Groubert: Frank Sturgis, CIA, Watergate and the JFKA

[Benjamin Cole]

The opening segments of this Mark Groubert presentation feature an old c. 1977 interview of Frank Sturgis, the CIA operative and Watergate burglar. See Spartacus for a rundown on Sturgis. https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKsturgis.htm

Long before James Hougan's excellent book on Watergate came out in 1984 (Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat and the CIA) Sturgis is laying out the "real" reasons why Nixon is getting booted from the White House---in part, the CIA does not like Nixon demanding to see the Bay of Pigs files and the truth about the JFKA. 

This tension between Helms of the CIA and Nixon regarding the "Bay of Pigs files" later became documented with the release of the Nixon White House tapes. 

Sturgis also names Alexander Butterfield, E. Howard Hunt and Haig as CIA assets inside the White House---all points more-or-less assented to today, but not back then. Bob Woodward is the willing media side of the equation. 

Of course, the names Hunt and Sturgis also come up in various versions of the JFKA, with Hunt late in life stating he was on a back-up team in Dallas. 

Sturgis was regarded as a notoriously unreliable source and observer. So like everything about the JFKA or RFK1A, a wilderness of mirrors. 

My take-away is the the CIA, or intel-state, will depose Presidents they do not like, whether by force or otherwise. 

 

[Matthew Koch]

Speaking of a Wilderness of Mirrors (Excellent book if you haven't read it)

..there is more to this story when one looks into ownership of the Watergate and it connects to Vatican/P2, CMC/World Trade Org, Permindex/Italian Deepstate. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/03/30/archives/italian-company-puts-watergate-up-for-sale.html

Italian Company Puts Watergate Up for Sale

ROME, March 29 (Reuters) —The. Watergate complex in Washington, scene of the break‐in that led to President Nixon's resignation is for sale, the Italian owners said today.

Arcangelo Belli, vice chairman or Generale Immobiliare, Italy's biggest construction company, told the magazine L'Espresso that the concern was negotiating with an American group for sale of the hotel and was asking $45 million.

Owned by the Vatican before it passed into the control of Michele Sindona, the financier, the company is seeking funds to save off bankruptcy.

This is why the Angleton connection is interesting ; )

[Robert Morrow]

One of the great fantasies about Watergate is that the CIA or the military ran the Watergate break in as in Operation to BRING DOWN RICHARD NIXON.

I have skimmed a few books on Watergate and I have never seen any COMPELLING EVIDENCE that in June, 1972 the CIA, the military or the intelligence agencies were using - IN REAL TIME - a sabotage of the Watergate break in to BRING DOWN RICHARD NIXON.

Why would they do something dumb like that? Just so they could get GEORGE MCGOVERN elected president??

John Dean's backstabbing and Alexander Butterfield's innocent comments at a congressional hearing brought down Richard Nixon (and Nixon was responsible as well for all the criminality he encouraged in his Administration).

However, once Richard Nixon's Gallop approval rating was a microscopic 28% and he was COMPLETE POISON to the Republican party in the run up to the 1974 midterms, people like chief of staff ALEXANDER HAIG were working overtime to get rid of Richard Nixon, who was not merely the cancer in the White House but the stage 5 cancer to all those Republicans who were on the ballot in the 1974 midterms. Haig was worried about the Republican party's prospects not Nixon's detente with China!

That is why all those supposedly "noble" and "public interested" Republicans led by Barry Goldwater went up to the White House and told Nixon he should resigned before he gets IMPEACHED BY THE HOUSE AND CONVICTED IN THE SENATE. Nixon was killing the GOP in the elections.

The Democrats, at this precise time, however, according to Jerry Zeifman (who was right), were stalling because at this moment they loved, loved, loved the TOXIC NIXON dangling by a thread in the White House as he strangled and GOP chances in the mid term elections of 1974. The Democrats, like Bill Clinton of Arkansas who was running for Congress, actually wanted NIXON TO STAY IN OFFICE so they could use him as a whipping boy all through the end of election day. Nixon resigning actually hurt Democratic election prospects because the Demo tidal wave would have been EVEN BIGGER if Nixon had stayed on office through the general election of 1974. Young Bill Clinton of Arkansas probably would have won his congressional race if Nixon were still in office.

