Did attorney general John Mitchell - or someone - say this?

September 19, 2013 7:10 AM

"I was not privy to the thrust of his aegis." I've carried this quote in my head from the Watergate days, believing it was said by John Mitchell in all his magnificent arrogance. I thought it was a famous quote, but Google search comes up empty. Am I imagining this?
posted by Jackson to Law & Government (5 answers total)

That quote doesn't really make sense, since thrusting a shield isn't a normal thing to do. Maybe you misheard another word as "aegis"?
posted by monotreme at 8:40 AM on September 19, 2013

The person that spoke the most about "not being privy" to conversations would have been Herbert Porter talking (lying as it turned out) about Mitchell and CREEP more than Mitchell talking about himself. Could it have been him?

I'm looking through Watergate records and transcripts looking for any similar comment, because it's a subject I love and well, just because! so if I faind anything else I'll report back.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 9:26 AM on September 19, 2013

"aegis" means "shield", originally, the goatskin shield of zeus, and in modern usage, protection, with connotations of approval and imprimatur. i have never heard this quote, and if all-hearing google has never heard of it either, i'm-a gpnna go with "imagining".
posted by bruce at 10:40 AM on September 19, 2013

I don't think anyone said this exact quotation or anything particularly close. The NYT archives from 1970 to 1980 have one example of the words "aegis" and "privy" occurring in the same article with some relevance to Watergate. It's the article "Excerpts from Mitchell's Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Watergate," published July 11, 1973. Unfortunately the two words don't come in the same sentence. Here are the relevant portions:

Caulfield’s Role Examined
Q. Now, in any event, did you, after the recommendation of Mr. Caulfield for the so-called Sandwedge plan, did you hire Mr. Caulfield for any operation or any particular assignment?
A. There has been shown to me by this committee a memorandum that had to do with an investigation that apparently was made under Mr. Caulfield’s aegis having to do with the so-called McCloskey campaign up in New Hampshire. I do not know who hired him or who paid him. I have seen the memorandum.

a little later...

Q. Was Mr. Magruder capable of leaving a meeting in Key Biscayne with you on March 30, in which you rejected for a third time the Liddy plan, and completely on his own, lied to Mr. Reisner, Liddy, and Sloan about your approval of the quarter million dollar plan? A. Is he capable of it? I wasn’t privy to the conversation, but if it happened—

I also searched the Washington Post archives for the same time period without pulling up anything better.
posted by crazy with stars at 11:30 AM on September 19, 2013

Response by poster: Damn. Against all evidence, I remain convinced of the existence of this quote. The sense of it as I remember was as a pompous disclaimer of being included in the official protection that had been given to someone else, or not being party to privileged information. I will have to admit the fact that no one else has any memory of it is problematic. The other source that just came to mind was perhaps a Matt Groening Life in Hell cartoon or something similar... Oh well, thanks for the responses.
posted by Jackson at 10:25 AM on September 21, 2013