nixon, having a solid following, was a major competitor for Kennedy in this election. Also, because he was John F. Kennedy’s brother, there must have been a lot of pressure on him to win the election and live up to the expectations placed on him. Therefore, he did have motive to want to kill Nixon. However, Kennedy was assassinated on June 6, 1968 after delivering a speech in Los Angeles; Nixon went on to win the election. It is impossible that he could have killed Nixon on August 7th, 1974 because he was already dead. On a rating scale from 1-10 on likelihood to kill, he deserves a 1. Nguyen Van Thieu Nguyen Van Thieu was born in Vietnam on April 5th, 1923, and was educated at the National Military Academy in Hue. He joined the armed forces after World War II and by 1963 was chief of staff of the Armed Forces of South Vietnam. Nguyen Van Thieu then was appointed chairman of a 10-member military directorate. He also became Minister of Defense and in 1967 was elected as President of South Vietnam. Nguyen Van Thieu and President Nixon associated with one another for reasons surrounding the Vietnam war. They met at Peace Talks, where representatives from the United States, South Vietnam, North Vietnam, and the National Liberation Front. Nguyen Van Thieu directly appealed to President Nixon for more financial aid although the U.S. was already supplying the South Vietnamese government with military equipment and providing 1 to 30 billion dollars of financial aid. Nixon later sent a letter to Thieu, promising military help if it appeared that the NLF were winning in South Vietnam. Nguyen Van Thieu had a few motives for killing Nixon. When Nguyen Van Thieu requested for more financial aid, the move was blocked by the U.S. Congress, although Nixon was sympathetic. Later, starved by funds, Thieu had difficulty paying the wages of his large army and desertion became a major problem. It is possible that Thieu blamed and resented Nixon for these problems that arose, even though it was the U.S. Congress that blocked the move for more aid. Also, later on when Nguyen announced in desperation that he had a signed letter from President Nixon promising military help if it appeared that the NLF were winning in South Vietnam, Nixon was no longer in a position to fulfill his promise as he had been forced to resign over Watergate. On April 25th, 1975, President Thieu accused the United States of betrayal, resigned, and left the country. The likelihood of Thieu’s conspiracy to kill is a 5 on a rating from 1 to 10. Daniel Ellsberg Daniel Ellsberg was a consultant to the Defense Department of the White House. He worked under Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on the operational plans for general nuclear war.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transcript of a Recording of a Meeting Between the President and John Dean on February 27, 1973, from 3:55 to 4:20 P.M
    TRANSCRIPT OF A RECORDING OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND JOHN DEAN ON FEBRUARY 27, 1973, FROM 3:55 TO 4:20 P.M. TRANSCRIPT OF A RECORDTNG OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND JOHN DEAN ON FEBRUARY 27, 1973, FROM 3:55 TO 4:20 P.M. PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, John, how are you? DEAN: Pretty good. PRESIDENT: I, uh, discarded some (unintelligible) won't interrupt us (unintelligible) uh, uh, did you get your talk with Kleindienst yet? DEAN: I just had a good talk with him. PRESIDENT: Yeah, fine. Have you got him, uh, positioned properly, the uh-- DEAN: I think, I think he is. PRESIDENT: (Unintelligible) properly--ah, has he talked yet to Baker? DEAN: No, he hasn't, he, uh, he called Sam Ervin and offered to come visit with both he and Baker. And, uh, that was done last week. PRESIDENT: Uh, huh. DEAN: But he thought that timing would be bad to call Baker prior to the joint meeting. So he says after I have that joint meeting, I'll start working my relationship with Baker. PRESIDENT: Well, Baker left with me that he was going to, going to set up a joint meeting well, anyway (unintelligible). I see. So Kleindienst has talked to, uh, uh, he has talked to Ervin and Ervin said-- (unintelligible). DEAN: Ervin has left it dangling and said, "I'll be back in touch with you.” Uh, I think-, what, what disturbs Me a little bit about Baker was his move to put his own man in as minority counsel, so quickly, without any consultation as he had promised consultation.
