Mr. Brancato, You are in good company. The last person who Paul publicly added to his ignore list was Steve Thomas after Paul got caught altering Steve’s post and presenting it as a quote. Trejo was told not to do it again, and Steve was promptly put on his ignore list. 

 

Douglas' link is broken. I believe this is the correct story to which his link pointed.

 

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/dec/07/jack-anderson-watergate/

 

There is references made to Danny Casolaro and James McCord, Jr.

 

 

 

FBI evidence points to journalist Jack Anderson’s role in Watergate

Records show Anderson, as well as the DNC, had foreknowledge of the break-in, and that Anderson directly benefited from the burglaries

Evidence compiled from Federal Bureau of Investigation files, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s notes, statements from Deep Throat, along with Congressional testimony and the files of Senate investigators, all implicate journalist Jack Anderson as having helped set up Watergate - or at least having foreknowledge of it and benefiting from it.

According to an FBI memo, Danny Casolaro contacted the FBI with copies of two letters that had been written to the Democratic National Committee warning them of Watergate break-in type activity. The Bureau essentially shrugged this off, noting that Casolaro’s theory was that the Watergate was a setup to embarrass the White House, and that Casolaro suspected Watergate burglar and former Central Intelligence Agency officer E. Howard Hunt. 

The letters had, before the infamous Watergate break-in, been provided to both the DNC and to Anderson, warning about the Watergate and represent both an important and highly under-investigated and under-reported aspect of the Watergate affair. The letters were known to Congressional investigators who attempted to follow up on the matter, only to have it buried. Much of the testimony, taken in Executive Sessions, remains unavailable and this aspect of the affair was essentially excluded from the final Watergate report and Congressional publications. 

In his book, now long out of print, Minority counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee Fred Thompson explained their investigation, 

“Had covered many months and many witnesses … We looked into an aspect of Watergate that had not been explored before or since. [We] all came to one conclusion: several people, including some at the Democratic headquarters, had advance knowledge of the Watergate break-in. An obvious effort had been made to conceal facts … but did we have proof 0 proof beyond a reasonable doubt? The answer, reluctantly, was no. Additionally, for our suspicions to amount to anything conclusive we would have to tie this advance knowledge to McCord, or someone else on the inside of the Watergate team, or at least to the plainclothesmen on duty the night of the break-in. We had no such link.”

The missing link, as explained by Thompson, was a way “to tie this advance knowledge to McCord, or someone else on the inside of the Watergate team, or at least to the plainclothesmen on duty the night of the break-in.” Mr. Thompson lamented that they had no such link, but evidence not available to them at the time seems to provide that link in the form of Anderson. That link first suggested itself in the notes of Woodward and Bernstein of the October 9th, 1972 meeting with Deep Throat/X/Mark Felt. (While evidence strongly suggests Deep Throat was a dramatized composite of multiple sources rather than simply Felt, for the moment we will take Woodward and Bernstein’s word for the fact that this meeting was with Mark Felt.) 

The notes explicitly accuse the Hunt operation, which included CIA employee Bernard Barker and former CIA asset Frank Sturgis, of leaking information to the press, including Anderson. While Hunt may not have set up Watergate to embarrass the White House, it seems that someone or some group did – and one of the most likely candidates was Anderson. To understand the role that he played, it’s necessary to go back and look at Anderson’s friendship with Sturgis, and the letters warning Anderson and the DNC of Watergate type break-in activity.

Anderson, by his own admission, was friends with Sturgis and Barker. In the early ’70s, he described meeting with them in Miami and discussing their recent reconnection with their CIA handler “Eduardo” - a pseudonym for Hunt. Anderson’s connection to Sturgis and Barker would become a subtle and overlooked, albeit recurring, element throughout the Watergate affair – along with Anderson sharing an employer with James McCord. It would also become a damning source of information for Anderson when the letters warning about the Watergate break-in were sent.

Although Casolaro had copies of only the two letters sent to the DNC, there were up to four letters in total, with the other two being sent to Anderson. The letters sent on March 23rd and April 28th were both sent to the DNC, and specifically to Larry O’Brien, whose phone was to be bugged. A third letter was sent to Anderson on April 15th, and a fourth letter sent at an unknown date. Anderson was sent two letters because he “lost” the first one, and ultimately managed to “lose” the second one as well. Anderson’s account of the affair is also completely at odds with the documented facts. It is possible that Anderson may never have lost the letters: included in the Jack Anderson papers donated to the George Washington University is a file relating to William Haddad, who had written the letters. Part of this particular file remains restricted at least until 2032 - making it impossible to review.

According to Anderson’s book, he only received one letter which he dismissed. He then falsely attributes the source of the information to an “ad man” in the November Group (the advertising arm of the Nixon campaign), who had heard it from Watergate burglar McCord and then reported it Haddad who wrote to Anderson. Anderson’s description of this critical series of events matches the Bureau’s description of his recall of another series of events tying him to the Watergate affair, specifically that it was “replete with half-truths, innuendo and insinuation … categorically without basis in fact.”

Unlike many half-truths in Watergate, there is no way to assume that Anderson repeated rumors, made a casual mistake, got confused or simply forgot. His version of events is alarmingly contrary to what has been established by every other witness. According to Anderson, McCord was called down to the November Group to check the phones. This much is true – McCord had been to the November Group at least twice before and again on June 16th, 1972 – mere hours before the fateful Watergate break-in. 

This, combined with the fact that G. Gordon Liddy was one of the three founding directors for the group, provides an interesting nexus and provokes some intriguing questions - but none of it supports Anderson’s version of events that McCord told them that they were bugging the Watergate, information which then leaked to Haddad. 

