Nixon Tapes Reveal He Knew CIA Was Involved in Murder of JFK

[Gil Jesus]

23 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

This came up before in the discussion of Jeff Morley’s book on Watergate. Like Matt said, “Who shot John?” was a common expression which according to Google was:

“Used to shut down an involved smoke and mirrors explanation of an event or more simply, the excuses and blame game for the event transpiring”

Nixon says:

“The Who Shot John thing…is Eisenhower to blame, is Johnson to blame, is Kennedy to blame, is Nixon to blame, etcetera etcetera etecerta, may  become…may become, not by me, but may become a very, very, uh, vigorous issue. If it does… uh, I need to know… what’s necessary to protect our inquiries, the intelligence gathering, and the Dirty tricks department. And I will protect it. Hey listen, I’ve done my fair share of lying to protect it. I will go…I believe it’s totally right to do it.”

It’s possible Nixon really was talking about the JFKA, using “Who shot John” as a euphemism and mentioning Eisenhower, etc. as a bit of a disguise, but I don’t think this conversation really proves anything. 

I guess then we disagree. I believe Eisenhower bore some of the blame for the assassination of JFK. It was under his watch that the CIA had carte blanche to do whatever it wanted to. Like overthrowing duly-elected foreign governments in Iran and Guatemala. He even ordered the murder of Patrice Lumumba, the Prime-Minister of the Congo. He approved the training of Cuban exiles for an operation that required the pre-invasion assassination of Fidel Castro.

Eisenhower was no angel. Neither was Nixon.

This was a monster Ike created and like Dr. Frankenstein in the story, neither he nor anyone else had control over it once it was given life.

The CIA was involved in the murder of JFK. You can take that to the bank. Kennedy's behavior and policies were seen as a threat to National Security. The CIA set it up in the summer of 1963 with like minded individuals in the Secret Service, the US Military and ( later ) the Dallas Police. They enabled DRE riflemen who had been training at a camp at Lake Ponchartrain in New Orleans and it was paid for through corporate "contributions" to the CIA front of Harding University in Arkansas.

Oswald, who WAS an FBI informant, came into the "crosshairs" ( no pun intended ) of the conspiracy when he made contact with the DRE Rep in New Orleans, Carlos Bringuier. From that point on, Oswald was publicly presented to the world as a Castro sympathizer. A subsequent street scuffle got him arrested By New Orleans Police and his information shared with the 112th Military Intellgence Unit in San Antonio, Texas. From there he was on the "potential assassin" list.

This isn't rocket science folks, this was the CIA's world of black operations designed to ebb the spread of Communism and to remove from office a President who stood in the way of their agenda. These were people whose politics transcended party lines and saw themselves as patriots trying to save the country and the world from Communism.

It's high time we shined a light into the dark corners of the past NO MATTER HOW PAINFUL IT IS TO DO SO and expose those elements in government and SOCIETY that allowed this tragedy to happen or else we invite it to happen again in the future.

And if it does happen again, those of us who cowered when faced with the truth in this murder will have the blood of that future victim on our hands as well.

Yes, if we fail to expose the evil that perpetrated this, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

[Michael Griffith]

20 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Stone and this claim are just designed to impugn the CIA because they feel the CIA is an impediment to their desire for an apartheid-type dictatorship in the U.S. These are bad, evil people, and should not be given a platform.

Oh my goodness, you don't really believe this, do you? I can't imagine what facts could lead you to even remotely suspect, much less believe, that these people want an "apartheid-type dictatorship." You accuse them of being "ring-wing nut jobs," but your rhetoric sounds extreme and nutty. 

[Joe Bauer]

On 1/15/2023 at 8:00 AM, Lance Payette said:

There has to be a real-world balance.

