Leonard Garment

Leonard Garment

Leonard Garment was born on 11th May, 1924. His father came from Lithuania, and owned a dress factory; his mother came from Poland. Garment worked as a jazz saxophonist with Billie Holiday and Woody Herman before attending Brooklyn Law School where he edited the Brooklyn Law Review.

Garment began his law career in 1949 by joining Mudge, Stern, Baldwin & Todd. He was chief of the firm's trial department and helped tutor Richard Nixon in appellate argument. The company later became Nixon, Mudge, Guthrie, Rose & Alexander.

In 1968 Garment helped to organize Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign. Nixon picked Spiro T. Agnew as his running mate. Nixon won and in his inaugural address on 20th January, 1969, he promised to bring the nation together again. Garment was appointed as special consultant to the president on domestic policy. After John Dean was forced to resign over the Watergate Scandal, Garment became Counsel to the President.

On 18th May, 1973, Attorney General Elliot Richardson appointed Archibald Cox as special prosecutor, with unprecedented authority and independence to investigate the alleged Watergate cover-up and illegal activity in the 1972 presidential campaign. The following month Dean testified that at a meeting with Nixon on 15th April, the president had remarked that he had probably been foolish to have discussed his attempts to get clemency for E. Howard Hunt with Charles Colson. Dean concluded from this that Nixon's office might be bugged.

On Friday, 13th July, Alexander P. Butterfield appeared before the committee and was asked about if he knew whether Nixon was recording meetings he was having in the White House. Butterfield reluctantly admitted details of the tape system which monitored Nixon's conversations. Butterfield also said that he knew "it was probably the one thing that the President would not want revealed". This information did indeed interest Archibald Cox and he demanded that Richard Nixon hand over the White House tapes. Nixon refused and so Cox appealed to the Supreme Court.

On 20th October, 1973, Nixon ordered his Attorney-General, Elliot Richardson, to fire Archibald Cox. Richardson refused and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered the deputy Attorney-General, William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus also refused and he was sacked. Eventually, Robert Bork, the Solicitor-General, fired Cox.

An estimated 450,000 telegrams went sent to Richard Nixon protesting against his decision to remove Cox. The heads of 17 law colleges now called for Nixon's impeachment. Nixon was unable to resist the pressure and on 23rd October he agreed to comply with the subpoena and began releasing some of the tapes. The following month a gap of over 18 minutes was discovered on the tape of the conversation between Nixon and H. R. Haldemanon June 20, 1972. Nixon's secretary, Rose Mary Woods, denied deliberately erasing the tape. It was now clear that Nixon had been involved in the cover-up and members of the Senate began to call for his impeachment.

Peter Rodino, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, presided over the impeachment proceedings against Nixon. The hearings opened in May 1974. The committee had to vote on five articles of impeachment and it was thought that members would split on party lines. However, on the three main charges - obstructing justice, abuse of power and withholding evidence, the majority of Republicans voted with the Democrats.

According to Godfrey Hodgson: "Garment did not turn on Nixon. He remained loyal for as long as he could in the unravelling of the Watergate drama. It was he who advised Nixon that it would constitute obstruction of justice to destroy incriminating White House tape recordings, as Nixon had threatened to do. In the end, after Nixon suggested faking a tape to cover the missing 18 minutes that had been erased from a crucial tape, Garment joined the group of advisers who travelled to Key Biscayne, Florida, to tell Nixon that, in effect, the game was up."

When three senior Republican congressmen, Barry Goldwater, Hugh Scott, John Rhodes visited Richard Nixon to tell him that they were going to vote for his impeachment. Nixon, convinced that he will lose the vote, decided to resign as president of the United States.

Garment remained in the White House as President Gerald Ford appointed him as his assistant. He was later appointed as the U.S. representative to the United Nations Human Rights Commission (1974-77).

In 2002 Leonard Garment published a book, In Search of Deep Throat where he argued that Deep Throat was fellow presidential lawyer John Sears. This was publicly denied by Carl Bernstein, who, along with Bob Woodward, used Deep Throat as a source.

Leonard Garment died on 13th July 2013.

The most obvious fact about Mullen & Co.'s relationship to the CIA was that if it were revealed, the CIA would have to discontinue it, along with the financial benefits it provided to the company. That is in fact what happened not long after Watergate, when the company's cover was finally blown.

This set of mixed motives made Bennett, to my mind, even more plausible as a Deep Throat candidate. When some writer claims that Deep Throat acted because he hated Richard Nixon's Vietnam policy, the alleged motivation is murky and uncertain. But when I thought of Deep Throat acting to keep the bread and butter coming, I had found a motivation I understood.

In addition, when I thought of Bennett as Deep Throat I remembered the one positive clue that Woodward had given me. The reason Deep Throat does not come forward even after all these years, Woodward said, is that his post-Watergate public persona is so different from the persona of Deep Throat.