There is no question as to who was the source for Haddad, the man who wrote to O’Brien at the DNC and to Anderson. Haddad’s source was known to Anderson at the time, and was publicly identified before Anderson published his book: Arthur James (A.J.) Woolston-Smith, an expatriate New Zealander who had worked in the U.S. as a private investigator for some time, including for Robert A. Maheu Associates during the ’60s. He reportedly worked with CIA, and his office in New York was regularly used to help resettle Cuban veterans of the Bay of Pigs. Around December, 1971 he began to tell Haddad that the November Group was “up to no good.” (A statement that would be echoed, according to Len Colodny’s Silent Coup, by Deep Throat.) On March 23rd, Haddad wrote the first letter to O’Brien, warning of “sophisticated surveillance techniques” that were being employed against the Democrats.

The next week, O’Brien had John Stewart look into the matter and speak with Haddad. Haddad and Woolston-Smith reportedly stayed in touch with the Democrats, and Haddad followed up again with another letter on April 28th (13 days after he contacted Anderson).

I talked to Woolston-Smith. Yes, he does have good information; and, yes, he did want to cover expenses for producing it in an acceptable way. He explains that he wasn’t looking for payment for his services, but to cover what looked like necessary expenses to tie down his theory with factual presentations (like checks, etc.).

Instead of pursuing this with money, I decided to see what a good investigative reporting operation could do with it now. So I went ahead along those lines. If they draw a blank, I’ll be back to you on how to proceed, and I’ll keep you informed.

My own journalistic judgment is that the story is true and explosive. It would be nice for a third party to uncover it, but if they fail due to the type of inside work required, I would move back to Woolston-Smith.

The information provided by Woolston-Smith was consistently up-to-date and almost entirely accurate, often seeming to come mere days after the Watergate burglars themselves became aware of the next stage of their activities, and at times while those activities were still being planned. The given reasons behind those activities were the same false explanations that were given to Sturgis, Barker and others working under Hunt – namely that they were looking for proof that the Democrats were being funded by Cuba. While Woolston-Smith’s source remains unknown, most agree that he was the sole source for information about the planned break-in, including that it would involve Liddy and McCord. According to Woolston-Smith, however, there was another source for one piece of information - the information about the anti-Castro Cubans’ planned involvement in the Watergate burglary came from Anderson. This also contradicts the implausible statement from Anderson that he was unable to uncover anything despite being given detailed information and being friends with those involved.

Like Anderson, O’Brien would lie about the event years later, as he had under questioning, omitting many details and fabricating others. In an interviewpublished in the LBJ Library Oral History Collection, O’Brien said:

Many have wondered at one time or another if there was a Democratic trap set for the Watergate burglars, although that theory has often been dismissed. Until now, many have pointed to Jim Hougan’s Secret Agenda, rightly considered one of the authoritative texts on Watergate, and his rejection of the theory that the Democrats set a trap. Almost exactly one year ago - December 7th, 2016 - Hougan confirmed to the author that his understanding of the Watergate affair has evolved since he first wrote the book, and that he no longer holds those objections to the theory that the Democrats set a trap for the Watergate burglars.

Understanding that trap, and Jack Anderson’s role in it, requires more information. Among these are several significant points, which are explored below:

1. Anderson met with Sturgis and the other Watergate burglars hours before the burglary.
2. Anderson tried to bail Sturgis out of jail after his arrest.
3. Anderson’s articles used information that could only have come from material stolen by the Watergate burglars.
4. Multiple witnesses implicate Anderson as playing a role in planning other Watergate activities.

Anderson’s account of his meeting Sturgis and the others hours at the same time McCord was at the November Group, hours before the fateful Watergate break-in, is alarmingly contradicted by every other source of information. According to Anderson, he ran into them while he was on his way to a speaking engagement with the Cleveland Press. The Cleveland Press denied this, saying they had never had him as a speaker and had no record of him giving any speeches or making any appearances in Cleveland at that time.

Like Anderson’s, O’Brien’s statement (excerpted above) on the matter are so at odds with the record recounted by others that they are impossible to accept as having been offered in good faith. Stewart met with Haddad and others, including Ben Winter- a disinterested party who merely sat in on the meeting. When he testified, Winter made it clear that the information seemed quite firm and that Stewart seemed to be taking it seriously. Winter’s version of events seems to corroborate Haddad’s and Woolston-Smith’s, while further discrediting Anderson.

Anderson’s presumption of innocence is further tarnished by additional guilty knowledge. In late June, 1972 Democratic officials identified information in one of Anderson’s column that, according to Woodward, could only have come from one of the files in Democratic Headquarters - a file which was stolen. Anderson denied this and said it was merely being made to discredit him. Anderson’s claim to not use, or need, “stolen” information is also contradicted by his own record which included lying, cheating, stealing, and bribing. In his own words, Anderson acknowledged that deceit was simply part of what he does.

Deceit is a constant companion in the quest for secret information about high officials, whether that questing is done by intelligence operatives to inform governments or by newspapermen to inform the public.

If Anderson was receiving these materials from Hunt via Sturgis and Barker (or any of the conspirators), then he would undoubtedly have fully understood the implications of Haddad’s letter talking about the plan to break-in of the DNC.

If Anderson and O’Brien hadn’t repeatedly lied about the forewarning of Watergate and the circumstances around it, it would be easier to accept their denials of setting a trap. Unfortunately for Anderson, several witnesses accuse him of doing just that. Independently, the two accounts would be easy to dismiss. Together, they present a strong argument compared to Anderson’s provable lies, his use of material stolen from the Watergate and the FBI’s own dismissal of Anderson’s statements as completely untrue.