Over the past 125 years, U.S. Presidents have ranged from political hacks to someone with the qualifications of George H. W. Bush.  Compare the qualifications of Bush to those of Warren G. Harding and, more recently, Bill Clinton, Dubya, Barack Obama, The Donald and Joe Biden. I would say that within just that list there are distinct differences in perceived loyalty to the United States, trustworthiness, intellect and mental fitness. Much the same can be said about Presidential appointees within the intelligence agencies, who may be here today and gone tomorrow. Presidents are required to have precisely none of the intense background checks and close oversight required for other individuals to obtain and retain high-level security clearances.

Some intelligence careers and operations span decades. Some operations are so highly compartmentalized that no more than a handful of people ever have the full picture. Is it realistic that some newly elected President, who is often a largely unknown quantity and isn’t going to be around for more than four or eight years, should be able to gain full access to everything that all the departments and agencies comprising the Executive Branch (see https://www.loc.gov/rr/news/fedgov.html) know and are doing? 

Clinton famously charged Webb Hubbell with finding the truth about UFOs and the JFKA for no reason other than personal curiosity. If there were some long-guarded Alien Secret of staggering sensitivity, do you think it should have been cheerfully disclosed to Clinton just because he was President and curious about it? Would some 60-year-old Dark Truth about the JFKA have any particular relevance to the performance of a President today?

Like the most gung-ho CTer, it's difficult for me to see what aspect of the JFKA could possibly require nondisclosure today, yet some materials relating to World War II are still classified. Indeed, some documents relating to troop movements in World War I are still classified in the interests of national security. The CIA declassified the last of its World War I documents in 2011. My guess is that if and when full JFKA disclosure occurs, we will see that the reasoning for nondisclosure strikes us as almost paranoid and has nothing directly to do with the JFKA. As I suggested in another thread, it's inconceivable to me that 60 years of diverse CIA Directors and employees have deemed some Dark Truth about the JFKA as "The Secret That Must Be Protected At All Costs" when so many other dark and embarrassing truths have seen the light of day.

Yes, in law and theory the President has almost unfettered access to anything he wants to see within the Executive Branch. In the real world, this makes no sense and is largely honored in the breach. I have no problem with those who actually do have the requisite security clearances making professional judgments as to what a President actually needs to know to carry out his office and how loyal, trustworthy and sane a particular President is.

People like Alan Dulles and James Angleton were more qualified ( mentally, emotionally, morally, honest integrity, national security protecting and constitutional democracy-common good protecting and respecting ) to know, hold and control our deepest secrets over Ike and JFK?

Eisenhower was going to send troops to area 51 because of his intelligence agencies refusing to inform him of what was really going on there.

Isn't it obvious, that our entire constitutional democracy federal government framework is a sham if the truth is there is another part of our government ( with competing power with massive dark funding and self-determined oversight only for decades) that doesn't have to adhere to it's 3 branch checks and balances?

And include our 4th estate as well.

Such a scenario if unchecked could very well end our Constitutional democracy experiment.

As Dwight Eisenhower warned in his MIC speech upon leaving office, this vast expansion of competing non-constitutional abiding influence and power was a new and serious threat to the American Democratic foundation experience.

I think Eisenhower would feel his warning fears have become worse now than he ever imagined they would since his speech upon leaving office 63 years ago.

Yes, whackos like Trump can't handle our deepest truths. But, most of our congress members are emotionally stable, intelligent and Constitution and common American good respecting enough to handle these secrets, imo anyways.

I believe these new secrets we now possess are of such life changing magnitude ( economic, political,  religious, social, military, reality of existence, etc. )  that the holders of them aren't sure what to do with them at times. Yet, other times they are kept from revealing for corrupt elite favoring reasons as well.

God help us all with finding some type of fair minded, common good balance in this new American government imbalance of secret agency entities competing for power and control with our more open and transparent ones.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Matt Allison]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

I can't imagine what facts could lead you to even remotely suspect, much less believe, that these people want an "apartheid-type dictatorship."

You can start with the picture I posted showing Stone and fellow Proud Boy domestic terrorists flashing the white power sign...

