Rice made by plastic

 BBC reported that Nigeria has confiscated 2.5 tonnes of "plastic rice" smuggled into the country.

Though we don’t know who the producer is,we all know that these like products are made. Custom officers said that these are smuggled in to the country to distribute within the X’mas.


Those are made by melting plastic and reform them to thread-like structures and by cutting them into rice-shaped structures.It is very difficult to identify them as real or fake.In 2015 a fake Consignment was found in China.Most of social networks say that these are made in china.


It is unnecessary to describe ‘what will happen,if those were consumed.No difference to eating plastic.Some Social web sites say that producers mix natural rice to make it real when cooking fake rice.


Can’t imagine that devils produce those fake rice.Producers venomous their own race for cash benefits

Only god knows what would have happened, if people ate it.” Lagos customs chief Haruna Mamudu said All know that plastic are not-decaying or it takes 450 years to decay a single plastic bottle,completely.Then you can imagine what will happen if those were consumed.

Who knows that ‘how many’ will face ‘what’ diseases.World should know this.This is only one Consignment which got caught.Who knows how many Consignments are being distributed without getting caught?


“It is difficult to identify those rice even after  cooked.”Nigeria officers say.“But when  smelt a handful of the rice  there was a faint chemical odour”they added.We should keep in mind that there are despicable Businessmen allover the world,even in any country!!!Following video shows how plastic rice are made
(Photos-BBC)



























U & U Dance Night


“Injustice by the principal”A letter to HRC


2016-11-8

Ravindu Viraj Ranawaka,
No,25
Katukurunda,
Henegama.

President,
Sri Lanka Human Rights Commision
About an unfair treatment by HRC,school and media
I was a student of Gampaha Bandaranayake College.I learnt since grade 06. I was a active member of the western cadet band.
Massive protest  held against the principal Lal Dissanayake in March 2014.Mr Lal Dissanayake was blaming the students of cadet band aswel other students with degrading words and more harrassments.When it couldn’t be tolerated,students pushed to protest.Principal was not at the school on the protest day.Police came to the school as the unrest situation in the school.
Gampaha SSP Mr. Vijitha D Komasaru and Gampaha Police Inspector Mr. Bandara Ratnayake came to a discussion with the situation.The special meeting held in the principal room. I was present at the meeting, including Sachin Yapa and group of students.We gave all facts about the principal issues to the police.     
During the same time of the meeting,two journalists had to face a problem at school entrance. At the time I was in the discussion. 
A few days later a police officer came to my home, He tried to take me to the police station by his police motorcycle. My mother prevented me from the situation.
Then I came to the police headquarters in Gampaha on the request of the police. They took my statement.Then I was arrested saying I assaulted journalists.
Now its being two years for the case hearing at the court. The police arrested me falsely. Deputy Principal Sunil Nanayakkara confirmed  by a letter that I was at the meeting with the SSP when the incident happens. However,I was introduced to the court on false charges.
Principal blamed me incessantly when i went to the school after the incident,saying that i have given a statement against the principal. He said me not to come again and come only to write the examination.Class teacher said me ‘son you do not have to come to school, stay at home and work hard’. Therefore, I got ready for the exmaination staying at the house. Occasionally went to the school, only a few days.
I went to the school after I got to know about AL admissions in 2015 March. Principal said that my name has being rejected from the  register and said me to do the examination from private premises.I informed about my father’s death and family difficulties to the school and asked to give me an opportunity to face the exam as a school student.But they rejected.
  