Yes, I think there was a call girl ring being run out of the Democratic National offices, and yes John Dean married his pretty hooker so both of them could not be forced to testify against one another (spousal privilege), but NO, sorry - the CIA was not sabotaging the Watergate break-in of June, 1972 so that Richard Nixon could be brought down. Why would both James McCord and E. Howard Hunt bring this rain of hell fire on top of their heads just to take down Nixon. They were not trying to do that.

And neither were the Joint Chiefs - who were spying on Nixon in the White House - a part of any Watergate break in sabotage to bring down Nixon whose foreign policy they did not like.

BECAUSE THEY - CIA and JCS - SURE DID NOT LIKE GEORGE MCGOVERN'S FOREIGN POLICY!!

One final note: in 1974 I named our new family dog, a dachshund ... "Watergate" in honor of what was going on in the news.

P.S. Heidi Rikan was hot.

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

One of the great fantasies about Watergate is that the CIA or the military ran the Watergate break in as in Operation to BRING DOWN RICHARD NIXON.

I have skimmed a few books on Watergate and I have never seen any COMPELLING EVIDENCE that in June, 1972 the CIA, the military or the intelligence agencies were using - IN REAL TIME - a sabotage of the Watergate break in to BRING DOWN RICHARD NIXON.

Why would they do something dumb like that? Just so they could get GEORGE MCGOVERN elected president??

John Dean's backstabbing and Alexander Butterfield's innocent comments at a congressional hearing brought down Richard Nixon (and Nixon was responsible as well for all the criminality he encouraged in his Administration).

However, once Richard Nixon's Gallop approval rating was a microscopic 28% and he was COMPLETE POISON to the Republican party in the run up to the 1974 midterms, people like chief of staff ALEXANDER HAIG were working overtime to get rid of Richard Nixon, who was not merely the cancer in the White House but the stage 5 cancer to all those Republicans who were on the ballot in the 1974 midterms. Haig was worried about the Republican party's prospects not Nixon's detente with China!

That is why all those supposedly "noble" and "public interested" Republicans led by Barry Goldwater went up to the White House and told Nixon he should resigned before he gets IMPEACHED BY THE HOUSE AND CONVICTED IN THE SENATE. Nixon was killing the GOP in the elections.

The Democrats, at this precise time, however, according to Jerry Zeifman (who was right), were stalling because at this moment they loved, loved, loved the TOXIC NIXON dangling by a thread in the White House as he strangled and GOP chances in the mid term elections of 1974. The Democrats, like Bill Clinton of Arkansas who was running for Congress, actually wanted NIXON TO STAY IN OFFICE so they could use him as a whipping boy all through the end of election day. Nixon resigning actually hurt Democratic election prospects because the Demo tidal wave would have been EVEN BIGGER if Nixon had stayed on office through the general election of 1974. Young Bill Clinton of Arkansas probably would have won his congressional race if Nixon were still in office.

Yes, I think there was a call girl ring being run out of the Democratic National offices, and yes John Dean married his pretty hooker so both of them could not be forced to testify against one another (spousal privilege), but NO, sorry - the CIA was not sabotaging the Watergate break-in of June, 1972 so that Richard Nixon could be brought down. Why would both James McCord and E. Howard Hunt bring this rain of hell fire on top of their heads just to take down Nixon. They were not trying to do that.

And neither were the Joint Chiefs - who were spying on Nixon in the White House - a part of any Watergate break in sabotage to bring down Nixon whose foreign policy they did not like.

BECAUSE THEY - CIA and JCS - SURE DID NOT LIKE GEORGE MCGOVERN'S FOREIGN POLICY!!

One final note: in 1974 I named our new family dog, a dachshund ... "Watergate" in honor of what was going on in the news.

P.S. Heidi Rikan was hot.