    [Show full text]
  • Blackmail in the Deep State
    Blackmail in the Deep State: From the Bay of Pigs and JFK Assassination to Watergate Jonathan Marshall Note: this article is excerpted from an unpublished book titled Watergate, the American Deep State, and the Legacy of Secret Government by Jonathan Marshall. The Watergate affair of 1972-74, though widely regarded as one of the the gravest political and constitutional crises in U.S. history, began not with a bang but a whimper – or as President Nixon’s press secretary dismissed it, a ‘third-rate burglary attempt’.1 Despite myriad government probes, lawsuits, news stories, and scholarly analyses, no one knows for sure what motivated the historic break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters during the 1972 presidential campaign.2 Another unresolved puzzle is why President Nixon, who was apparently ignorant of plans for the burglary, did not simply fire those involved and cut his losses. What cost him the presidency was not the original crime, but his illegal attempt to cover it up. I argue in the book from which this article is excerpted that the initial burglary was set in motion by White House insiders to uncover information they could use against the Democratic Party’s chairman, Larry O’Brien. A major goal was to prevent him from releasing politically damaging secrets 1 Quoted in Karlyn Barker and Walter Pincus, ‘Watergate Revisited; 20 Years After the Break-in, the Story Continues to Unfold’, Washington Post, 14 June 1992. 2 There were at least two break-ins; police arrested the burglars on 17 June 1972. Several dozen theories are noted in Edward Epstein and John Berendt, ‘Did There Come a Point in Time When There Were 43 Different Theories of How Watergate Happened?’ Esquire, November 1973.
    [Show full text]
  • The Watergate Story (Washingtonpost.Com)
    The Watergate Story (washingtonpost.com) Hello corderoric | Change Preferences | Sign Out TODAY'S NEWSPAPER Subscribe | PostPoints NEWS POLITICS OPINIONS BUSINESS LOCAL SPORTS ARTS & GOING OUT JOBS CARS REAL RENTALS CLASSIFIEDS LIVING GUIDE ESTATE SEARCH: washingtonpost.com Web | Search Archives washingtonpost.com > Politics> Special Reports 'Deep Throat' Mark Felt Dies at 95 The most famous anonymous source in American history died Dec. 18 at his home in Santa Rosa, Calif. "Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now before Congress and ultimately the American people." A curious crime, two young The courts, the Congress and President Nixon refuses to After 30 years, one of reporters, and a secret source a special prosecutor probe release the tapes and fires the Washington's best-kept known as "Deep Throat" ... the burglars' connections to special prosecutor. A secrets is exposed. —Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox after his Washington would be the White House and decisive Supreme Court firing, Oct. 20, 1973 changed forever. discover a secret taping ruling is a victory for system. investigators. • Q&A Transcript: John Dean's new book "Pure Goldwater" (May 6, 2008) • Obituary: Nixon Aide DeVan L. Shumway, 77 (April 26, 2008) Wg:1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/index.html#chapters[6/14/2009 6:06:08 PM] The Watergate Story (washingtonpost.com) • Does the News Matter To Anyone Anymore? (Jan. 20, 2008) • Why I Believe Bush Must Go (Jan. 6, 2008) Key Players | Timeline | Herblock
    [Show full text]
  • Howard H. Baker, Jr
    Howard H. Baker, Jr. Howard H. Baker, Jr. served three terms as a United States Senator from Tennessee (1967-1985) and was Tennessee's first popularly elected Republican Senator. He rose to national prominence during the Watergate Hearings of 1973-1974 as Vice Chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee, the highest ranking Republican on the Committee. He served as Minority Leader of the Senate from 1977-1981 and as Majority Leader from 1981 until he retired from the Senate at the end of this third term in January, 1985. He was a candidate for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination and served as President Ronald Reagan's Chief of Staff in 1987-1988. For the next thirteen years he worked in several Tennessee law firms. In 2001 President George W. Bush appointed him as U.S. Ambassador to Japan. Howard Henry Baker, Jr. was born to Howard Henry Baker and Dora Ladd Baker on November 15, 1925 in Huntsville, Tennessee. His mother died when he was eight years old and his maternal grandmother, Lillie Ladd Mauser, helped raise him and his younger sister. When Howard Baker Jr. was eleven, his father married Irene Bailey. Howard Jr. attended primary and secondary public school in Huntsville before going to the McCallie School, a military preparatory school in Chattanooga, in 1941. He graduated from there in 1943 and immediately enlisted in the U.S. Navy. As a candidate in the Navy's V-12 officer training program, Baker studied electrical engineering at the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee and at Tulane University.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Appointments by Name, S” of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R
