Richard Nixon and the Kennedy Assassination.

[Lynne Foster]

Mat Wilson's article makes a great deal of sense and sheds a great deal of insight into a typical plot that involved members both in and out of government -making it practically impossible to produce a reliable, "official" record, to expose the operation. This memo dated January 12, 1971, from Charles W. Colson to George Ball, is quite interesting:

"Put in a request immediately for Mr. and Mrs. Howard Hunt, Witches Island, Potomac, to be afterdinner guests at the dinner for Juan Carlos. Hunt was the head of all our intelligence operations in Spain. His wife is presently the Spanish Ambassador's secretary. Howard is a staunch Republican who is now in the PR business on the outside and is beginning to take on a number of special assignments for us of a very sensitive nature. It is very important politically that we let him know that he is in the family and this happens to be a unique occasion as far as he and his wife are concerned."

I do not think that Mat Wilson went far enough in his expose of the Nixon/Hunt relationship. I mean, this transcript of a recorded meeting with Nixon and Haldeman in the Oval office on June 23, 1972 is incredible:

Nixon: ...very bad to have this fellow Hunt, ah, you know, ah, it's, he, he knows too damn much and he was involved, we happen to know that. And that it gets out that the whole, this is all involved in the Cuban thing, that it's a fiasco, and it's going to make the FB-ah, CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and its likely to blow the whole, uh, Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be very unfortunate for the CIA and for the country at this time, and for American foreign policy, and he just better tough it and lay it on them Isn't that what you

[Pat Speer]

Mat Wilson's article makes a great deal of sense and sheds a great deal of insight into a typical plot that involved members both in and out of government -making it practically impossible to produce a reliable, "official" record, to expose the operation. This memo dated January 12, 1971, from Charles W. Colson to George Ball, is quite interesting:

"Put in a request immediately for Mr. and Mrs. Howard Hunt, Witches Island, Potomac, to be afterdinner guests at the dinner for Juan Carlos. Hunt was the head of all our intelligence operations in Spain. His wife is presently the Spanish Ambassador's secretary. Howard is a staunch Republican who is now in the PR business on the outside and is beginning to take on a number of special assignments for us of a very sensitive nature. It is very important politically that we let him know that he is in the family and this happens to be a unique occasion as far as he and his wife are concerned."

I do not think that Mat Wilson went far enough in his expose of the Nixon/Hunt relationship. I mean, this transcript of a recorded meeting with Nixon and Haldeman in the Oval office on June 23, 1972 is incredible:

Nixon: ...very bad to have this fellow Hunt, ah, you know, ah, it's, he, he knows too damn much and he was involved, we happen to know that. And that it gets out that the whole, this is all involved in the Cuban thing, that it's a fiasco, and it's going to make the FB-ah, CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and its likely to blow the whole, uh, Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be very unfortunate for the CIA and for the country at this time, and for American foreign policy, and he just better tough it and lay it on them Isn't that what you

Lynne, it's not so much your views that are upsetting people. It's just that you're kind of like a an over-eager bull in a china shop. Most of the people here have been discussing this information for years. The transcript you described as "incredible" is in fact what is known as 'the smoking gun tape." Why? Because it was that little passage you cited where Nixon talks about Hunt that led to his resignation. When the power behind the Republican party, including Barry Goldwater and George Bush, read that transcript, it was bye-bye Nixon. No way did they want an impeachment trial where he would have to explain what he meant by the "Bay of Pigs" thing. No way did they want him to explain why he was blackmailing the CIA. Probably every person here has read this passage and has analyzed its every word. Tim Carroll created an online seminar last year called "The Bay of Pigs Thing" in which he tracked down the links between Watergate and the Assassination.

I do agree that the memo on Hunt is significant. If you look at the date of Colson's memo, it was several months before Hunt was officially hired by the White House. What were these "special assignments" Colson referred to? One of them most logically involved buttering up Howard Hughes, the biggest client of the PR firm where Hunt worked. But what were the others? Was Hunt digging dirt up on Ted Kennedy BEFORE he was even working at the White House? Maybe you can contact Colson and find out?

[Mark Knight]

When examined from a distance, it CAN be argued that the one man who was a political beneficiary of the assassinations of JFK, MLKjr, RFK, as well as Chappaquiddick and the shooting of George Wallace was Richard Nixon. However, the only evidence of Nixon's involvement in any of these events is the George Wallace shooting...and that evidence is not totally incriminating. Nixon's tapes show that he WANTED to be involved in the Wallace caper, at least immediately after the fact.

Nixon was a vindictive man; forgiveness wasn't in his nature. And JFK was the person who made Nixon a "loser" in 1960. In fact, Nixon's 1962 defeat in the California gubernatorial race could, to a degree, be credited to the "loser" tag that had adhered to Nixon after the '60 presidential election. A brooding Nixon was probably very delighted, privately, by JFK's assassination. But the actual EVIDENCE that Nixon participated at any level in any conspiracy to assassinate JFK is simply lacking.