[Guest]

On 1/15/2023 at 10:07 AM, Joe Bauer said:

Eisenhower was going to send troops to area 51 because of his intelligence agencies refusing to inform him of what was really going on there.

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 1/15/2023 at 9:29 AM, Gil Jesus said:

I guess then we disagree. I believe Eisenhower bore some of the blame for the assassination of JFK. It was under his watch that the CIA had carte blanche to do whatever it wanted to. Like overthrowing duly-elected foreign governments in Iran and Guatemala. He even ordered the murder of Patrice Lumumba, the Prime-Minister of the Congo. He approved the training of Cuban exiles for an operation that required the pre-invasion assassination of Fidel Castro.

Eisenhower was no angel. Neither was Nixon.

This was a monster Ike created and like Dr. Frankenstein in the story, neither he nor anyone else had control over it once it was given life.

The CIA was involved in the murder of JFK. You can take that to the bank. Kennedy's behavior and policies were seen as a threat to National Security. The CIA set it up in the summer of 1963 with like minded individuals in the Secret Service, the US Military and ( later ) the Dallas Police. They enabled DRE riflemen who had been training at a camp at Lake Ponchartrain in New Orleans and it was paid for through corporate "contributions" to the CIA front of Harding University in Arkansas.

Oswald, who WAS an FBI informant, came into the "crosshairs" ( no pun intended ) of the conspiracy when he made contact with the DRE Rep in New Orleans, Carlos Bringuier. From that point on, Oswald was publicly presented to the world as a Castro sympathizer. A subsequent street scuffle got him arrested By New Orleans Police and his information shared with the 112th Military Intellgence Unit in San Antonio, Texas. From there he was on the "potential assassin" list.

This isn't rocket science folks, this was the CIA's world of black operations designed to ebb the spread of Communism and to remove from office a President who stood in the way of their agenda. These were people whose politics transcended party lines and saw themselves as patriots trying to save the country and the world from Communism.

It's high time we shined a light into the dark corners of the past NO MATTER HOW PAINFUL IT IS TO DO SO and expose those elements in government and SOCIETY that allowed this tragedy to happen or else we invite it to happen again in the future.

And if it does happen again, those of us who cowered when faced with the truth in this murder will have the blood of that future victim on our hands as well.

Yes, if we fail to expose the evil that perpetrated this, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Douglas Caddy]

Robert Morrow informs me that he did indeed send an email to Gil Jesus, who started this thread, but that he is not the source of links in the email.

He said that the source is below:

 

[Mark Ulrik]

Another sly reference to the JFKA? Probably not!

In a 1970 oral history interview for the Truman Library, Nixon was asked for his opinion about a 1952 book on the Truman presidency:

Quote

It had at the time some interesting though, I thought, trivial material. It was really a hodgepodge of personal material, taken out of the Truman files. It was not written in any consecutive way at all. It was filled with rather static posed photographs of the President with the Cabinet, the President with members of his staff, the President with Who Shot John. The interesting thing, to me, was that someone had been able to get direct access to some of the personal things, without touching upon the conduct of the Presidency as such.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

There has to be a real-world balance.

Over the past 125 years, U.S. Presidents have ranged from political hacks to someone with the qualifications of George H. W. Bush.  Compare the qualifications of Bush to those of Warren G. Harding and, more recently, Bill Clinton, Dubya, Barack Obama, The Donald and Joe Biden. I would say that within just that list there are distinct differences in perceived loyalty to the United States, trustworthiness, intellect and mental fitness. Much the same can be said about Presidential appointees within the intelligence agencies, who may be here today and gone tomorrow. Presidents are required to have precisely none of the intense background checks and close oversight required for other individuals to obtain and retain high-level security clearances.

