DATE: March 12, 2001
TO: Mr. Andrew Hearn
FROM: Jessica P. Incao
RE: Contact with Christopher Hitchens

On or about December 14, 2001 I received a call from Christopher Hitchens who began to request an interview with Dr. Kissinger. As Mr. Hitchens began to explain the purpose of his call I received another call. I asked Mr. Hitchens to hold and when I returned to the line I informed him it would be helpful if he could put the details of his request in writing. I then asked if I could let him speak to our intern, Stephanie Junger-Moat, to get my e-mail address. At that time I transferred him to Stephanie. I do not have any clear recollection of Mr. Hitchens' tone or behavior.

DATE: Monday, March 12, 2001
TO: Mr. Andrew Hearn
FROM: Theresa L. Cimino
RE: Contact with Christopher Hitchens

On Thursday, January 4, 2001, Dr. Kissinger asked me to phone Christopher Hitchens in response to the interview requests that he had sent. There was a message on Hitchens' answering machine saying that he was out of town, but that he would be checking his messages. I left word explaining that we had been out of the office over the holidays and asked for a list of the questions he had wanted to pose to Dr. Kissinger.

On Friday evening, January 5, 2001, Hitchens called back in response to the messages he had received from both William Rogers and me. He explained that he wasn't certain whose call to answer since Mr. Rogers and I had both left messages for him. He said that he thought he would try calling the office first. I replied that I hadn't realized Mr. Rogers had called as well, and that it would be better for Hitchens to talk to him instead.

Hitchens went on to say that he was at the time in California, would be at the number from which he was calling for another two hours, and then had to go out. He planned to depart the next day (Saturday, January 6) early in the morning for Washington, DC and would be there for the weekend. He said that he would have all day that Sunday, January 7, free and he hoped Mr. Rogers might be able to meet with him.

I explained that I wasn't certain of Mr. Rogers's weekend schedule, but said that I would try to contact him, and if I could, I would leave word with him to contact Hitchens. I did contact Mr. Rogers and passed on all of the above information.

Throughout the conversation, I found Hitchens to be friendly and courteous. He thanked me several times for my assistance and for returning his call.

DATE: March 9, 2000
TO: Mr. Andrew Hearn
FROM: Stephanie Junger-Moat
RE: Contact with Christopher Hitchens

On or about December 14th, 2000 while working at Kissinger Associates in New York I answered a call from a gentleman identifying himself as Christopher Hitchens. He indicted his desire to have Dr. Kissinger comment on an article he was currently working on and on a "tendentious" article Kissinger had written with Brent Scrowcroft in the New York Times Book review in November.

Jessee Incao initially received Mr. Hitchens call, as she handles Dr. Kissinger's interview requests. Because she had to take another call, she transferred Mr. Hitchens to me and I was instructed to give him her e-mail address in order for him to put his request in writing.

Although I have handled numerous calls at KAI, I particularly remember Mr. Hitchens' call on that occasion. Whereas most people approach the office in a courteous and respectful fashion, during our brief exchange, I distinctly remember Mr. Hitchens' tone as pedantic and condescending. The request struck me as unusual; particularly because of the way Mr. Hitchens seemed to flaunt his obvious disdain for Dr. Kissinger. At one point, I felt that Mr. Hitchens' style was such that it was difficult to determine whether or not his request was serious.

When the conversation concluded I passed on the message to Jessee Incao. She informed me that he responded by e-mail on the following day.

3/9/01

TO: Rebecca
Jessee
FROM: Theresa
RE: Andrew Hearn

Andrew Hearn, with whom HAK met this morning at Claridge's, called. He said he and HAK agreed to a follow-up meeting in May, either in NY or London. Nancy apparently would like to attend the second meeting as well. Hearn said he would be willing to do it in either place but, obviously, the legal fees would be cheaper if they were to do it in London. Hearn said he would be bringing a barrister along as well.

Hearn would like to have a number of possible options that would work, so that he can consult his diary and that of the barrister who will be accompanying him. I said that you would be getting back to him regarding dates.

FYI: Hearn also asked for a copy of all of the correspondence our office has had with Christopher Hitchens (which I am pulling together), as well as documentation of any telephone calls any of the staff had with him, specifically those taking place on or about December 20, 2000. Of course, I checked with HAK, who said it was okay to furnish Hearn with this information.