Then I went to complain this to the Human Rights Commission. The official, who inquired the fact,called principal and said me that it is unneccesory to put my complaint.He said that principal will give me the admission to sit to the examination and asked me to meet the principal.Next day,I went to the school to meet principal.But he didn’t consider my request.Then i wrote a letter saying ‘ give me the opportunity to sit the examination as a student of the school’.
As I didn’t receive response, I came back to the Human Rights Commission.I put a complaint under H & R C 810/15 6th March 2015 .It was heard on 26th March.Principal said that they removd my name from the register as I haven’t attended.Said that they informed about it by letters.He said that he sent two teachers to inform me about attendance.Said that he sent an assistant principal to inform me. But those are false.I didn’t recieve any letter. No one came to my home.I said that to HRC on the inquiry.
Though I didn’t get the chance to sit the exam as a student claiming I haven’t 80% attendance,many got the chance who even haven’t 80%.I said it to the HRC.I didn’t got any chance because I made facts against principal.Then the officers who was at the inquiry asked me to sit the examination as a private applicant and stopped the inquiry.I recieved a letter on 15th August 2015 Claiming that ‘no facts exposed to prove that any one have violate my fundamental rights’
 I was subjected to great stress because I couldn’t  sit as a school boy. I recieved medical advices due to the stress. I was unable to write the exam well due to these problems.Its bieng one year to the injustice and two years to the arrest. I still suffer emotional stress.So I request to inquire about the injustice,done by school,police and the HRC.and take measures to prevent such an injustice to another student.I request to  intervene to make the justice for me.They made false cases against me.I’m spending money for lawyers for the trails.I request to give me the expenses i had,from the principal and the police. Some media reports had been lying about me.Some newspapers mention my name and my details.Doing so is wrong.So find about that.

Thanks.
Yours faithfully,


Ravindu Viraj Ranawaka

This is translation of a letter sent by a student of Gampaha Bandaranayake College to the Human Rights Commission.'hirusan̆du' is not responsible for the content of the letter.

Prabhakaran is Alive ?

Though the 30 years long 'fire' named war has ended.'Charcoal pieces' still hidden among the ashes.And many don't believe that.No difference between North and South,'charcoal' named abomination still lives within two nations.
It can be seen how when windstorm sparks fire.Though the army could extinguish the fire named war,rajapakshe government and yahapalana government was unable to make reconciliation.
Journalists have an obligation to  promote reconciliation.But we can see that some racist Sinhala and tamil  journalists act carelessly to promote racism.
They work to form hearts of the Tamil people against the Sinhala people and sinhala people against the Tamil people.It is worried to see journalists work on articles to promote racism.
It is stunning to stop racism when these journalists act like racists.

Those Tamils who lost their brothers and parents in the war hatred hostile forces,not the war.
Majority of the tamils don't hate prabhakaran who made the war,but the army and politicians who stopped the war.Sinhalese also abominate tamils,not to the LTTE.It should be the bad luck of Sri Lanka.Many don't have an idea why war emerged?
Not only Tamil separatism caused war,but sinhala racism also.This is a reason why mant can't understand that was a war between SL army and LTTE,not between sinhala and tamil.Weren't there tamils in the army?Weren't there sinhalese who supported LTTE.Ignoarant people should focus on these two facts.War is not between sinhala and tamils.
 What happened was,small group battled under LTTE commands and army tried to stop their separatism and to make the peace.
Everyone should remember that tamils also helped to stop this hatred war.Many define war in wrong war and that will make only a  prologue.to another war.
As journalists we should finish the 'charcoal pieces' not to fire them out.Journalists write by 'racist' pen even in a small incident in Jafna.It provoke south people who got beated by the war and it makes hatred hearts of tamils who lived under shadows of the war.This could be seen well in 'Jafna University Clash'Some racist journalists find facts to make this story,a racist story.Some tamil media misrepresented the incident to the world.Don't know why they attach the military to this incident.In some tamil websites it was headed as "Military backed sinhala students attach tamil students"It makes tamils to hatred sinhalese and it makes the situation a racist incident.

It is unfortunate to have journalists who can't understand the situation when a word goes viral.Or they have forgotten the fact.Some journalists are clver to write about jafna from colombo even they don't see jafna sutuation.That's not expected from journalists.They should work to resolve the conflict, not to intensify the confrontation.They should write not to make a war again.
And some tamil journalists report about building buddhist monuments.That is a great impact on reconciliation.It will lead to a cool war within the nation.They should consider when they are writing about these incidents.If they say opposing any religious place is called reconciliation,then we should consider that reconciliation is suitable for our country.If there reconciliation is available,there should be freedom to worship in any place and at any time.There should not be any limit for that,There shouldn't be any difference in north or south.
If north people are  protesting against buddhist monuments in north,the reconciliation programme of the yahapalana government should be started from north.Racism in South begins through politics.Patriotism and nationalism should not be misunderstood.
Everyone should protect their religion.But should not destroy other religion.If buddhists do that,they are not buddhists.Because Lord Buddha respected other religions.Lord buddha said to respect other religions.If some one destroy other religions to protect buddhism,that is not buddhism.
 Building monuments in any where in the country is not a harm to the reconciliation.It should develop reconciliation.
There are many hindu kovils in south and more in construction.In south,who are opposing these kovils are the people who engage in political delusion South or North it is wrong.Journalists should be careful when reporting these issues.
South or North all nations should live like one nation,one family.Should not make conflicts being separated as religions.If we are fighting as two nations we can not said that Prabhakaran's death has made any change.No need to stay in boundaries as church,kovils and temples.We should develop our religion by helping other religions.If we are developing our religion by depressing other religions,it will be a temporary.Because oneday,depressed ones will stand stronger than any.