Frank Sturgis was an actual participant in the Watergate job, a long-time CIA asset, and the opposite of a George McGovern supporter.

You may wish to consider his views.  

[Robert Morrow]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Frank Sturgis was an actual participant in the Watergate job, a long-time CIA asset, and the opposite of a George McGovern supporter.

You may wish to consider his views.  

And what were Frank Sturgis's views on Watergate? Sturgis also admitted multiple times to murdering John Kennedy.

[Benjamin Cole]

59 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:

And what were Frank Sturgis's views on Watergate? Sturgis also admitted multiple times to murdering John Kennedy.

RM-

Thanks for your question.

As stated, Sturgis said the Watergate event was part of a plot to unseat Nixon, as Nixon had been demanding files pertaining to the JFKA. That is my reason for posting here. 

As for Sturgis' credibility...very dicey. 

 

[Robert Morrow]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

RM-

Thanks for your question.

As stated, Sturgis said the Watergate event was part of a plot to unseat Nixon, as Nixon had been demanding files pertaining to the JFKA. That is my reason for posting here. 

As for Sturgis' credibility...very dicey. 

 

Sturgis on Watergate reason: he is completely wrong. Btw Nixon knew both Lyndon Johnson and U.S. intelligence were involved in the JFK assassination. Yes, I do think the Nixon quote on LBJ below is legit. I questioned Roger Stone on this many, many times. Yes, Roger Stone is a pathological liar who is more than willing to make stuff up. But I think this is legit.

Roger Stone on what Richard Nixon thought about the JFK assassination in a May, 2013, interview with the Daily Beast

Nixon “never flatly said who was responsible [for Kennedy’s death]. But he would say, ‘Both Johnson and I wanted to be president, but the only difference was I wouldn’t kill for it.”

Still, the juiciest parts of Stone’s book may be a series of interviews he conducted with his former boss Nixon toward the end of the former president’s life. According to Stone, Nixon “never flatly said who was responsible [for Kennedy’s death]. But he would say, ‘Both Johnson and I wanted to be president, but the only difference was I wouldn’t kill for it.”

When pressed on who he thought killed Kennedy, Nixon “would shiver and say, ‘Texas,’” said Stone.

[Benjamin Cole]

4 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:

Sturgis on Watergate reason: he is completely wrong. Btw Nixon knew both Lyndon Johnson and U.S. intelligence were involved in the JFK assassination. Yes, I do think the Nixon quote on LBJ below is legit. I questioned Roger Stone on this many, many times. Yes, Roger Stone is a pathological liar who is more than willing to make stuff up. But I think this is legit.

Roger Stone on what Richard Nixon thought about the JFK assassination in a May, 2013, interview with the Daily Beast

Nixon “never flatly said who was responsible [for Kennedy’s death]. But he would say, ‘Both Johnson and I wanted to be president, but the only difference was I wouldn’t kill for it.”

Still, the juiciest parts of Stone’s book may be a series of interviews he conducted with his former boss Nixon toward the end of the former president’s life. According to Stone, Nixon “never flatly said who was responsible [for Kennedy’s death]. But he would say, ‘Both Johnson and I wanted to be president, but the only difference was I wouldn’t kill for it.”

When pressed on who he thought killed Kennedy, Nixon “would shiver and say, ‘Texas,’” said Stone.

RM-

Thanks for posting. Yes, Stone thought LBJ was behind the JFKA. I think I read Stone's book way back when. 

As stated, something tells me the RFK1A and the JFKA are linked...the first mandated the second. 

We are on different pages on this one. But that is what the EF-JFKA is for, to see and appreciate other viewpoints. 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Anyone who reads Jim Hougan's classic book Secret Agenda can see that the CIA role in Watergate was a deliberate and well hidden one.

In fact,  Senator Howard Baker, who became famous on the Ervin Committee, was shocked when he discovered how extensive it really was while serving on that committee.

In Hougan's book, he meticulously describes the night of the final break in from multiple angles. No one had ever done that before.