    The original documents are located in Box 40, folder “Personnel - Presidential Appointments by Name, S” of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 40 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library 11/15/7. To: Bill alker From: Pbll Buchea I ""' rNmbe.r 14. 1974 Dear rba I have aae4 oa fO'U' rMOIImlnldatlGa to the appropriate aatllorltle• at tM HoaH n It wtU M cma cant.! eoulderatl • l did •aJoy Dlf rW nte.-a to Ciraad a 4• aDCI oaly wlall It eoold laan ...._ for a :to.c•r Ylalt. Allll • B ehea CCMUUtel to tAa. re•W•IIl .....r. H .. L. Y'aader eWcaa t.el Corperatloe 1501 BDcJaaaaa • • Grud a ••· To: Mr. William Walker From: .Eva DaqMrey Mr. Buchen ha• uked me to ••• you copie• of the attached co.cerabac DaYle Jtobiuoa &ad WiW.•m laaforcl. Sbace Wr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impartiality Paradox
    The Impartiality Paradox Melissa E. Loewenstemt The constitutional principles that bind our free society instruct that the American people must "hold the judgeship in the highest esteem, that they re- gard it as the symbol of impartial, fair, and equal justice under law."'1 Accord- ingly, in contrast with the political branches, the Supreme Court's decisions "are legitimate only when [the Court] seeks to dissociate itself from individual 2 or group interests, and to judge by disinterested and more objective standards." As Justice Frankfurter said, "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice. 3 Almost instinctively, once a President appoints a judge to sit on the Su- preme Court,4 the public earmarks the Justice as an incarnation of impartiality, neutrality, and trustworthiness. Not surprisingly then, Presidents have looked to the Court for appointments to high profile and important committees of national concern. 5 It is among members of the judiciary that a President can find individuals certain to obtain the immediate respect of the American people, and often the world community. It is a judge's neutrality, fair-mindedness, and integrity that once again label him a person of impartiality and fairness, a per- son who seeks justice, and a President's first choice to serve the nation. The characteristics that led to a judge's initial appointment under our adversary sys- tem, and which lend themselves to appearances of propriety and justice in our courts, often carry over into extrajudicial activities as well. As Ralph K. Winter, Jr., then a professor at the Yale Law School, stated: [t]he appointment of a Justice of the Supreme Court to head a governmental com- mission or inquiry usually occurs because of the existence of a highly controversial issue which calls for some kind of official or authoritative resolution ....And the use of Supreme Court Justices, experience shows, is generally prompted by a presi- t Yale Law School, J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • A List of the Records That Petitioners Seek Is Attached to the Petition, Filed Concurrently Herewith
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE PETITION OF STANLEY KUTLER, ) AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, ) AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR LEGAL HISTORY, ) Miscellaneous Action No. ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS, ) and SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS. ) ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR ORDER DIRECTING RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPT OF RICHARD M. NIXON’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OF JUNE 23-24, 1975, AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS OF THE WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE Professor Stanley Kutler, the American Historical Association, the American Society for Legal History, the Organization of American Historians, and the Society of American Archivists petition this Court for an order directing the release of President Richard M. Nixon’s thirty-five-year- old grand jury testimony and associated materials of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.1 On June 23-24, 1975, President Nixon testified before two members of a federal grand jury who had traveled from Washington, DC, to San Clemente, California. The testimony was then presented in Washington, DC, to the full grand jury that had been convened to investigate political espionage, illegal campaign contributions, and other wrongdoing falling under the umbrella term Watergate. Watergate was the defining event of Richard Nixon’s presidency. In the early 1970s, as the Vietnam War raged and the civil rights movement in the United States continued its momentum, the Watergate scandal ignited a crisis of confidence in government leadership and a constitutional crisis that tested the limits of executive power and the mettle of the democratic process. “Watergate” was 1A list of the records that petitioners seek is attached to the Petition, filed concurrently herewith.