Martin Luther King Jr. was more than a social force in 1968; he was becoming a political force, His presence in Memphis in support of the sanitation workers' strike, and the accompanying news coverage, showed the nation that blacks--many of whom were to vote in their first presidential elections thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965--were eager to follow this charismatic black leader. And King's politics were primarily those of the Democratic Party [exception being his opposition to the Vietnam war]. With King's assassination, the primary leader of the black community was gone.

Nixon's hatred of the Kennedy family is evidenced on the White House tapes, as the word "Kennedys" is usually preceded by the words "those goddamned" more often than not. As a relative latecomer to the '68 presidential campaign, Bobby Kennedy's election in '68 was anything but sure. In fact, after the California primary, RFK still didn't have enough delegates to win the nomination, although the momentum favored Kennedy. Upon Kennedy's assassination, Democratic frontrunner Eugene McCarthy's campaign all but closed up shop as well, and the less-than-charismatic Hubert Humphrey became the Democratic nominee. Less-than enthusiastic Democrat voters then failed to warm to Humphrey, and Nixon won the White House.

Had JFK lived, it's probable that he would have defeated Goldwater in '64. It's also probable that, whether or not the JFK assassination had occurred, Bobby Kennedy would have been elected in '68, had he won the nomination. And had Martin Luther King Jr. lived through the '68 election, it's almost certain that he would've encouraged black first-time voters to support a Democrat anti-war candidate such as either RFK or McCarthy. All of these fact-based assumptions lead us to the inescapable conclusion that the primary political beneficiary of all three assassinations, when considered together, was not LBJ but Richard Nixon.

But there just isn't sufficient evidence that Nixon was behind any of them. This isn't to say that I don't think Nixon's guilty; but over the past 30 years, I have been unable to find evidence that links Nixon to the acts themselves. Therefore, while I can raise the question about Nixon's involvement, I can't prove it. Therefore, it would be unfair--and WRONG-- to claim it as fact. If, one great day, mankind is priveleged to know the whole truth about such things, I'd wager that I'll be vindicated in the above scenario. But in the absence of FACTS, I only have suspicions.

And suspicions prove NOTHING, Lynne.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Mark Knight

[Len Colby]

When examined from a distance, it CAN be argued that the one man who was a political beneficiary of the assassinations of JFK, MLKjr, RFK, as well as Chappaquiddick and the shooting of George Wallace was Richard Nixon.

Mark I gotta agree with Tim on one point. JFK's assassination was detrimental to Nixon's presidential ambitions

[Lynne Foster]

Mat Wilson's article makes a great deal of sense and sheds a great deal of insight into a typical plot that involved members both in and out of government -making it practically impossible to produce a reliable, "official" record, to expose the operation. This memo dated January 12, 1971, from Charles W. Colson to George Ball, is quite interesting:

"Put in a request immediately for Mr. and Mrs. Howard Hunt, Witches Island, Potomac, to be afterdinner guests at the dinner for Juan Carlos. Hunt was the head of all our intelligence operations in Spain. His wife is presently the Spanish Ambassador's secretary. Howard is a staunch Republican who is now in the PR business on the outside and is beginning to take on a number of special assignments for us of a very sensitive nature. It is very important politically that we let him know that he is in the family and this happens to be a unique occasion as far as he and his wife are concerned."

I do not think that Mat Wilson went far enough in his expose of the Nixon/Hunt relationship. I mean, this transcript of a recorded meeting with Nixon and Haldeman in the Oval office on June 23, 1972 is incredible:

Nixon: ...very bad to have this fellow Hunt, ah, you know, ah, it's, he, he knows too damn much and he was involved, we happen to know that. And that it gets out that the whole, this is all involved in the Cuban thing, that it's a fiasco, and it's going to make the FB-ah, CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and its likely to blow the whole, uh, Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be very unfortunate for the CIA and for the country at this time, and for American foreign policy, and he just better tough it and lay it on them Isn't that what you

Lynne, it's not so much your views that are upsetting people. It's just that you're kind of like a an over-eager bull in a china shop. Most of the people here have been discussing this information for years. The transcript you described as "incredible" is in fact what is known as 'the smoking gun tape." Why? Because it was that little passage you cited where Nixon talks about Hunt that led to his resignation. When the power behind the Republican party, including Barry Goldwater and George Bush, read that transcript, it was bye-bye Nixon. No way did they want an impeachment trial where he would have to explain what he meant by the "Bay of Pigs" thing. No way did they want him to explain why he was blackmailing the CIA. Probably every person here has read this passage and has analyzed its every word. Tim Carroll created an online seminar last year called "The Bay of Pigs Thing" in which he tracked down the links between Watergate and the Assassination.