One statement came from Kaiser. The FBI was quick to dismiss his statement due to his troubled past, although it would be corroborated by another individual. According to Kaiser, he had spent a considerable amount of time with Sturgis in 1972 due to their longstanding friendship. It was during this time that Sturgis asked him if he would be interested in helping instigate a riot at the Republican National Convention as part of a plan to make anti-war protesters look bad. 

Ultimately, Kaiser decided not to cooperate with the FBI (who did not appear to take him seriously) and he reached out to the Watergate Committee, while identifying one of the backers of the operation as Sturgis’ friend - Anderson.

Senate investigators met with Kaiser over the Watergate affair, and received a more detailed version of the information he had provided to the FBI.

This claim would be too incredible to consider if not for the corroboration from another private investigator who had worked with Hunt and who was also friends with Sturgis and Barker. According to an FBI memo, Vincent J. Hannard, identified by Agee’s CounterSpy Magazine as a CIA operative, reporting having been contacted by both Sturgis and Barker over instigating a riot at the Republican National Convention with the intention of undermining the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

The FBI file tried to discredit Hannard by claiming that he was unable to differentiate between truth and lies, but also noted that he was an informant for both local and federal law enforcement and was a key witness in several cases.

While it might be easy to discount Hannard’s statement, despite the FBI considering him to be reliable enough to act as an informant and a key witness, his statements should be considered in light of the FBI’s determination that Anderson was lying about the matter.

Several months later, Anderson seems to have sprung one of the traps he had allegedly helped set with the Watergate burglars by “supporting” their efforts to undermine VVAW through a riot at the RNC. Anderson printed a column in which he tied the affair to the Watergate burglars, and in which he accused the entire affair of being a setup to entrap the VVAW. The FBI responded by pointing to “obvious contradictions” in Anderson’s account, and accusing it of being full of “half-truths, innuendo and insinuation … categorically without basis in fact.”

When it comes to setting a trap at the Watergate, Anderson consistently told lies (both big and small) to investigators, Congress and the public about what happened. Multiple witnesses have tied him to the affair in several ways, all consistent with the techniques he’s known to have employed over the years. Democrats and Republicans alike have pointed the finger at him, Deep Throat tied him to the Watergate leaks and it seems undeniable that if there was a Democratic setup for the Watergate burglars, Anderson either helped create it or knew about it and exploited it.

At this point, Anderson’s involvement in creating Watergate is a matter of degree - not a question of if.

Read the FBI memo on Casolaro’s warning embedded (linked) below.....

 

https://archive.org/stream/ForeknowledgeOfWatergate#page/n0/mode/2up

https://archive.org/stream/ForeknowledgeOfWatergate#page/n1/mode/2up

FBI evidence points to journalist Jack Anderson’s role in Watergate

Records show Anderson, as well as the DNC, had foreknowledge of the break-in, and that Anderson directly benefited from the burglaries

Evidence compiled from Federal Bureau of Investigation files, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s notes, statements from Deep Throat, along with Congressional testimony and the files of Senate investigators, all implicate journalist Jack Anderson as having helped set up Watergate - or at least having foreknowledge of it and benefiting from it.

According to an FBI memo, Danny Casolaro contacted the FBI with copies of two letters that had been written to the Democratic National Committee warning them of Watergate break-in type activity. The Bureau essentially shrugged this off, noting that Casolaro’s theory was that the Watergate was a setup to embarrass the White House, and that Casolaro suspected Watergate burglar and former Central Intelligence Agency officer E. Howard Hunt. 

The letters had, before the infamous Watergate break-in, been provided to both the DNC and to Anderson, warning about the Watergate and represent both an important and highly under-investigated and under-reported aspect of the Watergate affair. The letters were known to Congressional investigators who attempted to follow up on the matter, only to have it buried. Much of the testimony, taken in Executive Sessions, remains unavailable and this aspect of the affair was essentially excluded from the final Watergate report and Congressional publications. 

In his book, now long out of print, Minority counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee Fred Thompson explained their investigation, 

“Had covered many months and many witnesses … We looked into an aspect of Watergate that had not been explored before or since. [We] all came to one conclusion: several people, including some at the Democratic headquarters, had advance knowledge of the Watergate break-in. An obvious effort had been made to conceal facts … but did we have proof 0 proof beyond a reasonable doubt? The answer, reluctantly, was no. Additionally, for our suspicions to amount to anything conclusive we would have to tie this advance knowledge to McCord, or someone else on the inside of the Watergate team, or at least to the plainclothesmen on duty the night of the break-in. We had no such link.”

The missing link, as explained by Thompson, was a way “to tie this advance knowledge to McCord, or someone else on the inside of the Watergate team, or at least to the plainclothesmen on duty the night of the break-in.” Mr. Thompson lamented that they had no such link, but evidence not available to them at the time seems to provide that link in the form of Anderson. That link first suggested itself in the notes of Woodward and Bernstein of the October 9th, 1972 meeting with Deep Throat/X/Mark Felt. (While evidence strongly suggests Deep Throat was a dramatized composite of multiple sources rather than simply Felt, for the moment we will take Woodward and Bernstein’s word for the fact that this meeting was with Mark Felt.) 

The notes explicitly accuse the Hunt operation, which included CIA employee Bernard Barker and former CIA asset Frank Sturgis, of leaking information to the press, including Anderson. While Hunt may not have set up Watergate to embarrass the White House, it seems that someone or some group did – and one of the most likely candidates was Anderson. To understand the role that he played, it’s necessary to go back and look at Anderson’s friendship with Sturgis, and the letters warning Anderson and the DNC of Watergate type break-in activity.