There could not have been a Deep Throat candidate whom this description fit better than Robert F. Bennett. After Watergate, Bennett left Washington and made his fortune. In due course, he re-entered politics - this time electoral politics in his home state of Utah. Bennett, once an obscure public relations entrepreneur, succeeded his father as senator from Utah. The younger Senator Bennett is now a figure of considerable stature within the Senate...

Bennett even had the physique attributed to Deep Throat in All the President's Men. He is extremely tall. That would explain how he could, without thinking, place a message for Woodward on a garage ledge that Woodward could not reach. Finally, Bennett was the only Deep Throat candidate on record as admitting that he had provided Woodward with unacknowledged, off-the-record information. He had access, opportunity, and motivation...

I wondered why the Bennett testimony, once declassified, had not been enough to settle the question of Deep Throat's identity once and for all. If Bennett was not literally Deep Throat, in my view at the time, he was the closest that any candidate would ever come. Bennett knew immediately about the Watergate break-in; he knew as well about the White House connections to the event, both before and after the fact. Bennett also had a powerful motive for playing the "source" card with the press: He was anxious to safeguard the existence and economic well-being of his company by protecting the secrecy of its relationship with the CIA. He had confirmed under oath that he had preserved this secret by disclosing to Woodward "everything" he knew about Watergate-which was, at the time, just about all there was to know.

To anyone over age 40, the term "Watergate" is by now as much a part of American history as "Valley Forge" or "Teapot Dome." It is the only event in our history that actually forced a sitting President to resign midterm.

A central figure in that wide-ranging web of mid-1970s scandal was an anonymous informant code-named "Deep Throat," who provided inside information, confirmation, and guidance to Robert Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the two dogged Washington Post reporters, whose hard digging kept the story of the now-famous burglary and political scandal alive until it finally blew up into a national disgrace. Deep Throat's identity has never been revealed by the two reporters, true to the journalist's code of absolute protection of sources. Woodward and Bernstein have pledged to break their silence only when Deep Throat dies --- and so far there has been only silence from them.

Leonard Garment became acting special counsel to President Richard Nixon after the Watergate story broke and during the two years or so that it dominated the news. He still held that title when Nixon resigned in August of 1974. In this book Garment retraces the tangled history of Watergate and names the man he thinks was Deep Throat. His candidate is John P. Sears, a former deputy special counsel to Nixon, who left the White House staff in 1969 but was still deeply involved and politically well-connected during (and after) the Watergate trauma.

Curiously, instead of building suspense toward a final revelation of his candidate's name, Garment reveals it on page two of his 270-page book and then backtracks to fill in the details. He seems uninterested in making a political "whodunit" out of the story. He gives the reader first a general scene-setting chapter, then a short but trenchant summary of the whole Watergate mess. Then he runs methodically through a list of no fewer than 24 other names that have been suggested as possible Deep Throats over the years. This section is fascinating, including as it does such bizarre suggestions as Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Ron Zeigler (Nixon's press secretary!), Melvin Laird, and Garment himself (he denies he's the right man).

By this time we are well past the book's halfway mark. Then follows a chapter detailing Garment's own efforts to nail down Deep Throat's identity. He finally brings Sears back onstage for the final 55 pages or so of his text, explaining why he thinks Sears fits all the available clues to Deep Throat's identity --- and dutifully recording that when he asked Sears (who once worked for him) about it, Sears vehemently denied everything.

The book is smoothly and engagingly written. Oddly enough, its main value may lie in areas only remotely related to its actual subject. It gives a vivid picture of the clashing personalities within the Nixon White House staff and the often unpredictable ways in which a Presidential staff works when under extreme stress. It also offers a fascinating attempt to explain "the larger puzzle of Richard Nixon," this man whose psyche and mind remain a mystery to many, admirers and detractors alike, seven years after his death.

Garment acknowledges all the well-known Nixon faults --- the ruthless vindictiveness toward enemies, the loathing of the press, the thuggish political instincts; but he also sees good qualities that he regrets were overtaken and overwhelmed by the man's dark side. He was, says Garment, "thoughtful, knowledgeable and sophisticated" and had a "poetic nature." Garment presents himself as a liberal surrounded by ruthless conservative activists in the Nixon inner circle. At least he tries to present a balanced view of Nixon, neither liberal caricature nor conservative hagiography.

As I read this unfailingly interesting and civilized book, a thought drifted into my head that could perhaps only occur to someone who had lived through Watergate: Just suppose for a minute that Leonard Garment himself was indeed Deep Throat, as some have suggested. What more perfect diversionary tactic could there be for him than to write a book fingering someone else? It's just a vague thought, perhaps inspired by the deep and tangled web of conspiracy and deceit that was Watergate. But who knows?