Some intelligence careers and operations span decades. Some operations are so highly compartmentalized that no more than a handful of people ever have the full picture. Is it realistic that some newly elected President, who is often a largely unknown quantity and isn’t going to be around for more than four or eight years, should be able to gain full access to everything that all the departments and agencies comprising the Executive Branch (see https://www.loc.gov/rr/news/fedgov.html) know and are doing? 

Clinton famously charged Webb Hubbell with finding the truth about UFOs and the JFKA for no reason other than personal curiosity. If there were some long-guarded Alien Secret of staggering sensitivity, do you think it should have been cheerfully disclosed to Clinton just because he was President and curious about it? Would some 60-year-old Dark Truth about the JFKA have any particular relevance to the performance of a President today?

Like the most gung-ho CTer, it's difficult for me to see what aspect of the JFKA could possibly require nondisclosure today, yet some materials relating to World War II are still classified. Indeed, some documents relating to troop movements in World War I are still classified in the interests of national security. The CIA declassified the last of its World War I documents in 2011. My guess is that if and when full JFKA disclosure occurs, we will see that the reasoning for nondisclosure strikes us as almost paranoid and has nothing directly to do with the JFKA. As I suggested in another thread, it's inconceivable to me that 60 years of diverse CIA Directors and employees have deemed some Dark Truth about the JFKA as "The Secret That Must Be Protected At All Costs" when so many other dark and embarrassing truths have seen the light of day.

Yes, in law and theory the President has almost unfettered access to anything he wants to see within the Executive Branch. In the real world, this makes no sense and is largely honored in the breach. I have no problem with those who actually do have the requisite security clearances making professional judgments as to what a President actually needs to know to carry out his office and how loyal, trustworthy and sane a particular President is.

Well, we completely and wholeheartedly disagree on nearly every aspect of everything you have said.  

I congratulate you: Usually, I can find some common grounds with any particular speaker, or at least understand if not agree with other points of view. You have managed a full and complete sweep. We are polar opposites!

If there were some long-guarded Alien Secret of staggering sensitivity, do you think it should have been cheerfully disclosed to Clinton just because he was President and curious about it?--LP

Yes, in the unlikely event aliens really did visit Roswell, I think that should be disclosed, and if in the much more likely event the CIA lied to Wayne Hubbell, I think that should be disclosed. 

Seriously, I cannot fathom your way of thinking---IMHO, you raised regard for intel agencies into a type of cult worship, with a blind spot towards the near inevitability of every federal bureaucracy (civilian or military) towards aggrandizement, calculated perfidy and self-preservation. 

We have to agree to disagree on this set of topics.  

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Seriously, I cannot fathom your way of thinking---IMHO, you raised regard for intel agencies into a type of cult worship, with a blind spot towards the near inevitability of every federal bureaucracy (civilian or military) towards aggrandizement, calculated perfidy and self-preservation. 

 

Agree.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Yes, in law and theory the President has almost unfettered access to anything he wants to see within the Executive Branch. In the real world, this makes no sense and is largely honored in the breach. I have no problem with those who actually do have the requisite security clearances making professional judgments as to what a President actually needs to know to carry out his office and how loyal, trustworthy and sane a particular President is.

Then who should make the decision if the people with such security clearances are trustworthy, loyal or sane enough to be in such a position? If the president can’t see whats going on, then the CIA is unaccountable. If that’s the case, they can submit false or incomplete reports to the potus, and the potus will make incorrect decisions on these incomplete/misleading reports.

You don’t have a democracy. You have something else entirely. 

[David Andrews]

5 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Another sly reference to the JFKA? Probably not!

In a 1970 oral history interview for the Truman Library, Nixon was asked for his opinion about a 1952 book on the Truman presidency:

 

Did Nixon deliberately choose the verb "shot" over the more common "hit" when talking to Helms?  Or was that the way they said it in Whittier?

It's used the way James Angleton used "I'm not privy to who struck John"* - to mean "Tom, Dick & Harry."**  But it's interesting that both Nixon and Angleton used it in the context of CIA maladventures.