No objective person can read that and not come to the conclusion that there was purposeful sabotage at work. I mean please, you re-tape a door after its been detected and stripped?  You tape doors on the wrong floors?  Hunt does not secure the burglar's belongings, with his name and location at the White House in one of the notebooks? And he pays them in sequentially numbered hundred dollar bills?

I mean please.

George McGovern was not going to be a viable candidate after being savaged by Humphrey and the press in the primaries, and he was finished after the Eagleton Affair.

The amazing thing about Watergate is how long it took to gain any traction.  This did not occur until after the election. And what sunk Nixon was not the break in, but his cover up efforts e.g. the Smoking Gun tape.  Morley's last book is about this duel between Nixon and Helms. As McCord said, if Helms goes--and he did--every tree in the forest will fall.  And it did.

One of the cleverest traps in modern political history.

 

Edited June 6 by James DiEugenio

[Matt Cloud]

"The amazing thing about Watergate is how long it took to gain any traction."

 

Except it's not amazing.  "They wanted to run against McGovern; look who they're running against."  

So, who's the "they" that Deep Throat was referring to?  

It's not Nixon and "the Germans."  It's the neo-cons who sought to destroy the McGovern wing of the dem party.  To do that you need McGovern to lose in a landslide and THEN comes the destruction of the Silent Majority. 

 

"... the evolution of the neoconservatives from their liberal anti-Communist position within the Democratic party following World War II to their bitter ideological wars with the McGovern wing of the party in the early 1970’s and their subsequent break with the Carter administration which led them to their new home in the Republican party following the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980."

https://www.vqronline.org/rise-neoconservatism

[Joe Bauer]

I came across an interview of Gary Patrick Hemming recently on You Tube.

What a rough-edged crude talking blowhard! Every other word seemed to be SOB and M. F'n Bast***.

Yet, he certainly did most of the things he claims and saw and interacted with most of the main nefarious characters involved with the Cuba thing.

One thing he bragged about caught my ear. He mentioned Sylvia Odio. Said he knew her while she and her family were still living in Cuba. He first had to mention his infatuation with her. She was one good looking broad.

He says she drove him clear across Cuba. Just the two of them.

I wish the interviewer had asked Hemming straight up..."Do you believe Sylvia Odio and her sister Anna's account of the three men knocking on her Oak Cliff apartment door one even in September,1963? One of the men being introduced to her as Leon Oswald?"

 

Edited June 6 by Joe Bauer

[Matt Cloud]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

RM-

Thanks for posting. Yes, Stone thought LBJ was behind the JFKA. I think I read Stone's book way back when. 

As stated, something tells me the RFK1A and the JFKA are linked...the first mandated the second. 

We are on different pages on this one. But that is what the EF-JFKA is for, to see and appreciate other viewpoints. 

 

 

"Way back when?"  Isn't Stone married to the daughter or niece of the godfather of the Cuban exile community, George Volsky, who may have been a part of creating the Cuban side of the Oswald legend?  Wasn't Volsky, who married Mercedes Bertan, feeding info to Szluc and Goodwin?  Bertran ... Bertran ... where have I heard that before?  Oh yeah Clay Shaw / Clay Bertran.  Anyway, is this why Stone must say LBJ was behind it?  Weren't these some of the people involved in Watergate?  If you do not calculate Stone's interest(s) here, you have not looked at all the angles.

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

"Way back when?"  Isn't Stone married to the daughter or niece of the godfather of the Cuban exile community, George Volsky, who may have been a part of creating the Cuban side of the Oswald legend?  Wasn't Volsky, who married Mercedes Bertan, feeding info to Szluc and Goodwin?  Bertran ... Bertran ... where have I heard that before?  Oh yeah Clay Shaw / Clay Bertran.  Anyway, is this why Stone must say LBJ was behind it?  Weren't these some of the people involved in Watergate?  If you do not calculate Stone's interest(s) here, you have not looked at all the angles.

MC-

Thanks for your comments. 

I think not very many people take on faith what Stone or Sturgis says. Dicey characters. 

What I find remarkable about the Sturgis interview c. 1977, is how much it contradicted the then-accepted WaPo/standard narratives...and how much of the Sturgis definition of Watergate came later to be assented to. 