    [Show full text]
  • The President's
    Afterword AS SENATOR Sam Ervin completed his 20-year Senate career in 1974 and issued his final report as chairman of the Senate Watergate committee, he posed the question: “What was Watergate?” Countless answers have been offered in the 40 years since June 17, 1972, when a team of burglars wearing business suits and rubber gloves was arrested at 2:30 A.M. at the headquarters of the Democratic Party in the Watergate office building in Washington. Four days afterward, the Nixon White House offered its answer: “Certain elements may try to stretch this beyond what it was,” press secretary Ronald Ziegler scoffed, dismissing the incident as a “third-rate burglary.” History proved that it was anything but. Two years later, Richard Nixon would become the first and only U.S. president to resign, his role in the criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice—the Watergate cover-up— definitively established. Another answer has since persisted, often unchallenged: the notion that the cover-up was worse than the crime. This idea minimizes the scale and reach of Nixon’s criminal actions. Ervin’s answer to his own question hints at the magnitude of Watergate: “To destroy, insofar as the presidential election of 1972 was concerned, the integrity of the process by which the President of the United States is nominated and elected.” Yet Watergate was far more than that. At its most virulent, Watergate was a brazen and daring assault, led by Nixon himself, against the heart of American democracy: the Constitution, our system of free elections, the rule of law. 337 Woodward_AllThePresidents_4P_yc.indd 337 4/2/14 2:28 PM 338 : AFTERWORD Today, much more than when we first covered this story as young Wash- ington Post reporters, an abundant record provides unambiguous answers and evidence about Watergate and its meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript Prepared by the Impeachment Inquiry Staff for the House Judiciary Committee of a Recording of a Meeting Amongthe President, John Dean, John Ehrlichman, H.R
    TRANSCRIPT PREPARED BY THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY STAFF FOR THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF A RECORDING OF A MEETING AMONGTHE PRESIDENT, JOHN DEAN, JOHN EHRLICHMAN, H.R. HALDEMAN AND JOHN MITCHELL ON MARCH 22, 1973, FROM 1:57 TO 3:43 P.M. July 3, 1974 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED BY THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY STAFF FOR THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF A RECORDING OF A MEETING AMONG THE PRESIDENT, JOHN DEAN, JOHN EHRLICHMAN, H.R. HALDEMAN AND JOHN MITCHELL ON MARCH 22, 1973, FROM 1:57 TO 3:43 P.M.* PRESIDENT: Hello John, how are you? [Unintelligible] MITCHELL: Mr. President [unintelligible] Nixon. Mr. President, I'm just great. How are you? PRESIDENT: You Wall Street lawyer -- MITCHELL: Yeah. I would hope that would be okay. UNIDENTIFIED: I think so. Yeah. You have to admit it, have to admit you're rich. MITCHELL: Not in front of all these people that help to collect taxes. PRESIDENT: Well, we'll spend them for what you want. [Unintelligible] MITCHELL: But I, I can report, incidentally, that the firm is doing quite well. PRESIDENT: Are they? EHRLICHMAN: Can't think of any reason why it shouldn't. MITCHELL: I don't either. ________________ *The quotation marks used in this transcript are for convenience and do not indicate verbatim quotation by the speaker. EHRLICHMAN: I assigned the log [unintelligible] on Saturday. PRESIDENT: Yes, we know. EHRLICHMAN: Eastland is going to postpone any further hearings on Gray for two weeks. Try and let things cool off a little bit. He thinks Gray is dead on the floor. PRESIDENT: [Unintelligible] HALDEMAN: Gray's the symbol of wisdom, today, he accused your Counsel of being a liar.