Anderson, by his own admission, was friends with Sturgis and Barker. In the early ’70s, he described meeting with them in Miami and discussing their recent reconnection with their CIA handler “Eduardo” - a pseudonym for Hunt. Anderson’s connection to Sturgis and Barker would become a subtle and overlooked, albeit recurring, element throughout the Watergate affair – along with Anderson sharing an employer with James McCord. It would also become a damning source of information for Anderson when the letters warning about the Watergate break-in were sent.

Although Casolaro had copies of only the two letters sent to the DNC, there were up to four letters in total, with the other two being sent to Anderson. The letters sent on March 23rd and April 28th were both sent to the DNC, and specifically to Larry O’Brien, whose phone was to be bugged. A third letter was sent to Anderson on April 15th, and a fourth letter sent at an unknown date. Anderson was sent two letters because he “lost” the first one, and ultimately managed to “lose” the second one as well. Anderson’s account of the affair is also completely at odds with the documented facts. It is possible that Anderson may never have lost the letters: included in the Jack Anderson papers donated to the George Washington University is a file relating to William Haddad, who had written the letters. Part of this particular file remains restricted at least until 2032 - making it impossible to review.

According to Anderson’s book, he only received one letter which he dismissed. He then falsely attributes the source of the information to an “ad man” in the November Group (the advertising arm of the Nixon campaign), who had heard it from Watergate burglar McCord and then reported it Haddad who wrote to Anderson. Anderson’s description of this critical series of events matches the Bureau’s description of his recall of another series of events tying him to the Watergate affair, specifically that it was “replete with half-truths, innuendo and insinuation … categorically without basis in fact.”

Unlike many half-truths in Watergate, there is no way to assume that Anderson repeated rumors, made a casual mistake, got confused or simply forgot. His version of events is alarmingly contrary to what has been established by every other witness. According to Anderson, McCord was called down to the November Group to check the phones. This much is true – McCord had been to the November Group at least twice before and again on June 16th, 1972 – mere hours before the fateful Watergate break-in. 

This, combined with the fact that G. Gordon Liddy was one of the three founding directors for the group, provides an interesting nexus and provokes some intriguing questions - but none of it supports Anderson’s version of events that McCord told them that they were bugging the Watergate, information which then leaked to Haddad. 

There is no question as to who was the source for Haddad, the man who wrote to O’Brien at the DNC and to Anderson. Haddad’s source was known to Anderson at the time, and was publicly identified before Anderson published his book: Arthur James (A.J.) Woolston-Smith, an expatriate New Zealander who had worked in the U.S. as a private investigator for some time, including for Robert A. Maheu Associates during the ’60s. He reportedly worked with CIA, and his office in New York was regularly used to help resettle Cuban veterans of the Bay of Pigs. Around December, 1971 he began to tell Haddad that the November Group was “up to no good.” (A statement that would be echoed, according to Len Colodny’s Silent Coup, by Deep Throat.) On March 23rd, Haddad wrote the first letter to O’Brien, warning of “sophisticated surveillance techniques” that were being employed against the Democrats.

The next week, O’Brien had John Stewart look into the matter and speak with Haddad. Haddad and Woolston-Smith reportedly stayed in touch with the Democrats, and Haddad followed up again with another letter on April 28th (13 days after he contacted Anderson).

I talked to Woolston-Smith. Yes, he does have good information; and, yes, he did want to cover expenses for producing it in an acceptable way. He explains that he wasn’t looking for payment for his services, but to cover what looked like necessary expenses to tie down his theory with factual presentations (like checks, etc.).

Instead of pursuing this with money, I decided to see what a good investigative reporting operation could do with it now. So I went ahead along those lines. If they draw a blank, I’ll be back to you on how to proceed, and I’ll keep you informed.

My own journalistic judgment is that the story is true and explosive. It would be nice for a third party to uncover it, but if they fail due to the type of inside work required, I would move back to Woolston-Smith.

The information provided by Woolston-Smith was consistently up-to-date and almost entirely accurate, often seeming to come mere days after the Watergate burglars themselves became aware of the next stage of their activities, and at times while those activities were still being planned. The given reasons behind those activities were the same false explanations that were given to Sturgis, Barker and others working under Hunt – namely that they were looking for proof that the Democrats were being funded by Cuba. While Woolston-Smith’s source remains unknown, most agree that he was the sole source for information about the planned break-in, including that it would involve Liddy and McCord. According to Woolston-Smith, however, there was another source for one piece of information - the information about the anti-Castro Cubans’ planned involvement in the Watergate burglary came from Anderson. This also contradicts the implausible statement from Anderson that he was unable to uncover anything despite being given detailed information and being friends with those involved.

Like Anderson, O’Brien would lie about the event years later, as he had under questioning, omitting many details and fabricating others. In an interviewpublished in the LBJ Library Oral History Collection, O’Brien said:

Many have wondered at one time or another if there was a Democratic trap set for the Watergate burglars, although that theory has often been dismissed. Until now, many have pointed to Jim Hougan’s Secret Agenda, rightly considered one of the authoritative texts on Watergate, and his rejection of the theory that the Democrats set a trap. Almost exactly one year ago - December 7th, 2016 - Hougan confirmed to the author that his understanding of the Watergate affair has evolved since he first wrote the book, and that he no longer holds those objections to the theory that the Democrats set a trap for the Watergate burglars.

Understanding that trap, and Jack Anderson’s role in it, requires more information. Among these are several significant points, which are explored below:

1. Anderson met with Sturgis and the other Watergate burglars hours before the burglary.
2. Anderson tried to bail Sturgis out of jail after his arrest.
3. Anderson’s articles used information that could only have come from material stolen by the Watergate burglars.
4. Multiple witnesses implicate Anderson as playing a role in planning other Watergate activities.

