page27.1.html

from "blind ambition" by john dean.

examples of the welter of confusing information that only hinted at the TRUE SCOPE of "watergate."
from "all the president's men," by berstein and woodward, of the washington post

unnamed sources,
far from being a weak tool of reporting, are ESSENTIAL in a world of subtlety, “insulation” of suspects by long chains of command, deliberate subterfuge, and ESPECIALLY fear. the technique involves forcing cracks in publicly available information while simultaneously being honest about the level of verity involved. subtle clues can lead to basic facts. for instance, reporters often feel that a source who would not come to the phone or return calls signals that something important is being hidden. without this technique investigations of politics, industry, and crime would make

the word “byzantine” has come to characterize unbelievably complex politics or subterfuge, and it applied to watergate. small leads on documented or sworn information, usually with at least one or two corroborations, would, by slowly backtrailing, eventually lead to directives coming from the white house. first, dirty deals were substantiated, then their connection to CREEP, then records were uncovered of calls to the white house. finally h. r. haldeman, nixon's # 2 man, was pinpointed, partly through a process of elimination and partly through unsourced FBI contacts. simultaneously the full scope of the national dirty tricks campaign was revealed, which could not have existed without central control. it was surmised that, having gone that far it would have been impossible for the president not to have known what was going on. it is important to realize that the top nixon whitehouse staff consisted of literally only three or four people besides the president, and that these people operated behind an impervious wall.

the washington post and other newspaper investigators were highly energetic and their knowledge closely paralleled that of the FBI and CIA, so much so that that they were accused of having contacts within these departments, which was not true. for the most part, the contacts they did maintain were only for either hints or confirmations of information obtained elsewhere. a reporter needs to be very good at BLUFFING a person into revealing small details that can be further exploited elsewhere.

at one point the overall story being pieced together by the washington post staff seemed to fall apart, and this was jumped on by nixon supporters as proof of the inept rumor mongering of the press IN GENERAL. much later the error was identified as a SINGLE misunderstanding in a single interview, while the story as a whole was overwhelmingly vindicated, which prompted the one sincere, and very telling, apology from the white house press secretary.

this was all grist for the mill of public opinion, which itself could prompt new information. at least one person had a career damaged by unclear suppositions. but it is possible, but for mccords letter, that the official senate hearings would