Garment says that only four people know the identity of Deep Throat: Woodward, Bernstein, Ben Bradlee (their editor at the time), and Deep Throat himself.

Garment did not turn on Nixon. It was he who advised Nixon that it would constitute obstruction of justice to destroy incriminating White House tape recordings, as Nixon had threatened to do.

In the end, after Nixon suggested faking a tape to cover the missing 18 minutes that had been erased from a crucial tape, Garment joined the group of advisers who travelled to Key Biscayne, Florida, to tell Nixon that, in effect, the game was up.

After the fall, when the Watergate scandal was over and Nixon had retired to California, Garment maintained he was unaware of the extent of Nixon's antisemitism. With his habitual dexterity, he summed up the complexity of his feeling towards his political chief. They were, he said, "a tangle of familial echoes, affections and curiosities never satisfied"....

He became an effective Washington attorney with international clients such as Fiat and Toshiba, and wrote two books. The first, Crazy Rhythm (1997), was a sprightly autobiography. The second, In Search of Deep Throat (2000), argued that the mysterious informant who steered Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein towards the exposure of the Watergate scandal was the Republican lawyer John Sears. It is possible that Garment wrote the book in part to deflect the suspicion that he himself was Deep Throat. In any case, in 2005 Mark Felt, who had retired as deputy director of the FBI, admitted having been the source.


Leonard Garment

On the C-SPAN Networks:
Leonard Garment was a Counsel for the White House with 21 videos in the C-SPAN Video Library the first appearance was a 1987 Joint Committee as an Attorney. The year with the most videos was 1997 with six videos. The year with the highest average number of views per program was 1996 with an average of 1,978 views per program. Most appearances with John W. Dean (3), Benjamin C. Bradlee (2), Haynes Johnson (2). Most common tags: Nixon, Richard, U.S. History.

Appearances by Title: c. May 12, 1987 - Present Attorney Videos: 17

Previously


The Dashiki: The History of a Radical Garment

DIASPORA—The dashiki is clothing as politics.

It might not exactly seem that way in its present state—a revived, streetwear trend largely associated with the intricate and highly recognizable 'Angelina print,' but its story is one of African innovation and Black resistance.

The word “dashiki" comes from the Yoruba word danshiki, used to refer to the loose-fitting pullover which originated in West Africa as a functional work tunic for men, comfortable enough to wear in the heat. The Yoruba loaned the word danshiki from the Hausa term dan ciki, which means "underneath." The dan chiki garment was commonly worn by males under large robes. Similar garments were found in sacred Dogon burial caves in Southern Mali, which date back to the 12th and 13th centuries.

The roots of the garment are not lost on anyone—it is an unmistakably African item. Its symbolic significance, however, was molded thousands of miles outside of the continent's borders. It was those of African descent, whose ancestors were hauled to North America in chains, who carried this torch. The Civil Rights and Black Panther Movements of the 1960s and early 70s gave the dashiki its political potency. African Americans adopted the article as a means of rejecting Western cultural norms. This is when the dashiki moved beyond style and functionality to become an emblem of Black pride, as illustrative of the beauty of blackness as an afro or a raised fist.

Its meaning developed in the same vein as the “Africa as Promised Land" rhetoric that fueled movements like Pan-Africanism and Rastafarianism. Perhaps ironically, these Afrocentric philosophies—birthed outside of continental Africa—helped shaped some of the fiercest notions about African identity and the politics of blackness.

Many of these outward concepts of African identity adopted by Black Americans were once again reinforced by people on the actual continent. Principles taught by Civil Rights leaders were widely embraced by leaders of African liberation movements, and the revolutionary politics of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, helped transform Fela Kuti's relaxed highlife into the socially-charged afrobeat that he's lauded for today.

This transference of ideas is much less odd than it seems—perhaps such philosophies could have only been nurtured within the context of the Black American and Caribbean experience. The “promised land" could be more clearly envisioned by those savagely removed from its promise, and the dashiki could become something greater than itself when worn by Black folks who were, for hundreds of years, denied the opportunity to embrace anything that represented their African heritage.

Like the Black Americans who championed it in the mid 20th century, the dashiki is no less African because the bulk of its identity was shaped in a different land. The dashiki, whether worn in Lagos or Washington D.C. is loudly and proudly black.

The dashiki's political vigor weakened towards the end of the 60s when it became popular among white counterculture groups, whose adoption of the garment—based primarily on its aesthetic appeal—undermined its status as a sign of Black identity. Retailers began to import dashikis made in India, Bangladesh and Thailand in large numbers. These versions, often featured the East African-associated kanga print, commonly worn as wrappers by women in Kenya and Tanzania.

