Jump to content
The Education Forum

Deep Throat Revealed?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nancy, if you look at the psychological profile of a whistlle-blower, you'll see it is someone who feels personally slighted while at the same time disgusted; that is, the whistle-blower's desire for revenge is connected to their negative response to the ethics of the person they are ratting on. I know because I was a whistle-blower. It makes perfect sense to me that Felt, who was pushed aside by Nixon so that the more obedient (and less Jewish) Pat Gray could become acting FBI chief, was also disgusted with Nixon; he knew that Nixon had tried to arrange for the CIA to hide the involvement of CRP in the payments to the burglars; he'd also been aware that Nixon had wire-tapped a number of journalists. And who knows what Hoover had told him? Anyhow, Felt was a prototypical whistle-blower.

As to why Woodstein lied? Well, that was their agreement with Deep Throat. You give us the dirt and we'll keep your identity hidden, even if it means lying to other journalists. It's called protecting sources and every credible journalist does it. Ironically, someone in The Post's legal division leaked Felt's identity back to Haldeman almost immediately. While many will call Felt a traitor for his actions, it seems few will call this lawyer a criminal for his breaking his attorney/client privilege with The Post to help protect the President against the TRUTH.

Nixon was a crook. Felt helped out him. I think the man did the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest breaking news: many people were surprised by the dramatic announcement yesterday of the identity of Deep Throat (a former member of this Forum recently announced on his web site his opinion that Sen Robert Bennett was Deep Throat; other names raised included Fred Fielding; Leonard Garment and Alexander Haig.)

Others, however, claim they have felt it was Felt for years.

And sorry to say this but I looked under John's Watergate figures and Felt didn't even make the cut! I don't think too many people were familiar with him in 1972.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question I had for Mr. Dankbaar, the former member of the Forum, whom I occasionally e-mail with:

How do you think the knowledge of the identity of DT will affect the JFK case, if at all?

His reply:

None.

But now that Felt has come forward, it would be interesting to ask him what Nixon meant with the "hanky panky" and "the whole bay of Pigs thing"

Nixon: Of course, this is a, this is Hunt, you will-that will uncover a lot

of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things and that we

just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any

further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we

have nothing to do with ourselves. Well what the hell, did Mitchell know

about this thing to any much of a degree?

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

Nixon: When you get in these people when you...get these people in, say:

"Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs

thing, and the President just feels that" ah, without going into the

details... don't, don't lie to them to the extent to say there is no

involvement, but just say this is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre,

without getting into it, "the President believes that it is going to open

the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And, ah because these people are

plugging for, for keeps and that they should call the FBI in and say that we

wish for the country, don't go any further into this case", period!

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

Also, how did Felt feel about the cover up and Nixon's pardon by Ford?

End Dankbaar reply.

Any thoughts by Forum members regarding how the two cases may be connected and whether there may be any further Q/A by Felt and the press?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what possible motive did Nixon have to kill JFK?  He was not a mind-reader.  JFK could not have run in 1968 had he been re-elected so Nixon woould have been running against a non-incumbent.

You must have been the only Republican in the country who didn't fear a Kennedy dynasty. Nixon could bet the ranch, or rather his home in San Clemente, that he would be running against RFK in either 1968 or 1972. It was thought by many, including Nixon I imagine, that the 1960 election was stolen by JFK. Maybe Nixon and/or his backers weren't willing to take the chance of having another election stolen by a Kennedy.

In any case, if Nixon had anything to do with the assassination of JFK, it's safe to assume the same for the RFK hit, since one was a continuation of the other, once Bobby suicidally decided to run.

With LBJ assuming the presidency in 1963, LBJ had the right to run for a second term in 1968.  Nixon had no way to predict how LBJ would destroy himself politically.

There were other ways to destroy LBJ. How to destroy a president was demonstrated in Dallas. Or maybe a deal was made in 1963. You get a full term (and stay out of prison), then it's me. Who knows.

And there is not one scintilla of evidence to link Nixon to any of those assassinations.

Nonsense. Haven't you heard of "the whole Bay of Pigs thing"? Haldeman concluded that Nixon was talking about the JFK hit. Haldeman may have been guessing, but he was certainly in a position to make good guesses. It was Haldeman, after all, whom Helms blew up at (or at whom Helms blew up) when Haldeman conveyed Nixon's BOP message. It appears that between two ruthless, lying crooks Haldeman figured out what the score was.

I don't think there is sufficient evidence to link LBJ to JFK's death and I don't really like that happening either, although there is the troublesome issue of the alleged Mac Wallace fingerprint.

There may not be sufficient evidence for a court of law, but the circumstantial evidence is impressive.

Even though LBJ was clearly a crook, and clearly the political beneficiary of the JFK assassination, in my opinion that is not sufficient evidence to impugn his reputation.

I didn't know that he had a reputation left to impugn. He almost matched his good friend J. Edgar Hoover in having no redeeming quality.

