Deep Throat Also Leaked Information In Agnew's Case

Deep Throat Also Leaked Information In Agnew's Case Fmr. Md. Governor, Vice President Resigned After Tax Evasion Conviction

BALTIMORE -- The former FBI official who revealed himself this week as Deep Throat apparently also leaked information to The Washington Post about two of the biggest stories in Maryland in the 1970s.

Post reporter Bob Woodward wrote in Thursday's paper that Mark Felt told him in the spring of 1972 during the Watergate investigation that the FBI had some information that Vice President Spiro Agnew had received a $2,500 bribe.

The tip produced no story, but Agnew resigned in 1973 upon his conviction for income-tax evasion. A Maryland judge found in 1981 that Agnew had accepted kickbacks as Maryland governor.

Woodward also said Felt was his source for a 1972 story about the investigation into the wounding of Alabama Gov. George C. Wallace in Laurel. Woodward cited "high federal officials" as saying there was no indication that suspect Arthur Bremer had been hired to shoot Wallace.

George Beall, the former U.S. attorney who prosecuted both Agnew and Bremer, said the leaks didn't hurt either case. He said the reported bribe to Agnew wasn't substantiated, and the Bremer story eased concerns about a possible conspiracy.

Beall said he's not surprised that Felt was the source of the leaks, since his high-ranking position at the FBI made him privy to virtually all the information the agency collected.

I can post contrary views at the dailykos without be harassed. Why is it a problem for you? Are you saying that those flaming liberals are actually better than you in "tolerance" and handling contrary views?

No, they are not. They do the same thing you're doing now, which is to whine and cry like a baby whenever THEY hear a contrary view, and accuse those who disagree with them of "harrassment". This stems from the overall lefty worldview that anything short of a pain-free, inconvenience-free life is by definition some form of oppression, which makes it possible for them (and you) to confuse "tolerance" with having everyone agree with you about everything and love and celebrate everything about you, no matter what you do or say.

On the contrary, you are benefiting from a great deal of tolerance in the real sense of the word, which comes from the root word "tolerate", in other words, to "put up with". So far you've been allowed to say pretty much whatever you wanted to say without being shown the door, even though pretty much no-one here agrees with you and we're not shy about saying so. That is the very definition of tolerance.

I am an equal opportunity challenger. That is how issues are fleshed out. Plain and simple plain talk.

The other curious thing is that at this point, you've just taken to screaming and throwing dirt in the air about "intolerance" instead of engaging us on the substance of our rebuttals.

I say a philandering president is a major breach of national security, others point out how Nixon at least had the decency to resign, others still that the same people brown-nosing Mr. Felt were outraged over Linda Tripp, and many others have all kinds of other legitimate points and questions -- here's another one: Clinton was disbarred -- and all you do by way of response is boo-hoo in classic Victimist-speak about how you're being politically persecuted in here.

If that's all you've got, maybe you really should leave.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.