The Anniversary Of The Assassination Of RFK

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, as you may know, Nixon had the opportunity to legally contest the results of the 1960 election, and in fact was counseled to do so but he decided not to do so, for the good of the country. Had he done so 1960 could have been like 2000, even worse.

So without any evidence I think it quite improper to speculate that RN killed JFK to avenge for a stolen election. Don't you suppose if LBJ had any inlking that RN did it he would have closed in on the man who he could reasonably expect to be his strongest rival in 1968?

[Mark Knight]

I don't believe that Nixon was involved in the JFK assassination to avenge a "stolen election"; rather, I believe that Nixon saw his political career, which was constantly rising until the 1960 election, hit rock-bottom when he couldn't even get elected governor of his home state--a state that was apparently proud of him being vice-president--just two short years after his loss to Kennedy. Or did someone ELSE say "you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" after the '62 gobernatorial debacle, and we overlooked the ventriloquist's wizardry?

You can't ignore that statement, Tim. It's the statement of a defeated man. And if his prospects looked as bleak to him as the statement indicates, it's not difficult to imagine--maybe it is for YOU, since I still haven't received that mind-reading course in the mail--that Nixon realized that his downward spiral began with the 1960 election...and, by extension, for Nixon to blame Kennedy for his fate in '62.

Now, if Nixon was to have been made aware of a plot to snuff JFK, it's not a long reach to conclude that, as attuned to revenge that he was, he would have enjoyed the prospect and NOT interfered...even though, as an attorney and an "officer of the court," he had a duty to report such a conspiracy, his conduct as recorded on his own White House tapes leads me to believe that no such reporting would have been made by him.

And as far as LBJ having any inkling that Nixon may have been involved...if the Nixon scenario occurred, I honestly doubt that LBJ would've been privy to any of the details.

But if I were to try to concoct an alibi for myself, as a public figure such as Nixon, what better one would there be than LEAVING the city where the murder is to occur, earlier on the DAY of the murder, via air, where it's impossible to leave the plane and then return unless you're Clark Kent? You now have an airtight alibi that you were nowhere on earth--you were in the sky--when the murder occurred, so YOU couldn't POSSIBLY have done it yourself. But it's rather curious that, later, Nixon couldn't even remember being in Dallas that day...and yet nearly every American who was over the age of six can remember in great details where they were that day. Or maybe, in the words of one of his successors, Nixon was merely "disassembling" [i KNOW the correct word is "dissembling", Tim].

And if Nixon was trying to cover up his presence in Dallas on 11/22/1963--despite witnesses who placed him there--one must ask WHY. To date, I've not heard an explanation that has the ring of truth.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, I hate to say it but this is another post in which the logic is hard to politely describe.

There is no evidence, none, zilch, zip, that Nixon had prior knowledge of a plot to kill Kennedy.

But you write:

Now, if Nixon was to have been made aware of a plot to snuff JFK, it's not a long reach to conclude that, as attuned to revenge that he was, he would have enjoyed the prospect and NOT interfered...even though, as an attorney and an "officer of the court," he had a duty to report such a conspiracy, his conduct as recorded on his own White House tapes leads me to believe that no such reporting would have been made by him.

Why do you say "it's not a long reach to conclude" Nixon would not have reported a plot to kill JFK? If he HAD knowledge, we KNOW he did not report it. One does not need logic to ASSUME that. As a matter of fact, he did NOT report any such plot.

But it's an academic question since he had no foreknowledge of the assassination.

You are right, however, that Nixon assumed he was finished politically when he lost the 1962 gubernatorial election. Hence his injudicious remark to the press.

Edited June 13, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Knight]

There is no evidence, none, zilch, zip, that Nixon had prior knowledge of a plot to kill Kennedy.

Y'know, Tim...until the White House tapes emerged, there was no evidence that Nixon was involved in the obstruction of justice in the Watergate case, either.

BUT THAT DIDN'T PRECLUDE HIS PARTICIPATION IN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, DID IT?

Using your logic, Tim, just because Jimmy Hoffa's not been seen since 1975 is no reason to conclude that he was kidnapped or murdered, SINCE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE. Maybe he just took a long vacation without telling anyone, or seeing--or being seen by--anyone on his way to his destination.

As with any theories about Nixon's involvement, there are only unanswered questions. And anyone who has read any of the Warren Commission's report knows that it's not polite to pursue unanswered questions. And since you already know for absolutely certain that Nixon not only wasn't involved in, but also had no foreknowledge of, the JFK assassination, it would be pointless to search for answers to these questions concerning inconsistencies in his statements.

