conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Provide a description for a book titled Plausible Denial about Kennedy, CIA, However with the genre: Politics & Social Sciences, Politics & Government.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: This material will doubtless prove fascinating to any Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist. the author's research on CIA involvement in the Kennedy assassination is both convincing and disturbing. However, the performance proves impersonal and uninspired. Paul Soles places too much distance between himself and the material. The facts of this compelling subject are presented with little emotion. The author's arguments are worth studying, but the performance here adds little. G.A.D. (c)AudioFile, Portland, Maine
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Provide the first two paragraphs for this book.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Plausible Denial
  VICTOR MARCHETTI WAS, IT SEEMED, THE ESSENTIAL WITNESS. HE HAD REFUSED TO testify at the first trial; his publisher had then been ordered to pay $650,000 to Mr. Hunt.
  At a trial, as in a drama, the audience seeks resolution of the questions that have been propounded. Instructions from the court to the jurors to disregard that, to erase this from your mind, or to ignore these matters for they are not within your province, quite properly carry forth the concepts of precedent and regularity and are viewed with favor by appellate courts that may subsequently review the case record. However, they tend to leave the jurors frustrated and less than enlightened, and they do not satisfy the jurors' curiosity as to what it is that lingers in the shadows and why the lawyers for both sides and the judge have apparently combined, in their presumption of infinite wisdom, to allow the corners of the case to remain unilluminated.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Provide five more paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: MR. LANE: I object, Your Honor, to any discussion about what takes place in a foreign country. This is Washington, D.C. [where the perjury was committed]. It is part of the United States. The total discussion is quite irrelevant.
  A. In 1973, after my guilty plea, I began testifying before a wide variety of investigative bodies: the Senate, the House, the Watergate special prosecutor, the U.S. attorney, the Los Angeles County district attorney, and so forth. Basically, my position was that I did not know anything about higher-up involvement. I wanted to keep—give these people, certainly through the election period, to give Mr. Nixon an opportunity to be reelected.
  Hunt's explanation, that he had committed perjury to prevent the American people from learning the truth about Nixon's role in the Watergate crimes, it seemed to me, was not appreciated by the jurors. Of the menu of explanations available to him, he may have chosen the least injurious. In my view, however, it was not a truthful answer. Hunt, I believed the evidence demonstrated, had committed perjury for financial motives.
  Snyder explored that matter. Hunt testified that after Nixon had been reelected, the funds from the White House stopped flowing to him and to the other convicts. His attorney then asked a question that surprised me, for it was an inquiry that the rules of evidence would not have permitted me to make:
  A. Yes, I think John Dean did that on one occasion. Mr. Dean was a rather young and inexperienced fellow, and when the budgetary requirements for the maintenance of the Watergate conspirators' families came to him, he, not knowing the clandestine tradition, and being unaccustomed to large numbers, went to Mr. Nixon, as I recall it, and said, "They are blackmailing us for a million dollars." It was not a question of blackmail at all. It was simply a question of another element to having requested a budget, a maintenance budget about which perhaps Mr. Dean did not know.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Reverse the sentences.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Dean did not know.. It was simply a question of another element to having requested a budget, a maintenance budget about which perhaps Mr." It was not a question of blackmail at all. Nixon, as I recall it, and said, "They are blackmailing us for a million dollars. Dean was a rather young and inexperienced fellow, and when the budgetary requirements for the maintenance of the Watergate conspirators' families came to him, he, not knowing the clandestine tradition, and being unaccustomed to large numbers, went to Mr. Mr. Yes, I think John Dean did that on one occasion. His attorney then asked a question that surprised me, for it was an inquiry that the rules of evidence would not have permitted me to make:
  A. Hunt testified that after Nixon had been reelected, the funds from the White House stopped flowing to him and to the other convicts.
  Snyder explored that matter. Hunt, I believed the evidence demonstrated, had committed perjury for financial motives. In my view, however, it was not a truthful answer. Of the menu of explanations available to him, he may have chosen the least injurious.
  Hunt's explanation, that he had committed perjury to prevent the American people from learning the truth about Nixon's role in the Watergate crimes, it seemed to me, was not appreciated by the jurors. Nixon an opportunity to be reelected. I wanted to keep—give these people, certainly through the election period, to give Mr. Basically, my position was that I did not know anything about higher-up involvement. attorney, the Los Angeles County district attorney, and so forth.S. In 1973, after my guilty plea, I began testifying before a wide variety of investigative bodies: the Senate, the House, the Watergate special prosecutor, the U.
  A. The total discussion is quite irrelevant. It is part of the United States. [where the perjury was committed].C. This is Washington, D. LANE: I object, Your Honor, to any discussion about what takes place in a foreign country.MR
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Provide the last five paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: First, some ask if this is a war for unlimited objectives. The answer is plain. The answer is "no." Our purpose in Vietnam is to prevent the success of aggression. It is not conquest; it is not empire; it is not foreign bases; it is not domination.
  Second, some people ask if we are caught in a blind escalation of force that is pulling us headlong toward a wider war that no one wants. The answer, again, is a simple "no." We are using that force and only that force that is necessary to stop this aggression. Our fighting men are in Vietnam because tens of thousands of invaders came south before them. Our numbers have increased in Vietnam because the aggression of others has increased in Vietnam. The high hopes of the aggressor have been dimmed and the tide of the battle has been turned, and our measured use of force will and must be continued. But this is prudent firmness under what I believe is careful control. There is not, and there will not be, a mindless escalation.
  Third, others ask if our fighting men are to be denied the help they need. The answer, again, is and will be a resounding "no." Our great military establishment has moved 200,000 men across 10,000 miles since last spring.
  These men have, and will have, all they need to fight the aggressor. They have already performed miracles in combat. The men behind them have worked miracles of supply, building new ports, transporting new equipment, opening new roads.
  The American forces of freedom are strong tonight in South Vietnam, and we plan to keep them so. As you know, they are led there by a brilliant and a resourceful commander, Gen. William C. Westmoreland. He knows the needs of war and he supports the works of peace. And when he asks for more Americans to help the men that he has, his requests will be immediately studied, and, as I promised the nation last July, his needs will be immediately met.