Nixon and Helms' stuff on the Kennedy assassination

[Pat Speer]

I just listened to a Watergate tape on the Miller Center's website that included something I didn't quite remember. I then double-checked this against the transcript for this tape on the Miller Center's website, and found that the section I found so interesting was not in the transcript, but was replaced by the words RESTRICTED--"B".

http://millercenter.org/images/presidentialrecordings/watergate/wspf_transcripts/WSFP_587-003.pdf

So, while I'm not the first person to listen to this tape, I might be the first person to share its significance with the research community.

During an October 8,1971 discussion with top domestic aide John Ehrlichman and Attorney General John Mitchell, in which the three men discussed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's anger over former FBI man William Sullivan's transfer of illegal wiretap recordings (which had been ordered by President Richard Nixon) from the possession of the FBI to Robert Mardian a Nixon loyalist, (which cut into Hoover's ability to blackmail Nixon), Nixon offers up that Ehrlichman should explain to Hoover that Nixon wants to personally oversee the security of sensitive documents. Nixon then offers that "Also, you can say the President's got (CIA Director Richard) Helms' stuff--which I get today--or so I understand (to which Ehrlichman replies in the affirmative)--of the Kennedy assassination."Nixon then says something that sounds a bit like "I'm onto the Kennedy assassination...again."*

(It is my recollection that Ehrlichman admitted his being told to discuss the assassination with Helms. I don't recall, however, that Nixon's involvement in this was confirmed by a tape. I googled the key part of the quote-- "Helms' stuff", moreover, and found no previous reference to this recording.)

Listen to it yourself. It's at the 51:30 mark on tape 587a, available here:

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/presidentialrecordings/nixon/1971/10

Perhaps one of our members with the know-how can clean it up, so we can figure out exactly what Nixon said.

*Post script: As related in a subsequent post, I have come to believe Nixon's words are more like "Err, of the Kennedy assassination of...Diem"and that he was talking about Diem's assassination when he said "the Kennedy assassination" in the previous sentence. This is indeed a bit curious, and quite possibly reflects that Nixon, as Johnson, felt that the two assassinations were connected on seem deep dark level.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Paul Brancato]

Great find - wow. Wish we knew what was in Helms' stuff.

[Gayle Nix Jackson]

WOW!! Wonder where "Helms' stuff" is now?

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.nixontapes.org/rmh.html

Professor Luke Nichter of Texas A&M University has maintained a website (see link above) for several years devoted specifically to the Nixon-Helms conversations that is complete except for a few after Nixon appointed Helms to be Ambassador to Iran.

Here is his recent book:

http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-Tapes-1971-1972-Douglas-Brinkley/dp/0544274156/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420839506&sr=1-1&keywords=Luke+Nichter

Edited January 9, 2015 by Douglas Caddy

[Jon G. Tidd]

My take:

Richard Nixon was forced from office because he tried too hard to pry into the JFK assassination. The entity that appears to have forced him out is the CIA.

in my estimation, Nixon was trying to find out who killed JFK to determine whether such knowledge would give him political leverage. I think he reached blindly and touched the third rail.

Also in my estimation, Helms had the goods.

I don't believe Helms had a hand in killing JFK. I do believe he knew or was pretty sure he knew who did and withheld the information for what he believed was in everyone's interest.

[Pat Speer]

My take:

Richard Nixon was forced from office because he tried too hard to pry into the JFK assassination. The entity that appears to have forced him out is the CIA.

in my estimation, Nixon was trying to find out who killed JFK to determine whether such knowledge would give him political leverage. I think he reached blindly and touched the third rail.

Also in my estimation, Helms had the goods.

I don't believe Helms had a hand in killing JFK. I do believe he knew or was pretty sure he knew who did and withheld the information for what he believed was in everyone's interest.

We're pretty close on this one, Jon. Most DCI's were brought in as political appointees from outside the agency, or the direct chain of command. Helms, curiously, is the only DCI to have been DDP, the head of black ops. He was appointed DCI in June, 1966, when Inquest and Rush to Judgment came out, and the mainstream media began to take a second look at the assassination. There's reason to doubt this was a coincidence. It seems possible Johnson knew Helms could be trusted to keep the secrets.

As far as Watergate, I believe Nixon and men loyal to Nixon were responsible for the Watergate break-in. It is quite clear, however, that McCord decided to talk when he realized Nixon was making the CIA the fall guy for what was a political operation, and that McCord, and Mark Felt, and perhaps even Helms himself, then made sure the trail led to Nixon.

Nixon still could have survived this, however, and appeared to be doing so until the release of the "smoking gun" tape that freaked out even his closest supporters (such as George Bush). The problem with the tape? It showed that Nixon blackmailed the CIA into going along with the cover-up by claiming there were ties to the Bay of Pigs thing, which many came to understand as code for the Kennedy assassination.

This meant he had to go, not only because he blackmailed the CIA, but the nature of the info he used to do so. Few, if any, of the movers and shakers inside the beltway had the stomach to look at the "Bay of Pigs thing" in detail, for fear the trail would lead back to the CIA, or LBJ, or both.

In this light, Ford's pardon of Nixon was not his decision alone, but the decision of congress as well. Some would like us to believe that congress had to drop its investigation of the "Bay of Pigs thing" because Ford removed the possibility of a criminal prosecution. That's nonsense. They could have called Nixon to testify and explain his comments on the tapes, even with the pardon on the table. With the pardon on the table, in fact, he could be legally obliged to answer every question or be held in contempt of congress.