Anderson’s account of his meeting Sturgis and the others hours at the same time McCord was at the November Group, hours before the fateful Watergate break-in, is alarmingly contradicted by every other source of information. According to Anderson, he ran into them while he was on his way to a speaking engagement with the Cleveland Press. The Cleveland Press denied this, saying they had never had him as a speaker and had no record of him giving any speeches or making any appearances in Cleveland at that time.

Like Anderson’s, O’Brien’s statement (excerpted above) on the matter are so at odds with the record recounted by others that they are impossible to accept as having been offered in good faith. Stewart met with Haddad and others, including Ben Winter- a disinterested party who merely sat in on the meeting. When he testified, Winter made it clear that the information seemed quite firm and that Stewart seemed to be taking it seriously. Winter’s version of events seems to corroborate Haddad’s and Woolston-Smith’s, while further discrediting Anderson.

Anderson’s presumption of innocence is further tarnished by additional guilty knowledge. In late June, 1972 Democratic officials identified information in one of Anderson’s column that, according to Woodward, could only have come from one of the files in Democratic Headquarters - a file which was stolen. Anderson denied this and said it was merely being made to discredit him. Anderson’s claim to not use, or need, “stolen” information is also contradicted by his own record which included lying, cheating, stealing, and bribing. In his own words, Anderson acknowledged that deceit was simply part of what he does.

Deceit is a constant companion in the quest for secret information about high officials, whether that questing is done by intelligence operatives to inform governments or by newspapermen to inform the public.

If Anderson was receiving these materials from Hunt via Sturgis and Barker (or any of the conspirators), then he would undoubtedly have fully understood the implications of Haddad’s letter talking about the plan to break-in of the DNC.

If Anderson and O’Brien hadn’t repeatedly lied about the forewarning of Watergate and the circumstances around it, it would be easier to accept their denials of setting a trap. Unfortunately for Anderson, several witnesses accuse him of doing just that. Independently, the two accounts would be easy to dismiss. Together, they present a strong argument compared to Anderson’s provable lies, his use of material stolen from the Watergate and the FBI’s own dismissal of Anderson’s statements as completely untrue.

One statement came from Kaiser. The FBI was quick to dismiss his statement due to his troubled past, although it would be corroborated by another individual. According to Kaiser, he had spent a considerable amount of time with Sturgis in 1972 due to their longstanding friendship. It was during this time that Sturgis asked him if he would be interested in helping instigate a riot at the Republican National Convention as part of a plan to make anti-war protesters look bad. 

Ultimately, Kaiser decided not to cooperate with the FBI (who did not appear to take him seriously) and he reached out to the Watergate Committee, while identifying one of the backers of the operation as Sturgis’ friend - Anderson.

Senate investigators met with Kaiser over the Watergate affair, and received a more detailed version of the information he had provided to the FBI.

This claim would be too incredible to consider if not for the corroboration from another private investigator who had worked with Hunt and who was also friends with Sturgis and Barker. According to an FBI memo, Vincent J. Hannard, identified by Agee’s CounterSpy Magazine as a CIA operative, reporting having been contacted by both Sturgis and Barker over instigating a riot at the Republican National Convention with the intention of undermining the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

The FBI file tried to discredit Hannard by claiming that he was unable to differentiate between truth and lies, but also noted that he was an informant for both local and federal law enforcement and was a key witness in several cases.

While it might be easy to discount Hannard’s statement, despite the FBI considering him to be reliable enough to act as an informant and a key witness, his statements should be considered in light of the FBI’s determination that Anderson was lying about the matter.

Several months later, Anderson seems to have sprung one of the traps he had allegedly helped set with the Watergate burglars by “supporting” their efforts to undermine VVAW through a riot at the RNC. Anderson printed a column in which he tied the affair to the Watergate burglars, and in which he accused the entire affair of being a setup to entrap the VVAW. The FBI responded by pointing to “obvious contradictions” in Anderson’s account, and accusing it of being full of “half-truths, innuendo and insinuation … categorically without basis in fact.”

When it comes to setting a trap at the Watergate, Anderson consistently told lies (both big and small) to investigators, Congress and the public about what happened. Multiple witnesses have tied him to the affair in several ways, all consistent with the techniques he’s known to have employed over the years. Democrats and Republicans alike have pointed the finger at him, Deep Throat tied him to the Watergate leaks and it seems undeniable that if there was a Democratic setup for the Watergate burglars, Anderson either helped create it or knew about it and exploited it.

At this point, Anderson’s involvement in creating Watergate is a matter of degree - not a question of if.

Read the FBI memo on Casolaro’s warning embedded below.

Douglas' link is broken. I believe that this may be the same article.

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/dec/07/jack-anderson-watergate/

19 minutes ago, Trygve V. Jensen said:

Having to catch up on an overwhelmingly amount of information, as well as learning things for the first time, - I find it easy to divert myself, in order to fully more comprehend the importance. Did not open the document until now.

In retrospect I can't remember studying this (the meeting) in much depth in the past. I do remember scratching the surface. One of the surviving clips (2007) from my channel:

------ It is also apparently from EOR, - and you all have seen it. (Here stated meeting was in August, - not September)

-------------------

In short, - I should thank you for making my Saturday evening not only interesting, and fascinating, - but also more constructive.

I plunged into some searching, - (found out this document is not within the folder I downloaded myself) - which amongst many things, - redirected me back here to this thread: ---------

which for me of course started out very intriguing, - but as this thread halted on January 5th; - with a descripton of Wynne's part 4 (which I have yet to see) , - where he at that point apparently has derailed / escalated (t)his whole discussion/recollection of the meeting itself, - into his own remarks/views, about the RFK - assassination, - the Polka Dot Girl, - and maybe even "Mind - Control" (Vicki) , -------- I must say, that IM(predjuding)O. (before even watching these 2 available parts, - cause they are just that: available, - even stated otherwise in the thread) ---impression of this person's account's credibility) - diminished somehow.

