home

'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal

The Runaway Bride isn't the only one to announce a book and film deal Thursday. So did Mark Felt, aka "Deep Throat."

Felt's working title: "A G-man's Life: The FBI, Being "Deep Throat" And the Struggle for Honor in Washington."

As for the movie version: The deal was signed with Felt by Universal Pictures and Playtone partners Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman. Hanks hasn't yet decided whether to star in the movie. Right now, he's listed as a producer.

< Border Camera System Blasted | Exit Plan from Iraq Demanded >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#1)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    It's important to note that neither did it for the money. RB has massive legal bills and DT has family he'd like to leave a financial legagy to.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    In other words, they both did it for the money.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    Point taken; but neither person's original objective was for $$. And it is only fair to say that you do it for the money too. But that isn't your primary objective.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#4)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    Sailor - The speculation is that Felt did it because he had been passed over for promotion. So yes. He did it for the money. Both times.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    Big deal, I say. So a 91 year old man takes advantage of an opportunity after keeping a secret 30+ years. Let's not forget that many (all?) of the Watergate criminals, including Nixon, wrote books and reaped the financial and career rewards from their crimes. Where would Colson, Dean, Haldeman, Ehrlichman,Liddy be without that? All of them got new careers and respectability out of their crimes.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#6)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    brave - In Felt's situation, my comment was that his motive wasn't as pure as the driven snow. And if you argue that the results justified what, and HOW, he did it, then... welcome to agreeing that US strategy was correct when we supported Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    PPJ -- you miss my meaning. I am annoyed at the media's focus on Felt's book deal when it seems to have forgotten how convicted criminals have parlayed into very lucrative careers. Of course he did it for money -- why ELSE sign a book deal? Did Nixon, Colson, et al have self less motives in their deals? No. and why expect them to?

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#8)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    brave - And your missing my point. He did his original actions for money. i.e. He was passed over for promotion and was angry.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    No one knows for sure Felt's motivations for being Deep Throat. Revenge for his lack of promotion or for the greater good of the country are both plausible. Personally, I look at Felt as a pig who happened to do good for his country, for reasons unknown.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    Felt was not as pure as driven snow by any means. He was active in cointelpro that routinely violated civil rights and any reasonable law enforcement tactics. But to say that he tipped off Woodward just for money, however you want to define that, is an oversimplification. It's a soundbite and God knows that's all we have time for these days, but it's not the truth imho. The intrigue and payback between various agencies - CIA, FBI, NSC, and others inside the Beltway is beyond our imagination I suspect. Similarly, these days, if career CIA officials tip off reporters about misconduct by the Bush administration, it may be seen, reported, speculated as money driven when the truth comes out in 40 years, but few of us will remember at that late date the way that the Bush administration dumped its problems with skewing intelligence on CIA analysts and fewer still will remember the name Valerie Plame. I am glad that Felt outed Nixon. I don't think Felt is a great guy or was motivated by any overpowering admirable qualities.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    Yes Jim, he did it for petulant reasons, just like we supported Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war. Only difference is that he brought down a republican president, did not supply chemical and biological weapons to a madman, did not buy him golden spurs, did not try to profit through oil deals, was not responsible in aiding a reported genocide, did not take great delight in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    As far as the runaway bride, I say good for her. As long as idiots want to watch this drivel and the news makers continue to make these top stories, it is fitting that they not be the only ones profitting (sp) from the madness. As long as the MSM is telling us what is most important according to their headline news and talking heads, anyone placed in the limelight by their own accord or not should be able to be compensated at a rate that is consistent with the ad rates the news stations are getting for airing the nonsense.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#13)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    So, PPJ, if someone were to turn in a criminal just to get the reward money, would that be bad? Or is someone less of a criminal if he or she is turned in by someone with a grudge? I'm not sure I know what your point is.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#14)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    CA writes:
    The intrigue and payback between various agencies - CIA, FBI, NSC, and others inside the Beltway is beyond our imagination I suspect.
    Actually, having spent years inside large organizations, I can tell you that the political games people play are real and always counter productive to the mission. They do, however, make them feel good. kdog writes:
    Personally, I look at Felt as a pig who happened to do good for his country, for reasons unknown.
    So you subscribe, as does brave, to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" moral position. Is that you I see in the background of the oft referred to picture of Rumsfield and Saddam shaking hands? JL - See above to kdog. Is that you standing next to kdog?

