Donald Jeffries is interviewed on Inforwars Nightly News

[Cliff Varnell]

Do we have dates for this information gathering on Nixon's part? Who in the administration was assigned to this?

It's in H.R. Haldeman's The Ends of Power.

John Ehrlichman was assigned to get those files in early 1969, November of 1971, and May of 1972 (iirc).

Helms eventually gave him three one-page summaries and a third-rate burglary.

[David Andrews]

Thanks. This I knew about, as part of Nixon appropriating info from CIA and FBI as well, for purposes of blackmail and institutional control I thought that there might be an actual investigation that I had missed, from the way people were talking here.

When I consider Jon Tidd's question, and my own acquired knowledge of Watergate and the road to impeachment or resignation, it seems unlikely that Nixon ticking Helms off by poking around, or even threatening revelation that the CIA held secrets on the assassination after Hunt's betrayal, would be enough to secure Nixon's downfall.

CIA could arrange Hunt's plumbers to entrap RN, could arrange a fouled burglary, could release information harmful to Nixon (through Woodward, as well as other channels), and could also coordinate the mockingbird press to call for Nixon's head. But could CIA bring down Nixon without approval from above in the political economic world? Could they kill Kennedy alone and cover it up?

Then whom did these presidents anger, and how?

Edited March 5, 2015 by David Andrews

[Paul Brancato]

That is the question David.... We call this hidden power 'they' and rarely name names.

[Thomas Graves]

Thanks. This I knew about, as part of Nixon appropriating info from CIA and FBI as well, for purposes of blackmail and institutional control I thought that there might be an actual investigation that I had missed, from the way people were talking here.

When I consider Jon Tidd's question, and my own acquired knowledge of Watergate and the road to impeachment or resignation, it seems unlikely that Nixon ticking Helms off by poking around, or even threatening revelation that the CIA held secrets on the assassination after Hunt's betrayal, would be enough to secure Nixon's downfall.

CIA could arrange Hunt's plumbers to entrap RN, could arrange a fouled burglary, could release information harmful to Nixon (through Woodward, as well as other channels), and could also coordinate the mockingbird press to call for Nixon's head. But could CIA bring down Nixon without approval from above in the political economic world? Could they kill Kennedy alone and cover it up?

Then whom did these presidents anger, and how?

David,

What you say about the CIA and E. Howard Hunt's probably intentionally-bungled WG burglary kinda reminds me of the fact that part of the CIA may have impersonated impersonators (not a typo) in Mexico City on September 28 and October 1, 1963. Or done the paperwork later to suggest that impersonations had taken place on those dates, paperwork that would have "necessitated" a "mole hunt, either real or fake.

--Tommy

Edited March 8, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Great point Thomas - the purposely bungled Watergate burglary is the equivalent of the paper trail for a fake mole hunt. How long did it take before anyone suggested that the Watergate burglary was deliberately bungled? What a concept. Thinking outside the box, the way guys like Hunt and Phillips did on a routine basis. False paper trails are stock in trade.

[David Andrews]

Thomas and Paul: Good points, but can an intelligence service control all the aspects of an operation and its cover up, in Dallas or in Watergate?

I've asked before: Could rogue agents of CIA pull off and cover up the assassination without discovery and punishment. even the ultimate punishment? What does it mean when some of those named as the guilty rogues are actually promoted after the assassination.

This applies in large also: Could the bureaucracy of an intelligence agency assassinate a president, or (in Nixon's case) bring down a presidency without approval from the government's financial adherents and policy directors? Does National Security extend so far as to countenance evasion of punishment for that?

***

John Tidd: You have asked me on another thread whom I think killed Kennedy . The above is a study for my eventual answer.

So is this: Harriman and Lodge, in subverting Kennedy's plans for Diem to escape alive, showed no fear of the president, and Got Lucien Conein of CIA to effect the dirty work. I believe this is because Harriman and Lodge's allegiances extended upward, beyond Kennedy, to the monied families that control American policy and some world policy. Paul Brancato has named some of these.

Sometimes things are just as naked as they appear: within a month's time there were two assassination attempts on Gerald Ford while a representative of one of these families occupied the vice-presidency. Ronald Reagan was wounded and nearly killed during the vice-presidency of another, a former CIA director. The assassins seemed like an ineffectual lot, but the qualifications for being a patsy have declined since Oswald's day.

[Mark Knight]

I honestly believe the Ford and Reagan assassination attempts were NOT meant to kill them; rather, those attempts were to get them "back into the fold," and to remind them to "stick to the program."

Nixon thought he was invulnerable, and that the "knowledge" he had made him so. He was proven wrong, in a huge way.

[David Andrews]

Mark Knight: What of the assertions of Nixon assassination plots, made by Scott Kaiser and others?

As for Ford and Reagan: The beneficiaries simply had too much to gain, particularly the one they amended the Constitution to accommodate.

Sometimes things are as naked as they appear.

Edited March 10, 2015 by David Andrews

[Paul Brancato]

Mark, David, et al - why was it necessary to kill JFK, rather than fake an assassination and pin it on someone linked to Castro? I have an answer, so the question is not entirely rhetorical. My main objection to those that think the aim was to bring about an invasion of Cuba is that JFK could easily have been convinced to back that idea if he believed that Castro tried to kill him.

[Paul Brancato]

And the logical extension of this idea is that he was killed because he was beyond being brought 'back into the fold' on Cold War strategy, oil policy and Middle East policy, monetary policy, civil rights.

[David Andrews]

Paul - I support your answer. I think that the thing that couldn't wait, however, was Vietnam. The regime changes in DC and Saigon within weeks of each other were telling events.

[Paul Brancato]

I agree David - when I said cold war strategy I was basically referring to Vietnam.