If the Washington Post was not intentionally covering up the “CIA defense” which we discussed in the last episode, it would blare a headline about it when it was later documented that Howard Hunt, the Watergate burglary supervisor, had earlier been planning it, correct?  And if the prosecution believed that the CIA defense was truly “spurious,” why did the prosecutors work so hard to rebut it?  Did the prosecution agree that Hunt’s motives sprang from his Mullen and Company employment as a CIA cover company, and that the object of the burglary was blackmailing with sexual information? If so, doesn’t this planned prosecution sound much like the CIA defense, only presented so that Hunt would not be acquitted if he employed it?  If a blackmail motive was posited by ethical career prosecutors, wouldn’t the great Washington Post feature that in headlines? Tune in for a startling view of Watergate’s “paper of record” as we tackle yet another of the Mysteries of Watergate.

________________________________________
Thank you for listening! For more information such as a hyperlinked Cast of Characters, visit themysteriesofwatergate.com.  And if you like what you've heard, please leave us a 5-star review on Apple Podcast and pick up a copy of the new book, "The Mysteries of Watergate: What Really Happened" on Amazon.