So they backed down. For a bit. Only to regain their nerve with the Church Committee, and the formation of the HSCA. And then lose their nerve again once they realized they couldn't pin it all on Castro.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Jon G. Tidd]

Pat,

You write:

"The problem with the tape? It showed that Nixon blackmailed the CIA into going along with the cover-up by claiming there were ties to the Bay of Pigs thing, which many came to understand as code for the Kennedy assassination."

Do you have any proof for this statement?

[Greg Burnham]

I recently spoke with Alexander Butterfield who confirmed that Nixon and Haldeman (the latter with whom Butterfield was a very close friend) used the phrase "that Bay of Pigs thing" to refer to the assassination of JFK. I know nothing about the veracity of the remainder of the above statement.

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

You write:

"The problem with the tape? It showed that Nixon blackmailed the CIA into going along with the cover-up by claiming there were ties to the Bay of Pigs thing, which many came to understand as code for the Kennedy assassination."

Do you have any proof for this statement?

Define "proof." That the "Bay of Pigs thing" was the Kennedy assassination was first proposed by Haldeman in The Ends of Power, his book on Watergate. It has subsequently been accepted by many if not most Watergate and JFK researchers.

To be clear, Nixon was hoping that Hunt's involvement in the Watergate break-in would scare the CIA into asking the FBI to back-off. It worked, but only for awhile. The thinking, apparently, was that Hunt, who was intimately involved in the planning for the Bay of Pigs, was witting of 1) the assassination attempts on Castro; 2) that further assassination attempts on a prepared list of Cubans, including some who supported the Bay of Pigs invasion, were planned if Bay of Pigs was successful; and 3) that Nixon, as the White House point man on the Bay of Pigs, had personally approved these plans. The thinking is that neither Nixon, nor Helms, would want such information to become common knowledge.

So, how does this tie into the Kennedy assassination? It appears that Nixon, as Johnson before him, and as proposed by Drew Peterson and Jack Anderson, believed these plots somehow morphed into the plot against Kennedy.

Nixon's reference to "Helms' stuff on the Kennedy assassination" supports this. Hoover has had top secret info which he could use to blackmail Nixon stolen by William Sullivan, and given over to Nixon's people. Nixon tells Ehrlichman they should make Hoover feel better about this by telling him that Nixon has also gained control of "Helms' stuff on the Kennedy assassination." The implication, at least to me, is that 1) there was something in this "stuff" which could be used to blackmail Nixon, and 2) that Hoover would feel better if the head of the CIA--which Hoover considered a rival to the FBI--had also lost his prized possession with which he could blackmail Nixon.

[Jon G. Tidd]

I don't believe Richard Nixon had information the CIA had a hand in the JFK assassination. Reason: Nixon would have known exactly how to use such information to his advantage.

Many regard Nixon as a self-serving S.O.B. In my estimation, one doesn't get to be president otherwise. But Nixon was a patriot. He never sold out the U.S., never committed treason, and in my estimation never would have tolerated treason. If he had hard proof CIA officials were behind the JFK assassination, he would have had ample means to make such proof known publicly.

It's been a popular media and pundit pastime to rake Nixon over the coals. Too bad in my view the same hasn't been done with LBJ., a far more evil human being.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[David Andrews]

He never sold out the U.S., never committed treason, and in my estimation never would have tolerated treason.

LBJ thought him worthy of a treason accusation for back channel negotiations with Hanoi sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks so that a Vietnam accord was impossible under the outgoing administration, queering the 1968 election for the Democrats. Communicating through associates, Johnson specifically threatened Nixon with the charge of "treason.".

Two Nixon administrations insured eight more years of the Vietnam war, which, while a widely unpopular policy, could not be regarded as treason since an elected President secured it.

Edited January 12, 2015 by David Andrews

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Andrews,

FWIW, I don't think Hanoi wanted any sort of peace accord in 1968. Furthermore, LBJ as outgoing president would have had no bargaining chips in dealing with the Hanoi leadership. In 1968, Hanoi scored a PR victory (despite massive losses that basically wiped out the Viet Cong) with its Tet Offensive. This crushed LBJ in spirit and politically. Hanoi had no reason to pursue anything but total victory.

Nixon knew the U.S. didn't have the will to prevail in Viet Nam. Moreover, Viet Nam wasn't his war; he inherited it. Nixon took clear steps to pave the way for U.S. withdrawal (e.g., the much hated Cambodian incursion). "Vietnamization" was the watchword under Nixon's first term. U.S. troop levels in Viet Nam declined from about 550,000 when Nixon took office in 1969 to about 50,000 in September 1972, when I exited Viet Nam.

Nixon's big failure wasn't his continuation but reduction of U.S. military presence in South Viet Nam. His and Kissinger's unforgivable failure was to negotiate a deal with the North that didn't include U.S. POWs being held in Laos.

[David Andrews]

What difference there would have been in peace progress under a Democratic administration in 1969-1972, and what saving of life in the whole of Southeast Asia, will now always be a matter of speculation. You're older than I am, but I lived under Nixon as well. He was hardly the antidote to destruction that was demanded in 1968, by Vietnam veterans among others.

LBJ had already abdicated: his concern was with the subversion of the lawful intent of an elected president, and with that president's political duty to the success of his party in the coming election.

Edited January 12, 2015 by David Andrews

[Paul Brancato]

Are we really arguing about who was worse - LBJ or RMN?

[Mark Knight]

It's NOT a matter of who was worse; it's a matter of who committed treason by subverting the policies of the DULY ELECTED government of the US. Nixon did it in '68; then Reagan did it in '80. But to the extreme right, BOTH of these men are "heroes," when the truth is they both should have been tried, convicted, and executed for their treasonous acts...as should the men [and women] who acted on their behalf.