I do agree that the memo on Hunt is significant. If you look at the date of Colson's memo, it was several months before Hunt was officially hired by the White House. What were these "special assignments" Colson referred to? One of them most logically involved buttering up Howard Hughes, the biggest client of the PR firm where Hunt worked. But what were the others? Was Hunt digging dirt up on Ted Kennedy BEFORE he was even working at the White House? Maybe you can contact Colson and find out?

"smoking gun tape" is a good way to describe it. Thanks for the info, I just wish that others were as helpful.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Ron Ecker]

It was the same powers that be behind all these assassinations. Nixon benefited from the killings because of the political position he was in at the time. He didn't have to kill anybody, though I do think he may have had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination and was in Dallas that morning as a show of moral support for the conspirators and not to sell Pepsi Cola or (try to) make out with Joan Crawford.

[Lynne Foster]

It was the same powers that be behind all these assassinations. Nixon benefited from the killings because of the political position he was in at the time. He didn't have to kill anybody, though I do think he may have had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination and was in Dallas that morning as a show of moral support for the conspirators and not to sell Pepsi Cola or (try to) make out with Joan Crawford.

Thanks for that insight Ron, I thought I was on to original research here.

[Len Colby]

Lynne, it's not so much your views that are upsetting people. It's just that you're kind of like a an over-eager bull in a china shop. Most of the people here have been discussing this information for years. The transcript you described as "incredible" is in fact what is known as 'the smoking gun tape." Why? Because it was that little passage you cited where Nixon talks about Hunt that led to his resignation. When the power behind the Republican party, including Barry Goldwater and George Bush, read that transcript, it was bye-bye Nixon. No way did they want an impeachment trial where he would have to explain what he meant by the "Bay of Pigs" thing. No way did they want him to explain why he was blackmailing the CIA.

Pat - I didn't see anything in that excert about blackmailing the CIA. What documentaion is there supoorting the idea that Goldwater and Bush pushed Nixon because of that quote? I doubt Bush was much of power in the party he couldn't even get the nomination.

[Lynne Foster]

Lynne, it's not so much your views that are upsetting people. It's just that you're kind of like a an over-eager bull in a china shop. Most of the people here have been discussing this information for years. The transcript you described as "incredible" is in fact what is known as 'the smoking gun tape." Why? Because it was that little passage you cited where Nixon talks about Hunt that led to his resignation. When the power behind the Republican party, including Barry Goldwater and George Bush, read that transcript, it was bye-bye Nixon. No way did they want an impeachment trial where he would have to explain what he meant by the "Bay of Pigs" thing. No way did they want him to explain why he was blackmailing the CIA.

Pat - I didn't see anything in that excert about blackmailing the CIA. What documentaion is there supoorting the idea that Goldwater and Bush pushed Nixon because of that quote? I doubt Bush was much of power in the party he couldn't even get the nomination.

Howard Hunt had worked for the CIA and the blackmail is by association, more than by direct involvement.

[Mark Knight]

Mark I gotta agree with Tim on one point. JFK's assassination was detrimental to Nixon's presidential ambitions

Len, in the context of 1964, I have to agree. But in the context of 1968, the memory of JFK was of the legend, of Camelot, and not of Kennedy's razor-thin victory over Nixon. Had JFK lived, Nixon's re-emergence on the political scene as a candidate in 1968 would have conjured up memories and newspaper mentions of how Nixon had lost to Kennedy in '60 [active case, as in "had lost", rather than passive case, as in "had been defeated", is the preferred form in journalism]. While subtle, such references tend to tint public perceptions. And in the '60's, many were passionate about Nixon in a negative way[including my father]. Dad thought Harry Truman had pegged Nixon when he said, "He's a shift-eyed, lying son of a bitch, and everybody knows it." It just took Watergate for the rest of the country to discover what Truman was talking about.

In the context of '64, the JFK assassination had no asset value to Nixon; but over the long term, it was perhaps THE turning point in Nixon's political career.

[Len Colby]

Mark I gotta agree with Tim on one point. JFK's assassination was detrimental to Nixon's presidential ambitions

Len, in the context of 1964, I have to agree. But in the context of 1968, the memory of JFK was of the legend, of Camelot, and not of Kennedy's razor-thin victory over Nixon. Had JFK lived, Nixon's re-emergence on the political scene as a candidate in 1968 would have conjured up memories and newspaper mentions of how Nixon had lost to Kennedy in '60 [active case, as in "had lost", rather than passive case, as in "had been defeated", is the preferred form in journalism]. While subtle, such references tend to tint public perceptions. And in the '60's, many were passionate about Nixon in a negative way[including my father]. Dad thought Harry Truman had pegged Nixon when he said, "He's a shift-eyed, lying son of a bitch, and everybody knows it." It just took Watergate for the rest of the country to discover what Truman was talking about.