What to Do ? 

Should win the world as a country with one nation sat in brotherhood.
It shouldn't have ethnic discrimination.as Sinhala,Tamil,Muslim and burger.If discrimination still its unable to stop emerging wars in the future.Then we are in a war Ceasefire backed by an agreement.Hence, It would not make any change that Prabhakaran is alive or not.That is why it feels like prabhakaran is alive.Prabhakaran's racist thoughts will die when  Sinhala,Tamil,Muslim brotherhood confirmed in the country.
Though LTTE and Prabhakaran has died it has not terminate the racism in the country.
If reconciliation proves well confirmed in the country,Prabhakaran and racism will die forever.

සිංහලනේ බලන්න

Biggest Planet off the Solar System

Astronomers say that they found the biggest planet outside the solar system which orbits around two sun.
The new planet should be the same size to the Jupiter,they said.
It is reported that it is  3700 light-years away from Earth.NASA and the University of San Diego carried out the test.

"The planet is in the habitable zone. But as it is a large planet,lives not expect"Scientists say
The planet which travel around pair of suns,After the movie 'Star Wars',this planet named as 'tatooin'.

සිංහලෙන් බලන්න

Who is the Deep Throat 02

Release of the tapes

The tapes revealed several crucial conversations[53] that took place between the President and his counsel, John Dean, on March 21, 1973. In this conversation, Dean summarized many aspects of the Watergate case, and focused on the subsequent cover-up, describing it as a "cancer on the presidency." The burglary team was being paid hush money for their silence and Dean stated: "That's the most troublesome post-thing, because Bob [Haldeman] is involved in that; John [Ehrlichman] is involved in that; I am involved in that; Mitchell is involved in that. And that's an obstruction of justice." Dean continued, stating that Howard Hunt was blackmailing the White House, demanding money immediately; President Nixon replied that the blackmail money should be paid: "…just looking at the immediate problem, don't you have to have – handle Hunt's financial situation damn soon? […] you've got to keep the cap on the bottle that much, in order to have any options."[54]
At the time of the initial congressional impeachment, it was not known if Nixon had known and approved of the payments to the Watergate defendants earlier than this conversation. Nixon's conversation with Haldeman on August 1, 1972, is one of several that establishes he did. Nixon states: "Well…they have to be paid. That's all there is to that. They have to be paid."[55] During the congressional debate on impeachment, some believed that impeachment required a criminally indictable offense. President Nixon's agreement to make the blackmail payments was regarded as an affirmative act to obstruct justice.[56]
On December 7, 1973, investigators found that an 18½ minute portion of one recorded tape had been erased. Rose Mary Woods, Nixon's longtime personal secretary, said she had accidentally erased the tape by pushing the wrong pedal on her tape player when answering the phone. The press ran photos of the set-up, showing that it was unlikely for Woods to answer the phone while keeping her foot on the pedal. Later forensic analysis in 2003 determined that the tape had been erased in several segments – at least five, and perhaps as many as nine.[57]
Nixon's position was becoming increasingly precarious. On February 6, 1974, the House of Representatives approved 

  On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted 27–11 to recommend the first article of impeachment against the president: obstruction of justice. The House recommended the second article, abuse of power, on July 29, 1974. The next day, on July 30, 1974, the House recommended the third article: contempt of Congress. On August 20, 1974, the House authorized the printing of the Committee report H. Rept. 93-1305, which included the text of the resolution impeaching President Nixon and set forth articles of impeachment against him.[60][61]