During this period, notable Black intellectuals began to warn their communities against the trivialization of dashikis and other symbols of Black beauty. "Donning a dashiki and growing a bush is fine if it energizes the wearer for real action but 'Black is beautiful' is dangerous if it amounts only to wrapping oneself up in one's own glory and magnificence," wrote Civil Rights activist and politician, Sterling Tucker in his 1971 book Black Strategies for Change in America.

The dashiki lost some of its fervor in the tail-end of the 20th century when its use in the United States was largely limited to ceremonies or festivities, or as a pop culture stereotype.

Through it all, the dashiki maintains its underlying cultural significance—even with its recent reappearance on the fashion landscape, which some might consider a fad—the dashiki still relays a commanding message. It can't be worn without the acknowledgment of the impression that it gives to others: that the wearer has made the conscious decision to put on something that is recognized as being distinctively and uniquely African.

The dashiki has become a ready-to-wear conveyor of blackness, linking the continent and the diaspora by a shared assertion of the value of an original Black creation. Its inherent symbolism comes from a struggle against white supremacy and an embracing of African culture as its antitheses—yes, this is a lot of weight to put on a clothing item, but symbols are truly that powerful. So much so, that when a Black person dons a dashiki they are sporting one of the most universally understood interpretations of the phrase “I'm Black and I'm proud," without having to utter a word.


Leonard Garment dies - liberal was Nixon loyalist

(NYT5) WASHINGTON -- July 23, 2000 -- GERMENT-PROFILE -- Leonard Garment, 76, an old Nixon loyalist and obsessive Watergate survivor has writtena book in which he claims to have figured out who the Watergate scandal's Deep Throat really is. The book is called "In Search of Deep Throat" (Basic Books). (Paul Hosefros/The New York Times) Paul Hosefros/NYT

Leonard Garment, a Wall Street litigator who was a top adviser to President Richard M. Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal and who went on to flourish as one of the capital's most powerful and garrulous lawyers, died Saturday at his home in Manhattan. He was 89.

His daughter, Ann Garment, confirmed the death.

As White House counsel, Mr. Garment played a central role in some of Watergate's highest drama, discouraging Nixon from destroying White House tapes, pushing unsuccessfully for the president's early resignation in 1973, and recommending to his successor, Gerald R. Ford, that Nixon be pardoned.

Mr. Garment himself stepped down as Nixon's Watergate lawyer in late 1973 once it became clear to him that the scandal was moving inexorably toward the president's downfall.

Durable career

Long after many Watergate figures had gone to prison or faded into ignominy, Mr. Garment remained one of Washington's most sought-after lawyers, known for puns, a gift of gab and media skills. He often represented powerful figures, among them Attorney General Edwin Meese III and Robert McFarlane, a national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan.

For all his later successes, Mr. Garment remained linked to Nixon, his longtime friend and former law partner, and the scandal that brought him down.

Odd pairing

Yet the two made for an odd pairing. Mr. Garment was a liberal in a Republican administration, a Democrat who voted for John F. Kennedy over Nixon in the 1960 presidential election. He was a Jew from Brooklyn working for a native Californian given to anti-Semitic comments in private. He was a champion of human rights in an administration that many blacks considered hostile to minority issues. And he was regarded as a voice of conscience in a White House that had lost its ethical bearings.

In later years, Mr. Garment viewed Nixon with a mix of reverence, nostalgia, conflict and disappointment.

"My feelings about Mr. Nixon remained the same until his death - a tangle of familial echoes, affections, and curiosities never satisfied," Mr. Garment wrote in his 1997 autobiography, originally titled "Crazy Rhythm: My Journey From Brooklyn, Jazz, and Wall Street to Nixon's White House, Watergate, and Beyond."

He added: "The Nixon who was despised by millions of strangers, and who aroused powerful ambivalence in close associates because of his nasty mood swings between grandiosity and pettiness, was not the Nixon I knew. I was exposed mainly to his attractive sides - his intelligence, idealism, and generosity. Only by 'hearsay,' mainly tape-recorded, did I 'see' the fulminating stranger I was happy not to know."


Nixon Adviser Tells All / Leonard Garment's reflection on the subtle ironies and blunt cruelties of Watergate-era politics

Leonard Garment, a Jewish liberal and former jazz musician- turned-attorney, ended up replacing John Dean as Richard Nixon's counsel during the Watergate debacle. Though hundreds of books have been written on the subject, Garment somehow brings a fresh eye for the subtle ironies and blunt cruelties of Washington politics in "Crazy Rhythm."

Often the smallest details are the most telling: Garment is on the couch with his psychoanalyst when Nixon calls to ask him for help on Watergate. The doctor offers to step outside while his patient talks to the President, but this is Washington D.C., so "there was no need for that," the author tells us. "My shrink was CIA- cleared, which was more than could be said for me."