Maybe I shall watch this two parts now. It seems Wynne just disappeared ?

----- Point of interest, of maybe no importance, even if I understood it correctly, --- from that thread was this: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=111947#relPageId=11&tab=page

There haven't come forth any explanation for why the HSCA cites Vic Walthers' interview only ? Perhaps it's just getting too late, - and I am just misreading/misunderstanding things;

He did, --- or did not interview Veciana , August 19th - 1977 ? (My misunderstanding-rate just increases , the later it gets here, - so I'll just press Submit, - and try to remember the second thing I was meaning to ask).

-------------------------------------------

Anyway, - thanks for linking to that document, showing J.M. worked for Philips.

Hi Trygve, it was a chance click of the mouse, 18 months ago, that brought me back, fully, to the JFK case, 20 something years after having read Garrison's OtTotA. I clicked on the Wynne and Vicki video and I had to learn who these characters were. Wynne' story is fascinating, and I believed him, at the time. The story just grew to encompass many aspects of the case and he did not want to answer fair questions about it. So, no, I am less than sure about his story.

2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Michael,

 

How about watch the motorcade AND drink a coke-cola down on Elm Street, say close to where Peggy Burney and Gloria Calvery and John Templin and his new buddy, Ernest Brandt, were standing?

Do you think they would have let him do that?

 

--  TG

 

Tommy, 

Do you think that, under the circumstances, LHO would have wanted to be out on Elm St.?

2 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Bill Shelley, who was his handler in front of the New Orleans Trade Mart.

Hi David, If LHO had decided to go off script, or not cooperate, I don't think Shelly could have stopped LHO from doing-so. Simply barking orders at LHO would not necessarily get LHO to comply if he wanted to bail-out. Heck, Shelly was out front, so he could not have even held LHO, phicically, or at gun point, in the building.

Hello again Mervyn, With regard to Ward and Trejo, I won't respond as it is off-topic.

Thanks for accepting my take on your analysis of John's thread, which is the subject at hand.

As far as directing you to where your questions might have been answered in this thread, I have to take a pass. I just stopped-in to answer your question regarding the unfortunate situation wherein John's Spartacus links have been broken, directed you to the page, showed you how to reach those pages in the future and offered you some further information on the subject at hand with a quick copy and paste from Wikipedia. I am not well read on the Suite 8F group and I am not inclined to dive into this subject today.

Cheers,

Michael

David Boylan shared the following document which I believe is a near-bombshell revelation. I think it radically alters the perception of LHO as being sheep dipped in NOLA to being that of a CIA asset assigned to infiltrate pro Castro groups. James McCord was running an operation to infiltrate the FPCC, and this document shows that McCord was working for David Atlee Phillips. It puts the Southland hotel meeting between Veciana, LHO and Phillips in context and perspective. While LHO was to become a latter-day Patsy, in the summer of 1963 he was working for the CIA.

 

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/NARA-Nov9-2017/104-10128-10300.pdf

12 minutes ago, Trygve V. Jensen said:

All the audio released, - was it 100% Nosenko - interviews, or anything else ? 
 

Anything particularly juicy discovered by now , in the released records or ?

 

David Boylan shared the following document which I believe is a near-bombshell revelation. I think it radically alters the perception of LHO as being sheep dipped in NOLA to being that of a CIA asset assigned to infiltrate pro Castro groups. James McCord was running an operation to infiltrate the FPCC, and this document shows that McCord was working for David Atlee Phillips. It puts the Southland hotel meeting between Veciana, LHO and Phillips in context and perspective. While LHO was to become a latter-day Patsy, in the summer of 1963 he was working for the CIA.

 

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/NARA-Nov9-2017/104-10128-10300.pdf

38 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Yes, but again, while I know where the hotel was (I lived in Houston), and I know who Brown and Root are, none of that gets to the basic questions I raised. I know it sounds crass, but I might just as well respond: so? So what? What does any of that have to do with anything? John was trying to imply a cause and effect involving Suite 8F Group, but in fact he threw together a kitchen sink Wikipedia presentation which is neither scholarly, nor is it of any use in academia, and it certainly would not fly as evidence in a court of law.

Well, Mervyn, there are a few people who really concentrate on evidence that can be used in court, and that will stand-up in court. I have a lot of respect for some of those people; Bill Kelly comes to mind. Yet, there is no chance, IMO, that the assassination case regarding JFK will ever come to a court room. Does that mean that information and observations should not be gathered, documented and shared? A few people, Jason Ward comes to mind, ridicule all inquiry that does not revolve evidence that can stand up in court. Likewise, Mervyn, I am seeing you as coming from the same mindset. I will continue to gather, share and comment on fragments of information that fill-out the story of why and how JFK was killed, no matter how speculative or irrelevant or whether it lacks forensic value, in your opinion or Jason's or anyone else's. To suggest that we limit our inquiry to a paradigm that you would set is absurd and insulting.

John has gathered a great deal of information and presented it for your consideration. He built this forum so you, and all of us, can debate the JFK assassination, similar events and many other topics. You are not satisfied with his treatment of the Suite 8F group. I get that. Perhaps you should put together a treatment that answers your questions and present it here, for ridicule, criticism, praise, debate or come what may. I am appreciative of John's efforts.

Lasty, your commentary doesn't even rise to a level of literary criticism. You are simply ranting, saying "so what?". John did not put this and other Spartacus entry/entries together to answer your questions. If you are going to address all of his posts and Spartacus entries in a similar fashion, I would guess that your going to come down with some muscle memory affliction or Carpal Tunnel Syndrome as you copy and paste: "so what?" and "answer MY questions". Perhaps you would be better off composing your own analysis and doing your own research. Mr. Simkin's has gotten you off to a good start.