    [Show full text]
  • John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific Cgem Orge School of Law
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2010 The akM ing of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyarticles Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation 41 McGeorge L. Rev. 311 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Book Review Essay The Making of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan* I. INTRODUCTION Shortly after I resigned my position as General Counsel of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department in 1971, I was startled to receive a two-page letter from Attorney General John Mitchell. I was not a Department of Justice employee, and Mitchell's acquaintance with me was largely second-hand. The contents were surprising. Mitchell generously lauded my rather modest role "in developing an effective and professional law enforcement program for the District of Columbia." Beyond this, he added, "Your thoughtful suggestions have been of considerable help to me and my colleagues at the Department of Justice." The salutation was, "Dear Jerry," and the signature, "John." I was elated. I framed the letter and hung it in my office.
    [Show full text]
  • Observations on the Rise of the Appellate Litigator
    Observations on the Rise of the Appellate Litigator Thomas G. Hungar and Nikesh Jindal* I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................511 II. THE EMERGENCE OF A PRIVATE APPELLATE BAR ...................512 III. The Reasons Behind the Development of a Private Appellate Bar..........................................................................517 A. Appellate Practices as a Response to Modern Law Firm Economics ..............................................................518 B. Increasing Sophistication Among Clients About the Need for High-Quality Appellate Representation ...........523 C. The Increasing Stakes of Civil Litigation........................525 D. A Changing Supreme Court ............................................527 IV. SKILLS OF AN EFFECTIVE APPELLATE LAWYER.......................529 V. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................536 I. INTRODUCTION Over the last few decades, there has been a noticeable increase in the visibility and prominence of appellate litigators in the private bar. Most of the attention has focused on Supreme Court advocacy, where certain private law firms and lawyers have developed reputations for specialized expertise and experience in 1 briefing and arguing cases before the Court, but the phenomenon extends to other federal and state court appeals as well. The practice of law as a whole is becoming increasingly specialized, and the trend in appellate litigation is no exception, although it appears to be a more recent occurrence than the growth of substantive speciali- * Thomas G. Hungar is a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Co- Chair of the firm’s Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group. He previously served as Deputy Solicitor General of the United States. Nikesh Jindal is an associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and a member of the firm’s Litigation Department and of the Administrative Law and Regulatory and White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice Groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Nixon's Caribbean Milieu, 1950–1968
    Dark Quadrant: Organized Crime, Big Business, and the Corruption of American Democracy Online Appendix: Nixon’s Caribbean Milieu, 1950–1968 By Jonathan Marshall “Though his working life has been passed chiefly on the far shores of the continent, close by the Pacific and the Atlantic, some emotion always brings Richard Nixon back to the Caribbean waters off Key Biscayne and Florida.”—T. H. White, The Making of the President, 19681 Richard Nixon, like millions of other Americans, enjoyed Florida and the nearby islands of Cuba and the Bahamas as refuges where he could leave behind his many cares and inhibitions. But he also returned again and again to the region as an important ongoing source of political and financial support. In the process, the lax ethics of its shadier operators left its mark on his career. This Sunbelt frontier had long attracted more than its share of sleazy businessmen, promoters, and politicians who shared a get-rich-quick spirit. In Florida, hustlers made quick fortunes selling worthless land to gullible northerners and fleecing vacationers at illegal but wide-open gambling joints. Sheriffs and governors protected bookmakers and casino operators in return for campaign contributions and bribes. In nearby island nations, as described in chapter 4, dictators forged alliances with US mobsters to create havens for offshore gambling and to wield political influence in Washington. Nixon’s Caribbean milieu had roots in the mobster-infested Florida of the 1940s. He was introduced to that circle through banker and real estate investor Bebe Rebozo, lawyer Richard Danner, and Rep. George Smathers. Later this chapter will explore some of the diverse connections of this group by following the activities of Danner during the 1968 presidential campaign, as they touched on Nixon’s financial and political ties to Howard Hughes, the South Florida crime organization of Santo Trafficante, and mobbed-up hotels and casinos in Las Vegas and Miami.
    [Show full text]