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    Jim: Perhaps reading is tough on you. Yes Jim, he did it for petulant reasons, just like we supported Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war. Only difference is that he brought down a republican president, did not supply chemical and biological weapons to a madman, did not buy him golden spurs, did not try to profit through oil deals, was not responsible in aiding a reported genocide, did not take great delight in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Now tell me again how your 3rd grade analogy works? Personally, don't care either way on Felt. But when the president is guilty, and he is the top banana, you don't follow the chain of command. MY guess is the chain of command will stifle the investigation at some point. There was no chain of command above us in Iran/Iraq was there Jim? Or were we afraid of Saddams mighty armed forces? Jim, please provide situations that demonstrate a hair of analoguous congruity.....

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    Bad analogy. Supporting Saddam, while keeping the mullahs of Iran contained for a decade, ultimately resulted in the blowback of the Kuwait invasion, the gassing of the Kurds, and two American wars. By contrast, there was absolutely no downside to getting rid of the sinister criminal Nixon and his scummy thugs.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#17)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    I, for one, hope that Tom Hanks plays the part of Felt. I would've preferred Victor Mature, but he's dead.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#18)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    kth - Huh? No one knew when we were supporting Saddam what would happen. Of course you, with your all knowing hindisght, can now be the Great Swami. As for Kuwait, that was the result of some very poor Dept of State actions. As for the terrorists, you can try to excuse them if you like, but the fact is they hate the US, and the west, for a variety of reasons, and will attack when they get a chance.
    By contrast, there was absolutely no downside to getting rid of the sinister criminal Nixon and his scummy thugs.
    With Nixon gone the anti-war forces ran wild, and North Vietnam knew that we would not support South Vietnam. They were correct, the North invaded and millions died in SE Asia. Particularly in Vietnam and Cambodia. America was deemed weak, and the Soviets were emboldened. You can trace Iran's overthrow to the election of Jimmy Carter. This can be seen as the start of modern day Moslem terrorism against the west, couched in nationalism disguise. And for what? To make a lot of money for a couple of reporters? To help the Demos win in '76? Was Nixon "bad?" Yes. But the world would not have ended had he just been left alone for - gasp!- the eternity of two more years. And how many would have lived? Even worse, with Iran now "in play," the Soviets invaded Afghanistan as a first step to having control of Iran, and what they had wanted for years, a warm weather seaport that their navy could use year round with no difficulty. We countered by arming the "Freedom Fighters" and, as they say, the rest is history. Speaking of history. Read some. Learn from it. Do you have an inkling of what the cost will be if we withdraw from Iraq, and the Middle East? JL - Read the above.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    Nice try to pin Muslim terrorism on Carter, but historey does not agree. Unless you can explain how Carter was responsible for the 72 Munich Olympics, or numerous other events that occurred years before he came to office.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#20)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    PPJ-- first, the "anti-war" forces "ran wild" a good while before Nixon's resignation. In fact, the anti-war movement had achieved its goal a full year before Nixon's resignation when Nixon announced the end of U.S. involvement in the war. It is true that the NVA later attacked the South Vietnamese in violation of the peace accords, but your claim that two more years of Nixon would have kept that from happening (or that Nixon would somehow have been able to mount a U.S. military response to the NVA campaign) is a pretty sketchy counterfactual proposition.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    Hey Jim: Again, how does your analogy work? It doesn't. Let's say that Iran takes over Iraq and we do not ally ourselves with Iraq. We spend 33% of the entire Universe's military spending on defense or approximately 450 Billion. Iran spends 6 billion. These are actual figures not theoretical numbers. How is it that Iran taking over Iraq would pose any threat to us whatsoever, and would Iran have slaughtered the Kurds as Saddam is alleged to? Would the Iranians have bolstered their military power so much that they would pose a threat? Back to the Soviet Union, they could not beat Afghanistan in a war. They had a miserable economy and were collapsing for 10 years. Your theories quite frankly, are ridiculous. Let's take an example you can understand, and I will continue to use small words. The US spends 450 Billion dollars a year on defense. Iran, not even in the top 15 of defense spending in the world, spends 6 billion. Iran has 350,000 troops, 4 armored divisions, 6 infantry divisions, 2 commando divisions, an air brigade, and a handful of smaller units. They have no atomic or nuclear weapons. They have 1600 tanks of which only a portion are operational. They have about 1500 armored fighting vehicles. They have about 500 Scuds and 200 long range scuds. They have 1700 anti aircraft guns (which are basically useless against our aircraft). they have 3 subs, 3 frigates, 3 corvettes, 10 missile patrol, 7 mine war ships, 44 coastal boats. They have 18 air squadrons, and most of their f-14's have not been able to use their air to air defense missiles since 1980. They have approximately 200 serviceable fighter planes. You with me? Ok, 3 of our B2 Spirit Bombers at 2.2 billion each total Irans total spending for defense. Our military is nearly 4 times larger than Iran. Three Kitty Hawk carriers carry more fighter jets than Iran has total. We have 50 Super Nuclear Submarines, they have 3 things that submerse in water. Why is all of this important? Because Iraq had more weapons, aircraft and military capability in our first war with them than Iran does NOW. And that war took all of what, 90 days? Read some history Jim, and try to follow the words as they read left to right.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    The right spends a lot of energy espousing the dangers in this world that are lurking in the midst when truth be told, we are the strongest and least likely nation to be attacked by another sovereign government. I cannot remember any incidents historically where a nation with 1/1000th of the military might of their adversary challenged them to a fight.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    Tom Hanks as Deep Throat is like Harry Reams as Richard Nixon. Sans the porno moustache.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    While RB and DT are selling their stories for whatever reason--the REAL story is not about questioning their motivation to take the money but that the money is THERE becasue enough of us eat this stuff up and are more willing to pay for this than, say, for classical music, good fiction, or decent journalism. I don't remember Dick Nixon with a porno moustache.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    Rim-shot!! I love you folks, anyone here from Jersey?