Unexpected humor crops up everywhere. A funny and all-too- telling "Doonesbury" cartoon is reprinted halfway through in which the President says to Garment: "Leonard, as my counsel, I think it's about time you took a look at these transcripts of the secret tapes. As you can see, there are many frank and candid remarks which, if taken out of context, might create a false impression."

Garment: "Yessir. I can see one here on page two."

Garment: " 'Well, John, how's the cover-up going?' "

Nixon: "Right! A good example!"

Garment: "Yessir. It could be misinterpreted."

Garment notes that "when this eerily prophetic cartoon appeared in September 1973, jokes were the least of my problems," and we can certainly see why. Earlier that year Garment "drew the short straw" and had to explain to a "packed White House press room" why "such things as a presidentially authorized wiretapping, mail openings, secret intelligence operations and breaking and entering were no big deal."

The press jumped on Garment so hard with its "jeers" and "catcalls" that he recalls the ordeal as "a verbal gang-bang" and says that colleagues walking by "turned away in embarrassment as if I were a burn victim." But here's the reason we read Garment's delectable version of that sordid period:

". . . the truth is that I enjoyed the wild press briefing. A lot of hysterical shouting is, to a trial lawyer, simply a signal that he is doing his job effectively. Indeed, the May 22 statement, for all its obscurity, factual lacunae and ignorant fakery, worked surprisingly well."

That's nicely stated (you can bet John Dean never used the term "factual lacunae"), but it's only a hint of the beautiful writing Garment quite unexpectedly brings to these evocative and sometimes stunning descriptions of his life and career.

Born on a kitchen table in a three-room tenement apartment in 1924, he portrays the still-rural Brownsville section of Brooklyn as "the American counterpart of a semi-rural European shtetl. The streets were packed with hastily thrown together three-story wood tenements and converted farm buildings, a jumble of ugly structures that looked like a Jewish Klondike. Yet the inhabitants milled around with pioneering excitement and energy that lent an agitated beauty to the chaos."

Ah, agitated beauty. That's the kind of term that makes "Crazy Rhythm" so intriguing. Garment is equally insightful when, as a fledgling saxophonist, he apprenticed himself to African American jazz musicians in what he decribes as the still-segregated America of the 1940s.

"White musicians also looked on black musicians as a race apart -- but for vastly different reasons from those of most whites. We did not condescend to blacks as 'political equals' instead we thought them superior in the only sense that was important to us, which was not politics but musical invention."

Garment knew he was a minor player compared to "black Mozarts" like Louis Armstrong and Charlie Parker, so he went into law and, despite a lifelong battle with severe depression (his mother also suffered from schizophrenic psychosis), rose steadily in the New York law firm that Nixon joined after his defeat in the California gubernatorial race of 1962.

When the two became close after arguing a case before the Supreme Court and Nixon began making election noises again, Garment found himself distracted from his phobias and even a bit exhilarated at the challenge of joining Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign.

How could a liberal Jew support a Republican like Nixon? There was Nixon's talent for foreign policy, for starters. Garment reports that "my eyes brimmed over" at the way Israeli Jews embraced a sympathetic and articulate Nixon after the Six Day War of 1967. And he ably and even amusingly tells "the whole blameworthy story" of manipulating the media to create a "New Nixon" he believed was more personable and presidential than cartoonist "Herblock's scowling, stubble-faced caricature."

Garment insists he did not know about Nixon's role in Watergate or the cover-up, or even the secret tapes until very late in the game, and from accounts he quotes of other memoirs (by Henry Kissinger, H.R. Haldeman and others), we believe him when he indicates that he was among the first to push Nixon for "the fullest admission of error" early on.

He so hated the "hardwired for combat" tactics of Alexander Haig that disagreements between them actually "brought us to the point of blows." A fierce opponent to the idea of destroying the tapes, he is pragmatic enough to say that Nixon "would have survived" as President had he destroyed the evidence that brought him down.

But why should so principled an adviser stay with a president who kept him "ignorant" of the real goings-on behind the scenes and who insisted on "doling out spoonfuls of time and information" as time ran out?

Garment characterizes himself and other Nixon advisers as acting like "characters under hypnosis" who "worried, griped and talked about quitting -- but didn't." They believed, he says, that "despite Nixon's capacity for transgression, he had done and could yet do large presidential deeds far outweighing the misdeeds that now seemed to displace everything else in the political universe."

Just as Garment "snapped out" of his debilitating depression by throwing himself into Watergate as Nixon's protector, so, he indicates, did the nation turn to Watergate as "the distraction of the century" that kept voters and politicians away from the real work of running the country. No such luck was in sight for Garment's wife Grace, however, whose own lengthy depression and drug dependence led her to suicide in 1976.