As for Stone, he is Stone. A gadfly, a carnival character. If he could sell snake oil, he would sell snake oil. He may sincerely believe LBJ is behind the JFKA, a lot of people do. 

My take is the intel-state will depose Presidents they do not like, and have done so four times in the postwar era. 

And five, in a way, if you count the RFK1A. 

 

[Matt Cloud]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

MC-

Thanks for your comments. 

I think not very many people take on faith what Stone or Sturgis says. Dicey characters. 

What I find remarkable about the Sturgis interview c. 1977, is how much it contradicted the then-accepted WaPo/standard narratives...and how much of the Sturgis definition of Watergate came later to be assented to. 

As for Stone, he is Stone. A gadfly, a carnival character. If he could sell snake oil, he would sell snake oil. He may sincerely believe LBJ is behind the JFKA, a lot of people do. 

My take is the intel-state will depose Presidents they do not like, and have done so four times in the postwar era. 

And five, in a way, if you count the RFK1A. 

 

It may be worthwhile to bear in mind the larger political trends that were occurring in 77 and even through Secret Agenda (1983/84?), which is to say the neo-con takeover -- here I go again -- was in full effect, and if you take my thesis, and I am by no means alone on this, that Watergate was the doings of the neo-cons, it is necessary to have a change of tack, to a degree, to now start blaming the CIA.  Because the neo-cons are getting rid of the old-time hardliners there, had been since 74 at least.  Ergo, it helps the neo-cons, it deflects attention away from them, in this critical period, to revive the Howard Baker/Fred Thomspon et al., claims of CIA involvement in Watergate.  Not without merit altogether, mind.  

But don't underestimate Stone, or his involvement -- even if inflated (usually).  Stone and the rest of the Segretti Rat-F'ers, probably worked in conjunction with dem operatives such as the Podesta brothers, one of whom Stone would partner with in the 80s, in writing the Canuck letter for example.  The letter that sabotaged the Muskie campaign.  Yes, dem and Repub operatives colluding.  Oh my.  You see libertine Stone is actually not a Nixon guy, notwithstanding his -- excuse me -- tramp stamp tattoo of Milhouse on his back.  So Stone is by marriage tied up in Cuban Oswald legend creation AND watergate betrayal of the president he purports to have been faithful to.  This is why he must say LBJ is responsible for JFK and why he must say Al Haig is Deep Throat.

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

23 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

It may be worthwhile to bear in mind the larger political trends that were occurring in 77 and even through Secret Agenda (1983/84?), which is to say the neo-con takeover -- here I go again -- was in full effect, and if you take my thesis, and I am by no means alone on this, that Watergate was the doings of the neo-cons, it is necessary to have a change of tack, to a degree, to now start blaming the CIA.  Because the neo-cons are getting rid of the old-time hardliners there, had been since 74 at least.  Ergo, it helps the neo-cons, it deflects attention away from them, in this critical period, to revive the Howard Baker/Fred Thomspon et al., claims of CIA involvement in Watergate.  Not without merit altogether, mind.  

But don't underestimate Stone, or his involvement -- even if inflated (usually).  Stone and the rest of the Segretti Rat-F'ers, probably worked in conjunction with dem operatives such as the Podesta brothers, one of whom Stone would partner with in the 80s, in writing the Canuck letter for example.  The letter that sabotaged the Muskie campaign.  Yes, dem and Repub operatives colluding.  Oh my.  You see libertine Stone is actually not a Nixon guy, notwithstanding his -- excuse me -- tramp stamp tattoo of Milhouse on his back.  So Stone is by marriage tied up in Cuban Oswald legend creation AND watergate betrayal of the president he purports to have been faithful to.  This is why he must say LBJ is responsible for JFK and why he must say Al Haig is Deep Throat.

 

 

MC-

Let me ask you this: Do you think the intel state, or the neocons, have deposed four presidents in the post-war era, being JFK, Nixon, Carter and Trump? And did away with RFK1 as well?