2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Michael,

 

Do you think they would have allowed him outside during the alleged shooting of his one  carbine AND the actual shooting of scores of cameras?

 

--  TG

 

Tommy, Who could have stopped him from coming down to watch the motorcade, or have a drink, or eat a sammich?

From Wikipedia... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite_8F_Group

Suite 8F Group

Suite 8F Group

The Suite 8F Group, also referred to as the 8F Crowd, was a network of politically active businessman in Texas from the 1930s into the 1960s.[1]

"Suite 8F" refers to Herman Brown's Suite at the Lamar Hotel (demolished) in Houston, Texas. Herman Brown, one of the co-founders of the construction firm Brown and Root, made his primary home in Austin until 1948. With the company headquarters in Houston, Brown typically traveled from Austin once per week, then stayed at his room at the Lamar for a few days. Yet other members of his family stayed there as well. Gus Wortham, another member of the group, lived in the room next door, 7F.[2]

Herman Brown, and his brother, George R. Brown, used their suite in the Lamar Hotel as a social, business, and political club. They planned and discussed events as varied as hunting and racing, pipelines and steel plants, and philanthropy and political candidates. James A. Elkins, a Houston lawyer and banker, wielded great influence and gained a reputation as a deal maker. For example, one friend credited Elkins for facilitating the sale of local radio station. Sometimes the group formed a consensus around a political candidate, then supported him as a group. For example, the group backed Oscar Holcombe, Sam Rayburn, and the first two campaigns of Franklin Delano Roosevelt for President of the United States.[2]

The name comes from the room in the Lamar Hotel in Houston, Texas where they held their meetings.[1] The room was reported to have been permanently rented to and paid by Brown and Root.[1]

According to Texas Monthly, the 8F Crowd had gained "unequaled influence in state and national government" after the end World War IIwhen George R. Brown, Gus Wortham, and Charles Francis of Vinson & Elkins founded Texas Eastern.[1] The group was reported to exercise leverage over Big Oil.[1] The 8F Crowd had connections to various media outlets including the Houston Chronicle, the Houston Post, television station KPRC, and radio stations KPRC and KTRK-TV#History.[1]

Contents

MembershipEdit

The following individuals are reported to have been members to the Suite 8F Group:

George and Herman Brown, co-founders of Brown and Root[1]

Jesse H. Jones, owner of Houston Chronicle and the Houston Post[1]

James A. Elkins[1]

Gus Wortham[1]

Lyndon B. Johnson, President of the United States[1]

Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives[1]

John Connally, Governor of Texas[1]

Walter Mischer[1]

James Abercrombie[2] of the Cameron Iron Works

Hugh Roy Cullen[2] of Quintana Petroleum

Texas Governor William Hobby[2]

William Vinson, Great Southern Life Insurance[citation needed]

Morgan J. Davis, of Humble Oil[citation needed]

Albert Thomas,[3] chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense

Alvin Wirtz, Thomas Corcoran, Homer Thornberry and Edward Clark, were four lawyers who also worked closely with the Suite 8F Group.[citation needed]

Suite 8F helped to coordinate the political activities of other right-wing politicians and businessmen based in the South; these included Robert B. Anderson, president of the Texas Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of the Treasury; Robert Kerr of Kerr-McGee Oil Industries; Billie Sol Estes, an entrepreneur in the cotton industry; Glenn McCarthy of McCarthy Oil and Gas Company; Earl E. T. Smith, of U.S. Sugar Corporation; Fred Korth, Continental National Bank and Navy Secretary; Ross Sterling of Humble Oil; Texas oil magnates Sid Richardson and Clint Murchison, Sr., H. L. Hunt of Placid Oil; Eugene B. Germany (Mustang Oil Company), David Harold Byrd, chairman of Byrd Oil Corporation; Lawrence D. Bell, of Bell Helicopter; William D. Pawley (business interests in Cuba), Senators George Smathers, Richard Russell, James Eastland, Benjamin Everett Jordan; and lobbyists Fred Black and Bobby Baker, also affiliated with the Serve-U Corporation.[citation needed]

ReferencesEdit

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Hurt III, Harry (April 1976). "The Most Powerful Texans". Texas Monthly. Austin, Texas: Mediarex Communications Corporation. 4 (4): 73. ISSN 0148-7736. Retrieved December 4, 2014.

^ a b c d e Marguerite Johnston (1991). Houston: The Unknown City, 1836—1946. College Station: Texas A & M University Press. p. 385-386.

^ Eric Berger (14 September 2013). "A worthy endeavor: How Albert Thomas won Houston NASA's flagship center". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 16 October 2017.

Dan Briody, The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money

Last edited 6 months ago by Oldsanfelipe

 

19 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Sandy,

 

Are you ready for some double negatives and a properly used *gerund with a personal pronoun or name* (which, by the way, I bet even your linguistically gifted wife doesn't use correctly, although that Russian-speaking Hungarian boy, "Harvey," somehow "had down cold")?

If, before the assassination, the bad guys knew that after the assassination they might be faced with *Oswald's having* been photographically captured outside the building during the shooting, how then could they proceed with confidence that they wouldn't be eventually "found out," if you'll forgive the British English and the unintentional pun?

 

--  TG

 

Tommy, Are you trying to suggest that LHO could not have been involved with any plan where he was supposed to be on the 6th floor, at the time of the assassination, because he was not on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination? Or, are you trying to suggest that LHO was not out in front of the TSBD, at the time of the assassination, because he was involved in the plot, and could not have been anywhere but on the 6th floor, or the assassination would have been called-off? Tommy, do you think that the plotters would rely entirely on someone like LHO being in-place for the whole operation to proceed? Tommy, do you realize that your above post is asking the same question as the thread title?