Why didn't Nixon destroy the tapes that would bring him down? On the one hand, says Garment, he believed Haldeman's wild and hugely erroneous idea that the tapes would acquit him. On the other, he wanted the tapes to preserve "a kind of personal immortality," to live on as "matchless evidence of the 'real' positions participants took, particularly Kissinger and Nixon himself." And so, a quarter of a century later, they have.


Share Leonard's obituary or write your own to preserve his legacy.

In 1897, in the year that Leonard Charles Garment was born, on July 17th, the Klondike Gold Rush began when the first successful prospectors returned to Seattle after mining in the Yukon. They arrived on the ships Excelsior and Portland, bringing vast quantities of gold - over $32,000,000 in today's money - and everyone rushed to become rich in the Yukon.

In 1900, at the age of only 3 years old, Leonard was alive when the Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud published his book (written in 1899) "The Interpretation of Dreams". Sigmund Freud, born Sigismund Schlomo Freud in May of 1856, is the "father of psychoanalysis". Although he was a medical doctor, he was fascinated with the psyche and hypothesized the existence of the id, the ego, the superego, the libido, the unconscious, the Oedipus complex, and more. These are concepts that are still used by modern psychology.

In 1906, he was just 9 years old when Finland became the first European country to give women the vote and to allow them to run for political office. (Women in Australia and New Zealand already had that right but couldn't run for office.) Although Finland belonged to the Russian Empire, there was great unrest and the Tsar wanted to broker a quick peace. As a part of the brokered peace, women got the vote.

In 1918, in the year of Leonard Charles Garment's passing, on November 1, an elevated train on the Brooklyn line of the subway - driven by an inexperienced operator because of a strike - tried to navigate a turn at 30mph. The limit on the curve was 6 mph. The 2nd and 3rd cars of the 5 car wooden train were badly damaged and at least 93 people were killed, making it the deadliest crash in New York subway history.


Leonard Garment Net Worth

Leonard Garment estimated Net Worth, Salary, Income, Cars, Lifestyles & many more details have been updated below. Let’s check, How Rich is Leonard Garment in 2019-2020?

According to Wikipedia, Forbes, IMDb & Various Online resources, famous Celebrity Leonard Garment’s net worth is $1-5 Million before died. Leonard Garment earned the money being a professional Celebrity. Leonard Garment is from United States.

Leonard Garment’s Net Worth:
$1-5 Million

Estimated Net Worth in 2020Under Review
Previous Year’s Net Worth (2019)Under Review
Annual Salary Under Review.
Income SourcePrimary Income source Celebrity (profession).
Net Worth Verification StatusNot Verified


Why It May Be Time To Re-Examine Garment Size Standardization

Many of us know what it feels like to resent our bodies. From the media and diet industry portraying “perfect” figures to hyper-sexualization and a fashion industry obsessed with youth, women and femme individuals are conditioned to dislike their bodies. Unsurprisingly, this has led many of us to believe that, when our clothes don’t fit, it’s our fault.

“I used to think I hated the idea and ritual of wearing underwear because I wasn’t ‘thin,’” Alyssa Mastromonaco, former Deputy Chief of Staff to President Obama, writes in her second book “So Here’s The Thing.” Her body angst has centered around underwear, and when she recounts a particular shopping trip, she writes about an unfortunately all too familiar feeling: shame.

“When I finally did break down and try on a pair I was certain would be too big, they were too small. I am only 5 feet 2 inches—the idea of needing size-large underwear seemed to condemn me to a terrible and sad fate,” says Mastromonaco.

The numbers and labels on garments have been ruling our lives since we compared shoe sizes on the playground—and it's all been in the name of modern efficiency. We’re overwhelmed by sizing options as every country, brand, and clothing category has its own system. Today, size charts seem to be less helpful and more confusing—how did we get here?

The History of Standard Sizing

Before ready-to-wear clothing, the Industrial Revolution, and mass consumption, garments were “made-to-measure.” Most clothing items before the 19th century were customized to fit each individual customer. However, as the American Industrial Revolution consumed the country, the military began mass-producing uniforms utilizing new resources such as the power loom, cotton gin, and the spinning jenny. Chest measurements were used to create a standardized size range for the uniforms, which was soon adopted to efficiently build men’s ready-to-wear suits for the first time.

Women were not so lucky. Following World War I, fast fashion found its early origins among those who “wanted access to affordable, on-trend fashion, regardless of their class,” writes Katrina Robinson’s in Seamwork Magazine.

In 1939, the first attempt to create a universal standard for women began with a study conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). An article from the same year estimated that U.S. manufacturers were losing about $10 million a year to garment alterations, making it a perfect time to find efficiency within the fashion industry. More than 14,000 women from eight states were measured for what became the ”Women's Measurements for Garment and Pattern Construction” report. Yet, the study proved ineffective and problematic for a few reasons, not least of which was that only measurements of white women were taken.

