- This is my key issue. Dean has admitted that he was “chief desk officer” of the cover-up, but claims he was acting under the direction and control of Haldeman and Ehrlichman (which they denied to their dying days).
- They didn’t discuss Watergate with other staff members, so it’s them or Dean – and the jury obviously believed Dean.
- But, I don’t believe that Dean ever told them any specifics of his activities. Oh, he told them he was working hard “to contain” the situation – everyone knew that was Dean’s responsibility — but I doubt he ever got around to mentioning the specific criminal acts he was undertaking – which included perjury, destruction of evidence, embezzlement of campaign funds and improper disclosures of prosecutorial information. Dean had every reason to enable them to claim “plausible deniability” – and certainly did not want to mention his own risk of prosecution from attending the initial meetings in Mitchell’s office.
Posted In: Lingering Questions