Angleton used the phrase when beseiged by reporters after his resignation from CIA, on the context of domestic spying.

___________

* https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/25/archives/helms-disavows-illegal-spying-by-the-cia-in-us.html

** In Civil War times, "Who Hit John" was a euphemism for liquor - another form of willful obliviousness.

Edited January 16, 2023 by David Andrews

[Gil Jesus]

17 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Robert Morrow informs me that he did indeed send an email to Gil Jesus, who started this thread, but that he is not the source of links in the email.

He said that the source is below:

 

I never said he was the source. I was asked where did I get the audio link from.

I said, "This was a link in an e-mail sent to me by Robert Morrow."

Here's a copy of that e-mail including the audio link ( #2, The Tape ) :

From: "Robert Morrow" <xxxxxx>

To: "xxxxxx" <xxxxxxx>

Sent: Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 4:10 PM

 

Subject: Richard Nixon to CIA Richard Helms on 10/10/1971 telling he he will LIE to cover up the JFK assassination

Richard Nixon to Richard Helms – Oct 10, 1971, 11;15 AM – referencing the JFK assassination and saying he would be more than willing to LIE to cover up the ugly truth

 

Richard Nixon: “The whole ‘who shot John’ [JFK] thing, […] may become a very, very vigorous issue. If it does, I need to know what’s necessary to protect our inquiries, the intelligence gathering and the ‘Dirty Tricks Department.’ And I will protect it. Hey listen, I’ve done more than my share of lying to protect it. I will go …I believe it was totally right to do it …

 

David J. Reilly January 9, 2023 Tweet on this topic:

 

https://twitter.com/realDaveReilly/status/1612321610048106503

 

1) http://nixontapeaudio.org/rmh/587-007.pdf

 

2) The tape http://nixontapeaudio.org/rmh/587-007a.mp3

 

3) Directory of Nixon Tapes http://nixontapes.org/rmh.html

 

4) https://valiantnews.com/2023/01/roger-stone-nixon-tapes-reveal-he-knew-cia-involved-in-the-murder-of-jfk/ - article by Andrew White of Valiant News on 1-10-2023.

 

5) Roger Stone on Richard Nixon’s comments regarding the JFK assassination to CIA chief Richard Helms on October 10, 1971: Nixon Threatened to Reveal the CIA's Involvement in the Kennedy Assassination (substack.com)

 

 

Sincerely,

Robert Morrow 

Edited January 16, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Mark Ulrik]

President GHW Bush doing a double:

Quote

I'm not going to participate in the blame game, nor is Governor Chiles. What we're trying to do is help people. It doesn't do any good to go into "who shot John."

[...]

There is no point getting into blame and this "who shot John" thing that I know everybody's fascinated with.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PPP-1992-book2/html/PPP-1992-book2-doc-pg1446.htm

[video] https://www.c-span.org/video/?31610-1/hurricane-andrew-disaster-relief (skip to 4:05 and 13:17)

[Joe Bauer]

In the secret agency world, lying to everyone including the American public, presidents, etc. is often justified by being deemed as "patriotic."

E. Howard Hunt was always referring to himself as extremely patriotic. G. Gordon Liddy, et al.

If I lied under oath ( or did illegal acts ) ...it was for patriotic reasons.  That seemed to be their shared criminal action convictions defense when interviewed by William F. Buckley on his "Firing Line" TV show.

I guess this mind set centers around their indoctrinated belief that they know more what's good for us to know than the vast majority of their fellow Americans?

JFK gave a speech warning about major secrets carried too far and the danger to an open society with the potential for abuse by those who hold and control them, if they are left to regulate themselves alone and outside constitutional democracy checks and balances.

I am sure however, that if I was driven to a secret facility and told the whole truth about even a few of our most major secrets that even I might freak out over some of them myself.

It's a gut wrenching conundrum.   

Our constitutional democracy integrity and authority threatened in the balance.

 

Edited January 16, 2023 by Joe Bauer