The release of the "smoking gun" tape destroyed Nixon politically. The ten congressmen who had voted against all three articles of impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee announced they would all support impeachment when the vote was taken in the full House.
On the night of August 7, 1974, Senators Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott and Congressman John Jacob Rhodes met with Nixon in the Oval Office and told him that his support in Congress had all but disappeared. Rhodes told Nixon that he would face certain impeachment when the articles came up for vote in the full House. Goldwater and Scott told the president that there were enough votes in the Senate to convict him, and that no more than 15 Senators were willing to vote for acquittal.
Realizing that he had no chance of staying in office, Nixon decided to resign. In a nationally televised address from the Oval Office on the evening of August 8, 1974, the president said, in part:
In all the decisions I have made in my public life, I have always tried to do what was best for the Nation. Throughout the long and difficult period of Watergate, I have felt it was my duty to persevere, to make every possible effort to complete the term of office to which you elected me. In the past few days, however, it has become evident to me that I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress to justify continuing that effort. As long as there was such a base, I felt strongly that it was necessary to see the constitutional process through to its conclusion, that to do otherwise would be unfaithful to the spirit of that deliberately difficult process and a dangerously destabilizing precedent for the future….
I would have preferred to carry through to the finish whatever the personal agony it would have involved, and my family unanimously urged me to do so. But the interest of the Nation must always come before any personal considerations. From the discussions I have had with Congressional and other leaders, I have concluded that because of the Watergate matter I might not have the support of the Congress that I would consider necessary to back the very difficult decisions and carry out the duties of this office in the way the interests of the Nation would require.
I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as President, I must put the interest of America first. America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad. To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home. Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office.[68]
The morning that his resignation took effect, the President, with Mrs. Nixon and their family, said farewell to the White House staff in the East Room.[69] A helicopter carried them from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. Nixon later wrote that he thought, "As the helicopter moved on to Andrews, I found myself thinking not of the past, but of the future. What could I do now?" At Andrews, he and his family boarded Air Force One to El Toro Marine Corps Air Station in California, and then were transported to his home in San Clemente.

 

Rather than ending with the conviction and sentencing to prison of the five Watergate burglars on January 30, 1973, the investigation into the break-in and the Nixon Administration's involvement grew broader. Nixon's conversations in late March and all of April 1973 revealed that not only did he know he needed to remove Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Dean to gain distance from them, but he had to do so in a way that was least likely to incriminate him and his presidency. Nixon created a new conspiracy—to effect a cover-up of the cover-up—which began in late March 1973 and became fully formed in May and June 1973, operating until his presidency ended on August 9, 1974.[32]On March 23, 1973, Judge Sirica read the court a letter from Watergate burglar James McCord, who alleged that perjury had been committed in the Watergate trial, and defendants had been pressured to remain silent. Trying to make them talk, Sirica gave Hunt and two burglars provisional sentences of up to 40 years.
On March 28, on Nixon's orders, aide John Ehrlichman told Attorney General Richard Kleindienst that nobody in the White House had prior knowledge of the burglary. On April 13, Magruder told U.S. attorneys that he had perjured himself during the burglars' trial, and implicated John Dean and John Mitchell.[17]
John Dean believed that he, Mitchell, Ehrlichman and Haldeman could go to the prosecutors, tell the truth, and save the presidency. Dean wanted to protect the presidency and have his four closest men take the fall for telling the truth. During the critical meeting with Dean and Nixon on April 15, 1973, Dean was totally unaware of the president's depth of knowledge and involvement in the Watergate cover-up. It was during this meeting that Dean felt that he was being recorded. He wondered if this was due to the way Nixon was speaking, as if he were trying to prod attendees' recollections of earlier conversations about fundraising. Dean mentioned this observation while testifying to the Senate Committee on Watergate, exposing the thread of what were taped conversations that would unravel the fabric of Watergate.[33]
Two days later, Dean told Nixon that he had been cooperating with the U.S. attorneys. On that same day, U.S. attorneys told Nixon that Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean and other White House officials were implicated in the cover-up.[17][34][35]
On April 30, Nixon asked for the resignation of Haldeman and Ehrlichman, two of his most influential aides. They were later both indicted, convicted, and ultimately sentenced to prison. He asked for the resignation of Attorney General Kleindienst, to ensure no one could claim that his innocent friendship with Haldeman and Ehrlichman could be construed as a conflict. He fired White House Counsel John Dean, who went on to testify before the Senate Watergate Committee and said that he believed and suspected the conversations in the Oval Office were being taped. This information became the bombshell that helped force Richard Nixon to resign rather than be impeached.[36]
Writing from prison for New West and New York magazines in 1977, Ehrlichman claimed Nixon had offered him a large sum of money, which he declined.[37]
The President announced the resignations in an address to the American people:
In one of the most difficult decisions of my Presidency, I accepted the resignations of two of my closest associates in the White House, Bob Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, two of the finest public servants it has been my privilege to know. Because Attorney General Kleindienst, though a distinguished public servant, my personal friend for 20 years, with no personal involvement whatsoever in this matter has been a close personal and professional associate of some of those who are involved in this case, he and I both felt that it was also necessary to name a new Attorney General. The Counsel to the President, John Dean, has also resigned.[ 
On the same day, Nixon appointed a new attorney general, Elliot Richardson, and gave him authority to designate a special counsel for the Watergate investigation who would be independent of the regular Justice Department hierarchy. In May 1973, Richardson named Archibald Cox to the position.[ 

