First in a series on "Helms the Perverse Perjurer," which currently contains the following other articles:

White House "Request" for CIA Help Was a Helms Con Helms the Perverse Perjurer Series #2

How Helms Supposedly Learned About the "Break-In" Helms the Perverse Perjurer Series #3

Here is pathological liar and CIA Director (but I repeat myself) Richard Helms in "sworn" testimony before the Watergate Committee, lying about not having been informed concerning CIA supplying E. Howard Hunt with equipment (and also disguises and false ID, plus same for Liddy) until after the fact:

DAVID DORSON: Did you have a conversation with [Deputy Director CIA] General Cushman concerning Howard Hunt in the summer of 1971?
RICHARD HELMS: Yes, I recall that General Cushman informed me that he had authorized giving to Howard Hunt a tape recorder and a camera [Hunt had also been supplied disguises and false ID by then]....
DAVID DORSON: And what was General Cushman's position at that time?
RICHARD HELMS: ...He was the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
...
SENATOR ERVIN: Well, now here is a wig— Ah, that— You didn't think that the wig was to improve the appearance or the pulchritude of Mr. Hunt, did you?
RICHARD HELMS: [Doesn't laugh with others] I assume, in retrospect—because I didn't remember [sic] about the wig at the time, Mr. Chairman, as I have testified—but I presume, in retrospect, that Mr. Hunt wanted to conduct this interview disguising himself as someone else. You'd have— But we didn't know that at the time.
SENATOR ERVIN: ...Yeah. Well, you didn't think that he got— applied for this voice-alteration device in order to sing a different part in the choir, did you?
RICHARD HELMS: [Helms again finds no humor as others laugh] Mr. Chairman, my problem here is that at the time that this was going on, uh, I do not recall having been told that he'd been given a wig and a voice alteration device. I found that out in May of this year [1973], so that, uh, this business of however one interprets undercover work, however one defines it, no intimation was given to me at that time that Hunt was involved in undercover work.
...
SENATOR GURNEY: How often does the CIA help out former employees in the loan of equipment as in the case of Mr. Hunt?
RICHARD HELMS: Well, I can only say, Senator Gurney, that this was an extraordinary exception...
SENATOR GURNEY: Has it ever been done before, to your knowledge?
RICHARD HELMS: Not to my knowledge.
...
SENATOR GURNEY: Well, since this was such an unusual request, why did the CIA go ahead and cooperate with Hunt?
RICHARD HELMS: Well, [Deputy Director of CIA] General Cushman had already authorized this... . It had already been done by the time I learned about it, and, uh— The, uh—

You can stop stuttering and lying, Mr. Helms, you CIA scum (but I repeat myself).

Because General Vernon Walters—that "other general" who you made Deputy Director CIA as part of your Watergate shell game—just put your lying head on a pike to draw flies for all to see while he was running yet another part of your black ops in "sworn" Watergate testimony:

CIA DEPUTY DIRECTOR VERNON WALTERS: Dean then asked hopefully whether I could do anything or had any suggestions. I repeated that as Deputy Director, I had no independent authority. I was not in the channel of command and had no authority other than that given me by the Director [RICHARD HELMS]. The idea that I could act independently was a delusion and had no basis in fact.

So Richard Helms, the Perverse Perjurer, was at all relevant times in direct command and control of everything the CIA provided to Liddy and Hunt, which was used not only in Hunt and Liddy's Dr. Fielding office photo-op (that gave Ellsberg his "Get Out of Jail Free" card), but also in the Watergate CIA ops.

And that's because:

The "Pentagon Papers leak" was a CIA op

And:

There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate

And:

The so-called "fabricated Diem cables" were complete CIA fiction

The entirety of "the Pentagon Papers" and its bastard child, "Watergate," was a CIA black op, start to finish, on the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States during wartime, and was HIGH TREASON against the people of the United States, and every person who knowingly cooperated on any basis should be called to account before duly constituted authority.

It all fits together like Legos. It clicks. There are no holes. The entire thing is CIA twist, CIA slink, CIA crawl, CIA slither, and their run of serpent's luck has just run out.