Hearn's contact information is as follows:

Mr. Andrew Hearn
Dechert
2 Serjeants Inn
London EC4Y 1LT
England

Office telephone (direct): 44-207/775-7466
Office fax: 44-207/353-3683
E-mail (least secure): Andrew.Hearn@DechertEU.com

Jessee Incao

From: CHitch8003@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 10:57 PM
To: Kalyn_Bruin@aporter.com
Cc: William_Rogers@aporter.com; ben@harpers.org; EdwinBlue@aol.com; jessee.incao@kainy.org
Subject: Hitchens to Rogers

Dear Mr Rogers,

I must say I am impressed, if also a little concerned, by what I might
call your "tone". In your capacity as one of Mr Kissinger's underlings for
South America, as one of the beneficiaries of his consulting firm and as a
partner at Arnold and Porter, you might have been expected to develop a more
phlegmatic (or shall we say thick-skinned?) manner by now. It's especially
amusing that you should find any discussion of mere money to be "vulgar"

We were only doing our best to catch your attention and - do admit it -
we seem in that respect to have succeeded. Your proprietor trades in a "mix"
of cash and reputation and does quite well thereby. We were not, of course,
proposing to pay him in any way as a "source". Excuse us please, but we have
"sources" of our own, none of them recompensed I might add, and we have them
in plenty. We asked only for the chance to check our sources against your
often verbose but sometimes reticent boss, and we had noticed that money
often decided him as between the speech that is silver and the silence that
is golden. We gave you ample time before resorting to this second option. And
now - oh dear - we seem to have offended you.

I take it that you are the same William Rogers who appears as the silent
participant in the minutes of a meeting between Mr Kissinger and General
Pinochet, held in Santiago de Chile during the OAS summit gathering on 8 June
1976. This being the case, you have managed to contain yourself while
listening to praise for a discredited dictator, for the sanguinary coup by
which he broke his oath and brought himself to power, and to advice to this
same gentleman on how to resist questions from the United States Congress. At
that time, furthermore, with all the details of "Operation Condor" known to
you, and with menacing remarks made by Pinochet about a Chilean dissident
living in Washington DC - and later foully murdered - you continued to remain
in the room and to hold your tongue. I am most decidedly interested to
discover what it takes, at long last, to brush your nerve of outrage and
indignation. I also believe I can promise you an enlivening session with the
forthcoming issues of Harper's magazine. I shall arrange to have these
forwarded to you at my own expense, as an earnest of my continuing regard for
your delicacy in these matters. (If you choose, I will also pay to have a
qualified person visit your office or home and read them to you.)

On my side at least, this correspondence is not confidential and may be
inspected by any other party. May I have the same assurance from you? Before
you give it, I ought to say that my attention was drawn to an ill-written
item in the New York Post of Sunday 7 January, in which someone from your
office employed various irrelevant epithets about my Harper's essays but -
perhaps feeling rhetorically depleted - also described our findings as
"untrue". If this was seriously meant it was defamatory and I should very
much like to see your justification for the claim - or a disavowal of it -
before I take any further action.

yours
Christopher Hitchens

Jessee Incao

From: CHitch8003@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 10:27 PM
To: jessee.incao@kainy.org
Cc: ben@harpers.org; William_Rogers@aporter.com; eblue@ierinc.com
Subject: From Christopher Hitchens to Henry Kissinger

Dear Mr Kissinger,

I last wrote to you on 15 December 2000, inviting your response to a
series of questions I had prepared for my forthcoming book, which is to be
serialised in Harper's magazine.

I understand that you have many claims upon your time, but on 3 January I
received telephone messages from William Rogers of your staff and also from
Teresa in your New York office. Mr Rogers expressed a strong and indeed
specific interest in knowing what my questions might be.

Please do not think of me as immodest, but your letter of 5 November
last to the New York Times Book Review, in which you challenged my account of
the Nixon presidency as "tendentious", has emboldened me - together with the
responses cited above - to think that my efforts are not entirely beneath
your notice.

Yet - and here I approach a delicate area - you have still not
actually favored me with a reply of your own.