Release of the transcripts

The Nixon administration struggled to decide what materials to release. All parties involved agreed that all pertinent information should be released. Whether to release unedited profanity and vulgarity divided his advisers. His legal team favored releasing the tapes unedited, while Press Secretary Ron Ziegler preferred using an edited version where "expletive deleted" would replace the raw material. After several weeks of debate, they decided to release an edited version. Nixon announced the release of the transcripts in a speech to the nation on April 29, 1974. Nixon noted that any audio pertinent to national security information could be redacted from the released tapes.[46]
Initially, Nixon gained a positive reaction for his speech. As people read the transcripts over the next couple of weeks, however, former supporters among the public, media and political community called for Nixon's resignation or impeachment. Vice President Gerald Ford said, "While it may be easy to delete characterization from the printed page, we cannot delete characterization from people's minds with a wave of the hand."[47] The Senate Republican Leader Hugh Scott said the transcripts revealed a "deplorable, disgusting, shabby, and immoral" performance on the part of the President and his former aides.[48] The House Republican Leader John Jacob Rhodes agreed with Scott, and Rhodes recommended that if Nixon's position continued to deteriorate, he "ought to consider resigning as a possible option."[49]
The editors of The Chicago Tribune, a newspaper that had supported Nixon, wrote, "He is humorless to the point of being inhumane. He is devious. He is vacillating. He is profane. He is willing to be led. He displays dismaying gaps in knowledge. He is suspicious of his staff. His loyalty is minimal."[50] The Providence Journal wrote, "Reading the transcripts is an emetic experience; one comes away feeling unclean."[51] This newspaper continued, that, while the transcripts may not have revealed an indictable offense, they showed Nixon contemptuous of the United States, its institutions, and its people. According to Time magazine, the Republican Party leaders in the Western United States felt that while there remained a significant number of Nixon loyalists in the party, the majority believed that Nixon should step down as quickly as possible. They were disturbed by the bad language and the coarse, vindictive tone of the conversations in the transcripts.[51][52]

Supreme Court


The issue of access to the tapes went to the US Supreme Court. On July 24, 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the Court, which did not include the recused Justice William Rehnquist (who had recently been appointed by Nixon and had served as Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Nixon Justice Department), ruled unanimously that claims of executive privilege over the tapes were void. They ordered the president to release them to the special prosecutor. On July 30, 1974, President Nixon complied with the order and released the subpoenaed tapes for the public.

(Wikipedia)


Who is The Deep throat?