Now we'll see how long it takes for Douglas Caddy to launch more attempted smear campaigns on me with his twin magpies, Heckel and Jeckel. The magpies will be swarming on this topic to explain how this simply can't apply to their favorite Perverse Perjurer, Richard the Lie-Hearted Helms, and flapping around that there must have been some mistake or mix-up in CIA command channels just that one time they helped Hunt. Or was it two times? No, it was three. No, it had to have been four. And then there's that really ugly Nicaragua pearl that Caddy dropped, pinning Hunt to working directly for the CIA when he was supposed to be completely cut off.

Maybe at some point Caddy and his minions are going have a wake-up call and it figure out: that by the time I post anything here, it's already been thoroughly processed elsewhere, and that I'm the least of their worries. The least of their worries.

But I doubt it.

Certainly not in time. It's already too late.

Ashton Gray

Richard Helms made a great effort to claim he was not involved with E. Howard Hunt. As Tad Szulc's says in his book, Compulsive Spy: The Strange Career of E. Howard Hunt (1974):

At the time of the Watergate raid and in subsequent testimony before the Senate Investigating Committee, Helms insisted that he barely knew Hunt. But there are reasons to believe that Helms was at least quite aware of Hunt's existence. For one thing, according to senior Agency officials, Helms tried hard to get Hunt the Madrid station job which Allen Dulles had promised him. For another thing, Helms kept copies of Hunt's spy novels around his office and often gave or lent them to friends and visitors.

Yet who supplied Hunt with the references for the post at Robert R. Mullen & Company: Richard Helms and William Buckley. That is the same William Buckley who joined with Douglas Caddy in 1960 to form the Young Americans for Freedom movement. Buckley worked for Hunt when he was in the CIA in Mexico. That was before the CIA decided that it would be better if Buckley became part of the highly secret Operation Mockingbird. Has anyone wondered where the National Review has been able to survive on such a small circulation? Did the money come from the CIA or was it from his father who made his millions from the Texas oil industry? Buckley was one of those who was very keen to remove JFK in 1963 over his decision to remove the oil depletion allowance (it would have cost the Texas oil industry billions). One of the first things LBJ did when he gained power was to remove this measure from JFK's tax proposals. Interestingly, Buckley failed to support Nixon during the Watergate scandal. In fact, in 1960, Buckley spent a lot of money trying to prevent Nixon from being the Republican presidential candidate. Buckley thought Nixon was too left-wing (Buckley was one of those who thought Eisenhower was a "communist").

See the following threads:

William Buckley

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5078

Young Americans for Freedom

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4437

Maybe, Doug Caddy can tell us something about his relationship with William Buckley.

As you will see, J. Raymond Carroll was very quick to attack me when I started the thread on Buckley. Just a coincidence of course. He was joined by Tim Gratz who also got very emotional about this subject.

I think he already has.



I think it is a bit daft to suggest that I "attacked" John Simkin in reference to his equally daft speculation that William Buckley helped put Lyndon Johnson in the White House. The use of strong language like the word "attacked" might suggest that John is more emotional about this topic than I am.

I defended William Buckley, not because I share his political views, which I do not, but because there is not a shred of credible evidence that he had anything whatsoever to do with the assassination of JFK. I would defend John Simkin for the very same reason, if William Buckley were to make such accusations against him. John Simkin has his deep commitment to free speech, which I respect, but I give priority to Fair Play, because without Fair Play (Justice) there can be no Liberty, and free speech would then be an illusion.

From what I have seen, the argument that William Buckley might have been involved in the assassination seems to be based on little more than the fallacy of Guilt by Association. At one time Buckley was a CIA operative, where he became friendly with fellow Ivy-Leaguer Howard Hunt, and was Godfather to Hunt's son (or maybe it was the other way round). Buckley, of course, then went on to bigger things. My old college friend, who is Godfather to my son, has not contacted me in many years. We all go on with our own lives and often they diverge dramatically with the passing years.

I used to be on very friendly terms with my next door neighbor in my previous residence. I recently learned that this same friendly fellow has been sentanced to a very long prison term for possession of several million dollars worth of illegal drugs along with about $12 Million dollars in cash which he could not account for. I have heard a rumour that his sentance was especially harsh because one of his drug deals involved a murder, though the perpetrator was never positively identified. Although my friendship with this fellow was no secret in the neighborhood, the police never so much as asked me a single question, and I found out the truth about my friend when I read it in the newspaper. I am quite certain that that this fellow couldn't hold a candle to Howard Hunt when it comes to concealing his real agenda from his friends.