2 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

From 2005 ... and what do we now know?

Well, for one thing the link no longer works!

Second, once the list goes beyond Suite 8F it becomes quite silly in that everything and everyone on the face of the Planet is connected somewhere, somehow. But if we stick to the original topic and the claimed membership of Suite 8F which has a backbone of people associated with the Democratic Party, then I am interested and I want to know: what is the documented and authenticated source for the assertion that Suite 8F was the name of a group and that the group was comprised of the people listed?

I am interesting in following leads to people and things where evidence can be provided to prove beyond reasonable doubt that certain events took place within a given time and space.

I am not interested in supposition that connects everyone on the Planet to some form of conspiratorial activity.

So what is the foundation for the claim that a Group met in a Suite called 8F and that it had a membership as shown by John?

Mervyn, All of John Simkin's Sparatcus links that contain the "schoolnet" in the URL are broken. They lost that domain. Those pages can be rendered by removing the schoolnet element end editing as follows, or searching the subject and including Spartacus.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKgroup8F.htm

I think Christopher Hitchens took a very similar tack. If he, like Chomsky, were ardent proponents for discovery of the conspiracy, we would have never heard of him/them.

26 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Paul, I aim to post primarily evidence.  The evidence speaks for itself.   If I don't have evidence, I don't want to post.  I have blocked many whose only function here is to provide commentary - that is completely useless to me.  I often don't respond to people who post without evidence or referencing evidence.  I understand that is frustrating to you, but I am totally happy to leave questions unanswered if I have nothing to add in the way of evidence. 

 So I'm not ignoring you, Paul, it's just that if I have nothing meaningful to contribute, I don't post.   I feel like Paul Trejo has already answered your concerns in this thread better than I could and that you are aware of as much evidence as I am. 

So I really have nothing more to say about your concerns because I have nothing new to add -- I have no new evidence... but, as a reminder, these 4 points below IMO contain the pivotal evidence regarding Walker's assertion that it was Oswald who fired on him in April 1963.  Make of it what you will - the evidence is essential, not my words or anyone's opinion.

 

 

 

 

RCD?

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Michael, are you saying he is senile?

He was always this bad on the JFK case.

Yes, Jim, I am, now, aware of that. It took some time. But, yes, I think he has done some good for us... some. 

34 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Does anyone else here notice how unwilling the two main posters here are to answer my questions? They should realize I’m not trying to rain on their parade. It is absolutely essential to question the origins of Walker’s assertion that it was Oswald that shot at him in April 1963. The first mention of it occurs only after the phone calls between Walker and the editor of the Nazi newspaper National Zeitung. Does anyone care enough to examine this? Jason? How far are you going to go to ignore this? You essentially asked the same question a few posts ago. How do we know that it was Walker who shared this with Gerhard Frey? Maybe it was the other way around. Put on your thinking caps people!!!! Walker said nothing about his conspiracy theory re Oswald and RFK until after those phone calls. Trejo wants to believe that Walker called Frey and informed him. But there is no way of knowing which way those phone calls went. 

 I gather no one has seen the filmed interview with Skorzeny in which he flat out says he was working for US intel. There are good reasons to think he might be QJWIN, despite the flimsy evidence that someone else received the CIA funds earmarked for QJWIN. It is an established fact that Skorzeny worked for, killed for, Mossad beginning in the late 1950’s? Don’t believe me - google and read all about it.

Walker, Robert Allen Surrey, Gerald K. Smith - Nazis. CIA protection of Nazi war criminals - proven history. Skorzeny operated out of Madrid. Interesting that both E Howard Hunt and William Harvey had some unnamed business in Madrid in 1963. How about we put our considerable knowledge, and access to documents, to looking at this possibility. 

Mr. Brancato, they are playing patty-cake. It has been.... hard stop. Trejo's ignoring your resent post says is all. There is a team, not just these two, working the front page.

Chomsky is getting old. You will too. Be kind.

Tommy just went through this thread and edited 11 of his posts.

5 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

It strikes me, when looking at David Phillips and his operatives, that we are trying to understand what his relationship was to Oswald. I agree it’s important. But as in so many of the leads we follow, it doesn’t necessarily bring us closer to who killed JFK, unless we think Oswald was a shooter. The entire WC report and so-called investigation focussed on Oswald, because the agenda was to convict him of the crime. 

Is there a reason to think that McCord was a shooter?

Paul, no, I am not seeing McCord as a shooter. He was high level CIA with Top Secret clearances, Atomic Energy Agency clearances. I am seeing him as driving LHO from early 1961. I see him as a bridge between the Texas elite, bubbahood, and the Northeast Elite. He is flying just below Phillips, with Hunt and William Buckley Jr.. His Hunt connection placed him within earshot of anti Castro Cubans, the shooters, in my working CT.

I’ve heard it said that this photo was taken hour after the assassination. I’ve also seen  the estimate of 20 minutes. For several reasons, 20 minutes seems more likely to me.

The MFF document looks a little different. It doesn't have the "return to CIA" stamp on it. But it is stamped for a 1998 release.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31144&search=104-10128-10300#relPageId=2&tab=page

On 4/3/2018 at 9:04 PM, David Boylan said:

McCord worked fro Philips at one time - http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/NARA-Nov9-2017/104-10128-10300.pdf

David, do you have any idea when this was released? Was it part of a recent release? It strikes me as being hugely important. Can anyone put this in perspective for me? Is it important, is not? Potentially? Why?

 

Cheers,

 

 Michael