Researchers were also taken aback by the “bewildering variety of shapes and sizes” of women, as they believed they could rely heavily on bust measurements and assumed all women had an hourglass figure. An added complication, the survey was conducted using volunteers who received a small stipend, meaning “it was largely made up of women of lower socioeconomic status who needed the participation fee,” a 2014 Time Magazine article explained.

Years later, towards the end of the 1940s, another attempt was made to produce a streamlined sizing system. The Mail-Order Association of America, which represented the catalog business, asked the National Bureau of Standards (now known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology) to reassess the 1939 data.

This new study used previous information and new sizing data, which included children and women who had served in the military. (The same 2014 Time Magazine piece pointed out that these women were some of the fittest people in the country, calling into question their inclusion.) The results proved to be much more nuanced than before and became published as “Commercial Standard (CS) 215-58.” While this size standard was adopted for far longer than its predecessor, in 1970, it was updated to reflect women’s bodies of the time (read: sans corset). A decade later, retailers began to create their own sizing charts, causing chaos along the way.

The “Vanity Sizing” Debate

Most accounts of garment sizing history for women will point to 1983 as the year that “vanity sizing” was born. Historians, sewists, and journalists alike bemoan this time as size standards were officially withdrawn. Allegedly, retailers figured out that consumers enjoyed feeling like they were smaller than average. Garment manufacturers began dropping sizes down until a size 4 was the new size 16.

But what if fit was the culprit of all our duress, not sizing? Production patternmaker, manufacturing consultant, and author Kathleen Fasanella argues vanity sizing a myth. She claims we’ve leaned into mass production for convenience and price, losing clothing that fits in the process. She maintains sizing and measurement data used prior to the 1960s meant something to patternmakers but seemed arbitrary to the untrained eye. Therefore the replacement numbers we see today dont mean anything because they’ve been oversimplified. “Sizes are not created equally not all mediums from company to company are identical and nor should they be,” writes Fasanella.

Keeping Clothing Personal

It’s ultimately difficult to believe that the issue remains black and white. Consumers often do want to feel small in a culture that celebrates thinness however, bodies and sizing also evolve. The longtime production patternmaker makes a strong case for brands to customize sizing based on their specific customers, or what Fasanella calls “niche manufacturing.”

She explains that “people are so different from one another that it is an unreasonable expectation that our clothes should be sized uniformly.” This supports the sustainable fashion argument for a customizable clothing future, including bringing back made-to-order and bespoke practices.

Fast fashion and mass consumption are harming our planet, and the resulted clothing doesn’t even fit our bodies properly. Attempts at size standardization and modern efficiency have forced us all to believe we can slip our very different bodies into the same size pants—sorry to spoil “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants," but it's a lie! Just like in the 1940s, we’re throwing away millions of dollars of clothing because it was never meant to fit us in the first place. If there’s ever been an argument for sustainable fashion, this is it.


US Garment Business Moves Overseas

In the not so distant past trade barriers regulated garment imports and bolstered the US apparel business. In the 1990s deregulation made the import of cheap apparel from developing countries more advantageous for the garment industry. Thousands of US garment and textile workers lost their jobs when NAFTA encouraged the industry to move operations from Los Angeles to Mexico. US wages were pushed down to compete.

Garment and textile factories popped up in China and Bangladesh where labor was cheap. Unregulated producers were free to pollute the air and discharge chemicals into the waterways. Workers had little protection, enduring long hours, low pay, and abuse.

In 2009 a Federal judge ruled that Walmart was not responsible for the terrible conditions that overseas factory workers endured, declaring that the foreign workers were not actually Walmart employees.

Dismal conditions in foreign countries began to mimic the deplorable conditions of Victorian England. The plight of these workers was brought to a head in April 2013 when a factory in Dhaka Bangladesh collapsed and killed 1129 workers.


History

The firm’s forerunner, MacVeagh & Bispham, was established in Philadelphia in 1875 when Wayne MacVeagh and George Tucker Bispham joined forces.

MacVeagh, a Yale University graduate admitted to the bar following a law firm apprenticeship, brought to the partnership a distinguished record of public service, including experience as district attorney of Chester County, Pa. infantry captain and major in the cavalry for the Union army during the Civil War and a U.S. ambassadorship to Turkey. As a firm partner, he maintained an ambitious roster of outside activities, heading the commission that led to the resolution of the 1876 Hayes-Tilden presidential election dispute and briefly serving as President James Garfield’s attorney general. MacVeagh’s partner, Bispham, was a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and University of Pennsylvania Law School.

He authored Principles of Equity, a legal textbook that was considered the definitive work on the subject at the time. In 1884, Bispham became a law professor at his alma mater.