Helms was "at least quite aware of Hunt's existence"? What the hell was he smoking?

I keep posting this, and nobody seems to get it, but it was Helms himself who primarily closed the deal on Hunt getting taken on as a "consultant" at the White House, and there was no other purpose than to get Hunt inside to do CIA's dirty work with White House credentials. Here's Helms, through Haldeman, practically licking Hunt:

Friday, 2 July 1971
CIA Director Richard Helms is pushing behind the scenes to get E. Howard Hunt into a position connected with the White House in response to the Pentagon Papers having been leaked. H. R. Haldeman tells Nixon that Helms has described Hunt: "Ruthless, quiet and careful, low profile. He gets things done. He will work well with all of us. He's very concerned about the health of the administration. His concern, he thinks, is they're out to get us and all that, but he's not a fanatic. We could be absolutely certain it'll involve secrecy... ."

Now here's what the vampire said in "sworn" testimony, having to admit he knew Hunt, but, of course, distancing himself from Hunt:

SENATOR MONTOYA: And what can you say about Mr. Hunt? Did you know him?
RICHARD HELMS: Yes, I did know him.
SENATOR MONTOYA: What was his reputation?
RICHARD HELMS: Well, Mr. Hunt was, ah— had a— Well, he had a good reputation. There were some questions at various times during his employment about how well he had carried out certain assignments. But there was nothing with malign about this; it was just a question of his effectiveness. Uh, Mr. Hunt was a bit of a romantic. He used to write books in his spare time, and I think there was a tendency, sometimes, for him to get a little bit carried away with some of the things he was involved in. But he'd never done anything illegal or nefarious that anybody was aware of, and when he left the Agency [CIA], he left a rec— a decent record behind him.
SENATOR MONTOYA: What would you say about his reputation for veracity?
RICHARD HELMS: [Long pause] Well, I said, sir, that he was a romantic. I think that, uh— uh— I just don't have any way of being able to answer that. I would have assumed that in any matters of importance he would tell the truth.

<SPIT!>

None of these lying CIA scum know what "truth" is other than what suits their criminal purposes at any given moment. That's what they call "truth." Whatever suits them. There is no truth with any of them.

Of course Bennett was "fine" about Hunt working both places. It was an integral part of the entire CIA op, being right across the street from the White House, and for "Bennett" you might as well write "CIA." What in God's name is it going to take to throw enough ice water in people's faces to get them to wake up out of the CIA trance they've been in for 34 years? You've got to be almost completely hypnotized to believe anything about the CIA fairy tale the world has been living in that long.

There aren't words in any language that adequately can embrace these CIA scum, and if there were, they couldn't be used more than once. They'd have to be incinerated after that by a HazMat team.

Ashton

Ashton, who was Robert Cushman? In your opinion, was he loyal to Nixon or Helms? Similarly, if Helms was so buddy-buddy with Hunt, and running Hunt as an operative, why did he give the Bay of Pigs documents to Ehrlichman only on the condition they NOT be shown to Hunt?

I really dislike Helms, and even accept his possible involvement in the Kennedy assassination, but your assertions that he was the mastermind behind the release of the Pentagon Papers and the hiring of Hunt by the White House isn't convincing. Too much is missing. Motive, for one. As stated by Baker, Helms and Nixon had so much on each other they couldn't breathe. A reasonable man might take from this that Helms had concerns that Nixon would use the Bay of Pigs and Diem materials to his political advantage (He did.). One might even come to believe that Helms had a talk with Hunt and McCord and convinced them they should sabotage the Watergate break-in and stop Nixon before his abuse of power reached police-state levels. But to assert that Helms was feeding info to the anti-war movement, and that men such as Dean and Gray were under Helms' control even after Helms had been removed as DCI, is completely without foundation.

If you could show us one FBI agent, let alone an acting director, found to be secretly working for the CIA it would be helpful. Since we know Mark Felt was confirming stories for Woodward, wouldn't it make more sense to hold that the FBI was COLLUDING with the CIA on Nixon's removal? How about it?