Ron

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFK assassination researcher Jim Koepke, the author of "Chasing Ghosts", describes in that book his phone conversation with "Deep Throat". Jim confirmed today, in an email to me, that the man he spoke to was Mark Felt. I have extended an invitation to Jim to join this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFK assassination researcher Jim Koepke, the author of "Chasing Ghosts", describes in that book his phone conversation with "Deep Throat". Jim confirmed today, in an email to me, that the man he spoke to was Mark Felt. I have extended an invitation to Jim to join this forum.

I remember reading about Felt as DT some years ago and for the life of me I can't remember why so many ultimately ruled him out as a suspect. Was it because of his denials? Or because Woodstein said DT wasn't FBI or CIA? Or was there some info that DT had that people assumed would have been beyond Felt's reach? Like I said, I went back yesterday and read every reference to Felt I could find in the Watergate books and it seems pretty obvious he's Deep Throat. DT was Woodward's source for the Bremer story and Felt led the early investigation into Bremer, etc. Why wasn't it so obvious before yesterday?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron wrote:

QUOTE(Tim Gratz @ Jun 1 2005, 06:33 AM)

And what possible motive did Nixon have to kill JFK? He was not a mind-reader. JFK could not have run in 1968 had he been re-elected so Nixon would have been running against a non-incumbent.

You must have been the only Republican in the country who didn't fear a Kennedy dynasty. Nixon could bet the ranch, or rather his home in San Clemente, that he would be running against RFK in either 1968 or 1972. It was thought by many, including Nixon I imagine, that the 1960 election was stolen by JFK. Maybe Nixon and/or his backers weren't willing to take the chance of having another election stolen by a Kennedy.

In any case, if Nixon had anything to do with the assassination of JFK, it's safe to assume the same for the RFK hit, since one was a continuation of the other, once Bobby suicidally decided to run.

I still say it would have been better for Nixon to run against a non-incumbent Bobby than to run against a re-election campaign by a popular Lyndon Johnson. I would have to check my history but up until Carter and Bush I, most incumbents were elected to second terms unless caught in a major scandal.

Perhaps you know of incumbent presidents who were not re-elected?

So it would make no political sense for a fellow as tricky as Dick to manuever an uphill battle against an incumbent. Plus face the risk of dying in a Texas electric chair.

I guess I can concede if RN killed JFK he killed RFK since there is no way in hades he killed JFK. So I would ask you to grant me that RN did NOT kill RFK UNLESS he also killed JFK. Besides, is it not now fairly well established that Onassis killed RFK?

QUOTE

With LBJ assuming the presidency in 1963, LBJ had the right to run for a second term in 1968. Nixon had no way to predict how LBJ would destroy himself politically.

There were other ways to destroy LBJ. How to destroy a president was demonstrated in Dallas. Or maybe a deal was made in 1963. You get a full term (and stay out of prison), then it's me. Who knows.

Huh? What did you say? If LBJ had been popular Nixon would have had him killed too? At some point things would start to look rather suspicious when two successive presidents are gunned down. Second, it is your position that LBJ withdrew in 1968 because he and Nixon had made a deal when they became partners in the JFK hit: give Johnson five years and Nixon eight? Somehow I think LBJ was a better bargainer than that. And had LBJ even PROPOSED such a deal to Nixon, he could have become a national hero by simply exposing it.

Remember, Nixon was apparently so cautious he even ordered Maurice Stans not to take any money from H. L. Hunt.

QUOTE

And there is not one scintilla of evidence to link Nixon to any of those assassinations.

Nonsense. Haven't you heard of "the whole Bay of Pigs thing"? Haldeman concluded that Nixon was talking about the JFK hit. Haldeman may have been guessing, but he was certainly in a position to make good guesses. It was Haldeman, after all, whom Helms blew up at (or at whom Helms blew up) when Haldeman conveyed Nixon's BOP message. It appears that between two ruthless, lying crooks Haldeman figured out what the score was.

That one cryptic comment is the evidence (the scintilla, if you will) that Richard Nixon was an assassin? Now he's partners with Helms I guess. He is threatening Helms that unless Helms puts the lid on Watergate, he (Nixon) (and Helms) will be exposed as an assassin? Doesn't make sense to me. You would indict reputation) an American president because of a single interpretation of a cryptic comment by someone who you admit was guessing? Besides, the proof of the puddin' is in the eatin'. When Helms did not put a lid on Watergate, what ultimately came out was the CIA alliance with the Mafia to kill Castro. That was clearly what Nixon was talking about and Helms should have taken his warning (forgetting moral/legal issues, of course, since when did those matter to Helms anyway)?

Haldeman a "good guesser"? Get real, Ron. Haldeman was an idiot. I was a better "guesser" than Haldeman. I knew as a politically astute COLLEGE STUDENT that the Segretti thing would backfire in Nixon's face. Haldeman was stupid enought to risk the election of Nixon on a scheme that involved distributing bogus dinner tickets to starving, stinking bums? What political genius. And forgetting the wisdom and legality of those schemes, to hire DONALD SEGRETTI to pull them off? Go to John's section on Segretti and read Bernstein's reaction when he first met Segretti. It was exactly the same as mine. If I was casting a movie, Segretti would play a Mr Bean bumbling laughable character but they tried to cast him as Jim Phelps, for gosh sakes! So don't indict Nixon on the theory that Haldeman's brain weighed anything close to the brain parts left in JFK's skull (and I hate to use that expression because I do not want to trivilaze the tragedy of what Castro did to JFK--OOOPS!! SORRY!!--what someone did to JFK.