I stand enlightened by your thinking, Tim. I'm a new man, free to go on to other things now that I know that any unanswered questions about Mr. Nixon don't matter, since we have your word that he absolutely, positively wasn't involved in, and had no foreknowledge of, the JFK assassination.

[Ron Ecker]

There is no evidence, none, zilch, zip, that Nixon had prior knowledge of a plot to kill Kennedy.

Tim,

Nixon was in Dallas that morning. It could have been a coincidence, but I'm sick of coincidences.

And no, he wasn't there to shoot Kennedy. I wouldn't want to be within miles of Nixon trying to shoot a gun. He had enough trouble just trying to erase a tape. (after 18 minutes or so he gave up.) He was in Dallas as a sign of moral support for the killers. But that's just my opinion.

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

Ron, coincidences do, of course, happen.

For instance, I must assume it no more than a coincidence that George DeMohrenschildt was so close to Jackie Kennedy's mother.

It was not a coincidence that Nixon was in Dallas. As you know Nixon was in Dallas to attend the Pepsi-Cola bottlers convention, Pepsi being one of his most substantial law clients. So unless that convention was set to coincide with the JFK trip to Dallas, Nixon's presence in Dallas is explained.

All that being said, your humor is outstanding (as always)!

Edited June 13, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, there you go again!

Again, anything is possible, but absent evidence one cannot assume something happened.

Now Mark we have no evidence that Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Green Jeans were involved, but then again the absence of evidence does not preclude their involvement.

So you tell me with no evidence of involvement by Nixon, what the heck good does it do to speculate?

I think everytime I see baseless speculation about someone who was probably innocent I will start a new thread about another possible suspect.

Does anyone really know where the Captain was on November 22nd?

That is how pointless all this speculation is. If Nixon was involved, since there is no evidence of his involvement, by golly he got away with it. The same may be said about Captain Kangaroo.

And by the way your history is wrong again. It is from my recollection but I am quite sure the House had already voted Articles of Impeachment against Nixon relating to obstruction of justice before the so-called "smoking gun" emerged and precipiated his resignation. But it is quite likely that Nixon would not have been impeached but for the revelations on the tapes. And even his obscenities on the tape eroded his support among conservative Americans.

Which, I think, raises another point that proves his innocence in Dallas. Nixon may have been a crook but he was a lousy crook. As a crook, he was so stupid he could not figure out he should have destroyed all the tapes before their existence was disclosed. Just as Ron so humoursly pointed out about not wanting to be anywhere near Nixon shooting a gun, one would not want to be a co-conspirator in any criminal enterprise with Richard Nixon!

Edited June 13, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Knight]

Tim, I am shocked--shocked!!--that you would, even in jest, impugn the characters of not one but TWO loyal, patriotic Americans such as Captain Kangaroo [obviously a graduate of the same school of psuedomilitary titles as one famous but enigmatic Colonel Parker, manager of the late Mr. Presley] and Mr. Greenjeans.

The difference is, Nixon had associates such as Mitchell, Stans, Dean, Hunt, Liddy, Colson, Haldeman, Erlichmann, and Magruder...men who would break the law for their Commander-In-Chief, some of whom would NOT draw the line at murder. Pardon me this one generality, but a man does not gather this type of associates in an instant; they are accumulated over a period of years.

Unless there is a coverup regarding the backgrounds of Bunny Rabbit or Mr. Moose, Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Greenjeans had no such unsavory associates.

In another thread, you revealed that you worked in Nixon's 1960 campaign. Could it be you're simply too close to the trees to accept that there might be a forest out there somewhere?

Or did Tricky Dick TELL you he wasn't involved [and from the Watertgate tapes, we KNOW Mr. Nixon would never, EVER, tell a lie]?

Again, anything is possible, but absent evidence one cannot assume something happened.

Tim, you're correct...but I'm not assuming it DID happen. I'm merley postulating that it MIGHT have happened. But one cannot assume something DIDN'T happen until the evidence has been examined. For some reason, you're becoming a bit shrill about even LOOKING for any evidence, either to prove or DISprove Nixon's involvement.

And, as usual, you missed my point about Nixon's meeting with Pepsi-Cola in Dallas. It wasn't his BEING in Dallas that I find suspicious; rather, it's the fact that he apparently never told the same story twice about about either being in Dallas, OR about how and when he heard of the JFK shooting.

But I've come to expect such a response from you; to explain away the parts that AREN'T in question, so that you can ignore the parts that ARE.

Again, your personal politics are coloring your assessment of the facts, apparently.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Anyone check out the title of this thread recently