May I therefore be the one to break the ice? If this is a question of
money, I feel confident in saying that nothing pecuniary need come between
us, or impede our potential dialogue. I am not myself a wealthy man, and my
colleagues at Harper's have no Maecenas at their command, either. However, we
stand ready to consider any reasonable proposal for emolument from your side.

For what is vulgarly known as a "ballpark" fee, might I propose the
commensurate remuneration of an average ABC "Nightline" appearance? Mr Koppel
would not of course be the questioner, which would mean that we were
exploring "new ground", but you would not have to stay up to an unsocial hour
and we would of course meet your convenience as to place. If we ran over
time, that would naturally be taken into account on our side. (I could of
course wait for Mr Koppel to ask you these questions himself, but I fear that
time presses.)

Please be assured of our sincere intention to put these questions, and to
pay any price to have them answered.

yours,
Christopher Hitchens

CHitch8003@sol.com on 01/06/2001 04:58:37 AM

To: William Rogers/Atty/DC/ArnoldAndPorter@APORTER
cc: ben@harpers.org
Subject: Hitchens here

Dear Mr Rogers,

This is further to our conversation earlier this evening. I have since replayed your message to my voicemail, left some time in the past 48 hours, where you say you are "of Kissinger Associates". It was with that understanding that I returned your call, and also the call left me almost simultaneously by Teresa at the office of Kissinger Associates in New York. She told me that you and she were, so to speak, leaving the same message. I therefore left my California telephone number with her, and for you.

Since the time when you were good enough to call me back, it has struck me that you are "of" Arnold and Porter, a Washington law firm. I am therefore writing to inquire in what capacity you take an interest in the forthcoming editions of Harper's magazine. In my original letter to Mr Kissinger's New York office, which is his headquarters and which deals with his consultancies, speaking appearances and other public capacities, I sought an opportunity to ask him a number of questions on a number of topics of public and current interest. When you asked me for clarification about this, I was as forthcoming as I felt I could be, and did not ask you for any explanation. But when you told me that you had received an inquiry about our unpublished manuscript, from someone representing themselves as a correspondent for the Washington Post, and I asked if I might know the reporter's name, you declined to furnish it.

I think perhaps I might have been wiser to ask you at that point what I take leave to ask you now: 1) Are you on the staff of Henry Kissinger in his public capacity?

2) Is it normally part of your job to assist his contact with the press?

3) Do you represent, or have you represented Mr Kissinger in any other capacity?

4) Have you made any pledge of confidentiality to any Washington Post reporter?

5) Do you have any knowledge as to his or her acquisition of our copyrighted material?

I suppose this might be condensed into a professional question; a matter of form or conduct, when you asked to know what my questions might be, was this in order to help answer them or merely to find out what they were? And might it not, in the latter case, have been more straightforward to say who you were and which firm you actually represented?

I shall find no difficulty in phrasing the questions in any case, and in forwarding them to the appropriate destination. But before I do so, I shall look forward to your response to my own questions above.

Christopher Hitchens

Jessee Incao

From: CHitch8003@aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 2:30 PM
To: jessee.incao@kainy.org
Subject: Interview Request

Dear Ms Incao,

I have already left a verbal message with your colleague, Stephanie,
requesting the favor of a personal and on-the-record interview with Mr
Kissinger. As I stated to her, I am calling in reference to "matters arising"
from his letter to the New York Times Book Review of 5 November, in which he
refers to my criticism of the Nixon/Kissinger administrations as
"tendentious".

Harper's magazine proposes to serialise my book on this period, in which
I extend my criticism into the period of the Ford administration and
elaborate it from the discussion of Indochina to a wider consideration of
policy in Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus and East Timor, as well as to the
individual case of Elias P. Demetracopoulos, whose name will be familiar to
your employer.

In order to avoid any suggestion of tendentiousness, I should naturally
wish to have Mr Kissinger's reaction to my questions in advance of
publication. I can either present myself in person at any time convenient, or
forward my questions by this electronic means, or conduct a telephone
interview if we can both agree on its being tape-recorded.

I may be contacted on this e-mail, or telephoned at any time on 202 387
4842, or sent a fax at 202 986 9702.

yours,
Christopher Hitchens