As I said before to someone else, compared to the character assassination on this forum good ol' Tail-gunner Joe looks like a choir boy!

QUOTE

I don't think there is sufficient evidence to link LBJ to JFK's death and I don't really like that happening either, although there is the troublesome issue of the alleged Mac Wallace fingerprint.

There may not be sufficient evidence for a court of law, but the circumstantial evidence is impressive.

So we indict Nixon on the basis of a cryptic remark and LBJ on the basis of a questionable fingerprint that may have been a plant? Ron, you are right about so many historical things that I don't want to sound sarcastic or condescending but if you think that is evidence then I sure am glad you are not a police officer! Any city employing you would fast deplete its treasury in paying for wrongful arrest judgments!

QUOTE

Even though LBJ was clearly a crook, and clearly the political beneficiary of the JFK assassination, in my opinion that is not sufficient evidence to impugn his reputation.

I didn't know that he had a reputation left to impugn. He almost matched his good friend J. Edgar Hoover in having no redeeming quality.

Ron

Ron, his redeeming quality was the civil rights legislation he passed. Our country is so much better off for it. It should have been passed by the party of Lincoln (although it did have strong GOP support, of course). As I said before, at least give the man his due there. And I KNEW he was a crook in 1964 (I think I passed out at least 100 copies of "A Texan Looks at Lyndon". LBJ may have been (probably was) a whoremongering crook. Did he kill JFK? Maybe. But should we accuse him of MURDER with such little evidence (one disputed fingerprint)? No, I think fairness compels us to wait.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, you are right in that there is not a lot of accepted evidence linking LBJ to the murder itself. But there is an astonishing amount of evidence that the Warren Commission was a bogus investigation, and that the Federal Government deliberately interfered with the prosecution of Clay Shaw, and virtually NO ONE beyond yourself can accept that this was done for reasons beyond LBJ's involvement. The Castro-did-it-and-LBJ-was-scared dog don't hunt in anyone's woods but your own. Much as was the case of Richard III, history will record that LBJ was guilty of murder most foul, UNLESS WE, the historians who care about the truth, no matter who is implicated, are able to come up with a theory that makes more sense. As it is, time is running out.

While I sincerely doubt Nixon was directly involved, there is no doubt that he and LBJ had a lot of the same backers, and it's quite possible Nixon knew a lot more about the assassination than he ever told. Did you ever notice how Nixon, who was at heart a Quaker, never once discusses the merits of the Warren Commission in his books, and said in private that he believed it was "the biggest fraud ever perpetuated." This was around the same time he was inviting Jackie, Caroline, and John-John over for dinner. It's also significant that Nixon sought to use Warren and Rankin to investigate Watergate, which he had to know could lead back to him. This indicates he believed they could be controlled, which would seem to indicate he believed the WC was controlled. Haldeman records that he himself was anxious to use the power of the government to dig into the JFK assass, but that Nixon, who disbelieved the WC's conclusions, was nevertheless reticent to look into it. Why? One might reasonably assume that Nixon either knew what happened or was afraid to find out.

The shadow of the Kennedy assassination reaches Nixon and Watergate at many points, and not just in the speculation of Haldeman. One of those points I saw on TV today. Bernard Barker, Frank Sturgis' case officer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, you are right in that there is not a lot of accepted evidence linking LBJ to the murder itself. But there is an astonishing amount of evidence that the Warren Commission was a bogus investigation, and that the Federal Government deliberately interfered with the prosecution of Clay Shaw, and virtually NO ONE beyond yourself can accept that this was done for reasons beyond LBJ's involvement. The Castro-did-it-and-LBJ-was-scared dog don't hunt in anyone's woods but your own. Much as was the case of Richard III, history will record that LBJ was guilty of murder most foul, UNLESS WE, the historians who care about the truth, no matter who is implicated, are able to come up with a theory that makes more sense. As it is, time is running out.

While I sincerely doubt Nixon was directly involved, there is no doubt that he and LBJ had a lot of the same backers, and it's quite possible Nixon knew a lot more about the assassination than he ever told. Did you ever notice how Nixon, who was at heart a Quaker, never once discusses the merits of the Warren Commission in his books, and said in private that he believed it was "the biggest fraud ever perpetuated." This was around the same time he was inviting Jackie, Caroline, and John-John over for dinner. It's also significant that Nixon sought to use Warren and Rankin to investigate Watergate, which he had to know could lead back to him. This indicates he believed they could be controlled, which would seem to indicate he believed the WC was controlled. Haldeman records that he himself was anxious to use the power of the government to dig into the JFK assass, but that Nixon, who disbelieved the WC's conclusions, was nevertheless reticent to look into it. Why? One might reasonably assume that Nixon either knew what happened or was afraid to find out.

The shadow of the Kennedy assassination reaches Nixon and Watergate at many points, and not just in the speculation of Haldeman. One of those points I saw on TV today. Bernard Barker, Frank Sturgis' control agent.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...