The Pennsylvania Railroad, one of the nation’s largest and most powerful economic enterprises, first retained the firm in 1877 and would remain a client for nearly a century. In one significant trial, Bispham defended the railroad against claims by several homeowners that its operations had decreased their property values. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad, and the plaintiffs’ appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court failed. Other early clients included Girard Trust Company, The Philadelphia Savings Fund Society, the Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Company and the Westmoreland Coal Company.

With America’s entry into World War II, the firm, then known as Barnes, Myers & Price, lost most of its lawyers to military or government service. With just a handful of lawyers remaining, Barnes, Myers & Price in 1942 merged with another Philadelphia law firm, Dechert, Smith & Clark, established by Robert Dechert and Curtis Bok in 1930. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and its law school as well as an army officer during World War I, Dechert went on to become vice president and counsel of The Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company and continued as head of Penn Mutual’s legal department after forming his partnership with Bok.

As laws and regulations governing corporate entities proliferated, the firm offered a more diverse range of services. Focused practice groups, including taxation (headed by Dechert himself), business & corporate, fiduciary and litigation, were introduced in 1946. Through the mid-1950s, most of the firm’s trial lawyers were immersed in Pennsylvania Railroad litigation arising from the Federal Employer’s Liability Act. But clients increasingly sought the firm’s representation in antitrust and securities litigation as well as in general business and labor matters.

After undergoing several more name changes, the firm became Dechert Price & Rhoads in 1962.

National and International Expansion

Dechert was among the first law firms in the United States to recognize the importance of serving clients abroad, establishing a Brussels office in 1968 and a London office in 1972. Beginning in the mid-‘90s, Dechert’s international presence began to significantly expand, with offices opening in Paris (1995) Luxembourg (2001) Munich (2004) Hong Kong and Beijing (2008) Moscow (2009) Dublin (2010) Frankfurt, Bonn, Almaty, and Dubai (2012) and Singapore (2014).

In 2000 Dechert merged with Titmuss, Sainer & Webb, a UK firm with roots dating back to the 1930s in London. The merger significantly expanded the international financing and investment funds, litigation, finance and real estate services offered to Dechert clients.

In 2005, 38 lawyers from Coudert Brothers joined the Paris and Brussels offices, significantly expanding the firm’s cross-border corporate, life sciences and international arbitration capabilities.

Closer to home, the firm has grown well beyond its Philadelphia roots, opening offices in Washington, D.C. and Harrisburg (1969), New York (1980), Boston and Princeton (1987), Hartford (1996), Orange County (2001), San Francisco (2002), Silicon Valley (2003), Charlotte (2004), Austin (2006), Los Angeles (2011) and Chicago (2012).

Star litigator Andrew Levander and acclaimed antitrust lawyer Paul Denis, along with a group of 63 other Swidler lawyers, joined Dechert’s New York and Washington, D.C. offices in 2005.

Throughout its history, Dechert has attracted, and been shaped by, internationally acclaimed lawyers who have held prominent posts in government and politics before, during and after their association with the firm. Francis Biddle, a partner from 1916 through 1939, held several influential government posts during his time with Dechert, most notably as chair of the National Labor Board, in which capacity he helped to create the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (the Wagner Act), which guaranteed workers the right to form unions and bargain collectively. After leaving the firm, he served as attorney general of the United States for most of World War II, and as the primary American judge during the Nuremberg trials.

Joseph Clark joined the firm in 1934 after practicing law for eight years. In 1951, he was elected mayor of Philadelphia—the city’s first Democratic mayor in more than 60 years. In 1956, he was elected to the United States Senate, serving for 12 years.

Arlen Specter practiced with the firm from 1956–1959. Leaving to serve on the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy (the Warren Commission), he was elected District Attorney of Philadelphia in 1965, returned to Dechert as a partner in 1972 and was elected to the United States Senate in 1980.

Veteran litigator Leonard Garment became a partner in the Washington, D.C. office in 1996. Prior to that, he served as Special Counsel to President Nixon, advising him on crises ranging from the Middle East to the armed occupation of Wounded Knee by members of the American Indian Movement to Watergate. He later represented Reagan officials during the Iran-Contra hearings, and Judge Robert Bork in connection with his Supreme Court confirmation hearing.

Several Dechert lawyers have gone on to become U.S. district court judges for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, including Norma Shapiro, the firm’s second female associate when she was hired in 1956 and its first female partner in 1973, and three others who are currently serving: Chief Judge Harvey Bartle III, Mary A. McLaughlin and Cheryl Krause.

Andrew Levander joined Dechert’s New York office in 2005. A former federal prosecutor, he is known for representing high-profile Wall Street companies and executives. Levander is currently Chair of the firm’s Policy Committee.


Watch the video: Leonard Garment on. Attorney General John N. Mitchell