.
The term Watergate has come to encompass an array of clandestine and often illegal activities undertaken by members of the Nixon administration. Those activities included such "dirty tricks" as bugging the offices of political opponents and people of whom Nixon or his officials were suspicious. Nixon and his close aides apparently ordered investigation of activist groups and political figures, using the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).Watergate was a major political scandal that occurred in the United States in the 1970s, following a break-in at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. in 1972 and President Richard Nixon's administration's attempted cover-up of its involvement. When the conspiracy was discovered and investigated by the U.S. Congress, the Nixon administration's resistance to its probes led to a constitutional crisis.
The scandal led to the discovery of multiple abuses of power by the Nixon administration, articles of impeachment,[2] and the resignation of Nixon. The scandal also resulted in the indictment of 69 people, with trials or pleas resulting in 48 being found guilty, many of whom were Nixon's top administration officials.[3]
The affair began with the arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the DNC headquarters at the Watergate complex on Saturday, June 17, 1972. The FBI investigated and discovered a connection between cash found on the burglars and a slush fundused by the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP), the official organization of Nixon's campaign.[4][5] In July 1973, evidence mounted against the President's staff, including testimony provided by former staff members in an investigation conducted by the Senate Watergate Committee. The investigation revealed that President Nixon had a tape-recording system in his offices and that he had recorded many conversations.[6][7]
After a protracted series of bitter court battles, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the president was obligated to release the tapes to government investigators, and he eventually complied. These audio recordings implicated the president, revealing he had attempted to cover up activities that took place after the break-in and to use federal officials to deflect the investigation.[5][8]Facing near-certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and equally certain conviction by the Senate, Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974.[9][10] On September 8, 1974, his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him.
The name "Watergate" and the suffix "-gate" have since become synonymous with political scandals in the United states

Wiretapping of the Democratic Party's headquarters


In January 1972, G. Gordon Liddy, general counsel to the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP), presented a campaign intelligence plan to CRP's Acting Chairman Jeb Stuart Magruder, Attorney General John Mitchell, and Presidential Counsel John Dean, that involved extensive illegal activities against the Democratic Party. According to Dean, this marked "the opening scene of the worst political scandal of the twentieth century and the beginning of the end of the Nixon presidency."[16]
Mitchell viewed the plan as unrealistic. Two months later, he was alleged to have approved a reduced version of the plan, to include burgling the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate Complex in Washington, D.C.—ostensibly to photograph campaign documents and install listening devices in telephones. Liddy was nominally in charge of the operation, but has since insisted that he was duped by Dean and at least two of his subordinates. These included former CIA officers E. Howard Hunt and James McCord, then-CRP Security Coordinator (John Mitchell had by then resigned as Attorney General to become chairman of the CRP).[17][18]
In May, McCord assigned former FBI agent Alfred C. Baldwin III to carry out the wiretapping and monitor the telephone conversations afterward.[19] McCord testified that he selected Baldwin's name from a registry published by the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBIto work for the Committee to Re-elect the President.[19] Baldwin first served as bodyguard to Martha Mitchell, the wife of John Mitchell, who was living in Washington.[19] Baldwin accompanied Martha Mitchell to Chicago.[19] Martha did not like Baldwin and described him as the "gauchest character I've ever met."[19] The Committee replaced Baldwin with another security man.[19]
On May 11, McCord arranged for Baldwin, whom investigative reporter Jim Hougan described as "somehow special and perhaps well known to McCord,"[19] to stay at the Howard Johnson's motel across the street from the Watergate complex.[19] The room 419 was booked in the name of McCord’s company.[19] At behest of G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt,[19] McCord and his team of burglars prepared for their first Watergate break-in,[19] which began on May 28.[19]
Two phones inside the offices of the DNC headquarters were said to have been wiretapped.[19] One was the phone of Robert Spencer Oliver, who at the time was working as the executive director of the Association of State Democratic Chairmen, and the other was the phone of DNC secretary Larry O'Brien.[20] The FBI found no evidence that O'Brien's phone was bugged.[21] However, it was determined that an effective listening device had been installed in Oliver's phone.[22]
Despite the success in installing the listening devices, the Committee agents soon determined that they needed to be repaired.[22] They planned a second "burglary" in order to take care of this.[22]
Shortly after midnight on June 17, 1972, Frank Wills, a security guard at the Watergate Complex, noticed tape covering the latches on some of the doors in the complex leading from the underground parking garage to several offices (allowing the doors to close but remain unlocked). He removed the tape, and thought nothing of it. He returned an hour later and, having discovered that someone had retaped the locks, Wills called the police. Five men were discovered inside the DNC office and arrested.[17] They were Virgilio González, Bernard Barker, James McCord, Eugenio Martínez, and Frank Sturgis, who were charged with attempted burglary and attempted interception of telephone and other communications. On September 15, a grand jury indicted them, as well as Hunt and Liddy,[23] for conspiracy, burglary, and violation of federal wiretapping laws. The five burglars who broke into the office were tried by a jury, Judge John Sirica officiating, and were convicted on January 30, 1973.[24]
Cover-up and its unraveling 