In the context of '64, the JFK assassination had no asset value to Nixon; but over the long term, it was perhaps THE turning point in Nixon's political career.

Mark you are contradicting yourself. Nixon would have had a easier time against a non-incumbant than LBJ is the war hadn't become so unpopular, something unforseeable in 1963.

You could argue he wouldn't have been elected in '68 if JFK had lived but I don't think the evidence supportys that and he couldn't have known it five years earlier.

[Lynne Foster]

When examined from a distance, it CAN be argued that the one man who was a political beneficiary of the assassinations of JFK, MLKjr, RFK, as well as Chappaquiddick and the shooting of George Wallace was Richard Nixon.

Mark I gotta agree with Tim on one point. JFK's assassination was detrimental to Nixon's presidential ambitions

Len, that is a very silly, political statement you are making. Political views get in the way of exposing the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

If you believe that John F. Kennedy denied Richard Nixon the opportunity to screw up American foreign policy in 1960, then what you say [JFK's assassination was detrimental to Nixon's presidential ambitions]

sounds like it is an absolutely stupid statement.

If, on the other hand, you believe [as the smoking gun tape strongly suggests] that exposing the truth about the Kennedy assassination is a detriment to American foreign policy, then you are likely to deceive yourself, for the sake up maintaining your American, foreign policy views.

I am more interested in the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy than in your political views.

[Len Colby]

When examined from a distance, it CAN be argued that the one man who was a political beneficiary of the assassinations of JFK, MLKjr, RFK, as well as Chappaquiddick and the shooting of George Wallace was Richard Nixon.

Mark I gotta agree with Tim on one point. JFK's assassination was detrimental to Nixon's presidential ambitions

Len, that is a very silly, political statement you are making. Political views get in the way of exposing the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

If you believe that John F. Kennedy denied Richard Nixon the opportunity to screw up American foreign policy in 1960, then what you say [JFK's assassination was detrimental to Nixon's presidential ambitions]

sounds like it is an absolutely stupid statement.

If, on the other hand, you believe [as the smoking gun tape strongly suggests] that exposing the truth about the Kennedy assassination is a detriment to American foreign policy, then you are likely to deceive yourself, for the sake up maintaining your American, foreign policy views.

I am more interested in the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy than in your political views.

Lynne you seem to have rading comprehension problems. Nowhere did I say I support Nixon quite the contrary. The question is wether or not knowing what was known in 1963 if the assassination of JFK would have been expected to increase or decrease Nixon's chances of getting elected in 64 or 68.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Len Colby

[Lynne Foster]

When examined from a distance, it CAN be argued that the one man who was a political beneficiary of the assassinations of JFK, MLKjr, RFK, as well as Chappaquiddick and the shooting of George Wallace was Richard Nixon.

Mark I gotta agree with Tim on one point. JFK's assassination was detrimental to Nixon's presidential ambitions

Len, that is a very silly, political statement you are making. Political views get in the way of exposing the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

If you believe that John F. Kennedy denied Richard Nixon the opportunity to screw up American foreign policy in 1960, then what you say [JFK's assassination was detrimental to Nixon's presidential ambitions]

sounds like it is an absolutely stupid statement.

If, on the other hand, you believe [as the smoking gun tape strongly suggests] that exposing the truth about the Kennedy assassination is a detriment to American foreign policy, then you are likely to deceive yourself, for the sake up maintaining your American, foreign policy views.

I am more interested in the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy than in your political views.

Lynne you seem to have rading comprehension problems. Nowhere did I say I support Nixon quite the contrary. The question is wether or not knowing what was known in 1963 if the assassination of JFK would have been expected to increase or decrease Nixon's chances of getting elected in 64 or 68.

Nixon was all about power and control, whether in or out of the White House.

If Nixon thought that the murder of the president was detrimental to his political interests, he would have warned President John F. Kennedy.

It's really that simple.

[Ron Ecker]

Len,

I don't think there is any question that the JFK assassination benefited Nixon and every other Republican. They were faced with the prospect of a Kennedy dynasty (John, Robert, and Ted). Nixon had to write off 1964 in any case. Goldwater was to be the nominee. In the unlikely prospect that Goldwater won in 1964, then ran for reelection, Nixon's year would be 1972. But Goldwater was bound to lose in 1964, so Nixon could count on 1968 as being his year. He could run against LBJ in 1968 with some secret plan to end the Vietnam War. But LBJ made it easy for Nixon by not running for reelection. I don't think Nixon or the powers that be had any idea that Robert would be stupid enough to run for president in 1968 or any other time, but they were wrong. But not as wrong as Robert.

Ron

Edited November 14, 2005 by Ron Ecker