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#27)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    Harry Reams as Nixon - works for me! But only if Biggy Rat has other obligations. I escaped from Jersey (Bergen County)in the seventies.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#28)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    Adept - I'm not blaming anyone, just running through facts and dates. As to Munich, etc., note that I said:
    This can be seen as the start of modern day Moslem terrorism against the west, couched in nationalism disguise.
    DA writes:
    if the South Vietnamese had been supplied enough munitions and armaments after the American withdrawl. His opinion has some merit of being probably true, unlike PPJ's usual Coulter-fueled ravings here..........
    What is it about:
    "With Nixon gone the anti-war forces ran wild, and North Vietnam knew that we would not support South Vietnam
    that you don't understand? Your friend and I are in agreement. Nolo - Okay. The anti-war forces ran even more wild. And no, they weren't through, they wanted Nixon. JL - Perception is everything. And at that time there is no way any President could have gotten permission to attack Iran. Today is totally different. You write:
    I cannot remember any incidents historically where a nation with 1/1000th of the military might of their adversary challenged them to a fight.
    Uh, one could argue that the Taliban should have known that we would react to 9/11. But, evidently, they did not. In the meantime we fight not against nationstates, but against unlawful combatants and factions within these states. It is neither as black as you see it, or as white as I see it.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#29)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    Uh, one could argue that the Taliban should have known that we would react to 9/11. But, evidently, they did not. In the meantime we fight not against nationstates, but against unlawful combatants and factions within these states.
    For the record, I did not oppose the invasion of Afghanistan. That being said, you could argue just as well that Saudi Arabia should have known we'd react to 9/11. But, evidently, they did not, or perhaps more correctly, apparently they didn't have to -- even though the Saudis are at *least* as culpable as the Taliban for what happened on 9/11. Perhaps you'd care to explain. As for this notion that "we fight not against nationstates, but against unawful combatants and factions within these states," then why are we invading nationstates and deposing their governments? Particularly, why did we invade Iraq and depose its government? And don't tell me it's because the Hussein regime had anything to do with 9/11, because I'll lose all respect for you. Don't tell me it was because of WMDs either, because that's been pretty well debunked.

    Re: 'Deep Throat' Cuts Book and Film Deal (none / 0) (#31)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    DA - Why do you think it is my duty to comment on your casual remarks? As to "run wild," I invite you to study a history of the 60's and 70's. Your friend can join you. nolo - My comments indicated numerous choices, and at this time we aren't fighting against any nationstate, but we certainly have a quarrel with factions in Iran, SA, Syria, Egypt and others. The deal with Iraq is that, in the ME, it had the best infrastructure and human resoureces to produce WMD's, and we thought they had done so. Kay proved that they were trying to do so, and there are still open questions as to what happened to a lot machine tools, etc. Some speculate that the WMD's were moved to Syria in the months before invasion. In any event, Iraq is meant to put pressure on the other regimes. Lebannon is a notable success. Egypt is making claims, we'll see. Libya gave up. Syria withdrew, and now is under heavy pressure to cooperare in sealing the border. Again we'll see. Iran is 50-50, and even SA is make some reforms. Afghanistan is better, but has a ways to go, as is Pakistan. None of this is perfect, but it'll take awhile to fix 700 years of problems.