Within hours of the burglars' arrest, the FBI discovered the name of E. Howard Hunt in the address books of Barker and Martínez. Nixon administration officials were concerned because Hunt and Liddy were also involved in a separate secret activity known as the White House Plumbers, which was set up to stop security "leaks" and to investigate other sensitive security matters. Dean would later testify he was ordered by top Nixon aide John Ehrlichman to "deep six" the contents of Howard Hunt's White House safe. Ehrlichman subsequently denied that. In the end, the evidence from Hunt's safe was destroyed (in separate operations) by Dean and the FBI's Acting Director, L. Patrick Gray.
Nixon's own reaction to the break-in, at least initially, was one of skepticism. Watergate prosecutor James Neal was sure Nixon had not known in advance of the break-in. As evidence, he cited a June 23 taped conversation between the President and his Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, in which Nixon asked, "Who was the asshole who ordered it?" But Nixon subsequently ordered Haldeman to have the CIA block the FBI's investigation into the source of the funding for the burglary.
A few days later, Nixon's Press Secretary, Ron Ziegler, described the event as "a third-rate burglary attempt." On August 29, at a news conference, President Nixon stated Dean had conducted a thorough investigation of the matter, when in fact Dean had not conducted any investigation at all. Nixon also said, "I can say categorically that... no one in the White House staff, no one in this Administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident." On September 15, Nixon congratulated Dean, saying, "The way you've handled it, it seems to me, has been very skillful, because you—putting your fingers in the dikes every time that leaks have sprung here and sprung there


Role of the media 

The connection between the break-in and the re-election committee was highlighted by media coverage—in particular, investigative coverage by The Washington PostTime, and The New York Times. The coverage dramatically increased publicity and consequent political repercussions. Relying heavily upon anonymous sources, Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered information suggesting that knowledge of the break-in, and attempts to cover it up, led deeply into the upper reaches of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and the White House. Woodward and Bernstein interviewed Judy Hoback Miller, the bookkeeper for Nixon, who revealed to them information about the mishandling of funds and records being destroyed.[27]
Chief among the Post's anonymous sources was an individual whom Woodward and Bernstein had nicknamed Deep Throat; 33 years later, in 2005, the informant was identified as William Mark Felt, Sr., deputy director of the FBI during that period of the 1970s, something Woodward later confirmed. Felt met secretly with Woodward several times, telling him of Howard Hunt's involvement with the Watergate break-in, and that the White House staff regarded the stakes in Watergate extremely high. Felt warned Woodward that the FBI wanted to know where he and other reporters were getting their information, as they were uncovering a wider web of crimes than the FBI first disclosed. All of the secret meetings between Woodward and "Deep Throat" (W. Mark Felt) took place at an underground parking garage somewhere in Rosslyn over a period from June 1972 to January 1973. Prior to resigning from the FBI on June 22, 1973, Felt also anonymously planted leaks about Watergate to Time magazine, the Washington Daily News and other publications.[28]
During this early period, most of the media failed to grasp the full implications of the scandal, and concentrated reporting on other topics related to the 1972 presidential election.[29] After the reporting that one of the convicted burglars wrote to Judge Sirica alleging a high-level cover-up, the media shifted its focus. Time magazine described Nixon as undergoing "daily hell and very little trust." The distrust between the press and the Nixon administration was mutual and greater than usual due to lingering dissatisfaction with events from the Vietnam War. At the same time, public distrust of the media was polled at more than 40%.[29]
Nixon and top administration officials discussed using government agencies to "get" (or retaliate against) those they perceived as hostile media organizations.[29] The discussions had precedent. At the request of Nixon's White House in 1969, the FBI tapped the phones of five reporters. In 1971, the White House requested an audit of the tax return of the editor of Newsday, after he wrote a series of articles about the financial dealings of Charles Rebozo, a friend of Nixon.[30]
The Administration and its supporters accused the media of making "wild accusations," putting too much emphasis on the story, and of having a liberal bias against the Administration.[29] Nixon said in a May 1974 interview with supporter Baruch Korff that if he had followed the liberal policies that he thought the media preferred, "Watergate would have been a blip."[31] The media noted that most of the reporting turned out to be accurate; the competitive nature of the media guaranteed widespread coverage of the far-reaching political scandal.[29] Applications to journalism schools reached an all-time high in 1974.[29]


See Part 02

(Wikipedia)