How Helms Supposedly Learned About the "Break-In"

[Ashton Gray]

Third in a series on "Helms the Perverse Perjurer, which currently contains the following other articles:

Helms Directed CIA to Supply Hunt Helms the Perverse Perjurer Series #1
White House "Request" for CIA Help Was a Helms Con Helms the Perverse Perjurer Series #2

If there's ever been a lower form of two-faced, dissolute, double-dealing, morally dead, depraved vermin as Richard McGarrah Helms walking around the world masquerading as a human being, I hope nobody every alerts me to the fact.

And now here is this lie-machine in a tailored suit giving his account in his "autobiography" of how he supposedly learned about the Watergate "arrests." As you read the first sentence, please keep in mind that according to official accounts (well, most of them), the "arrests" didn't start until 2:30 in the morning. Although Helms doesn't give any exact time for his absurd claims below, it can't possibly be until after 3:00 a.m. But here's his story. See if you can choke it down:

• As CIA Director Richard Helms is "preparing for bed, Saturday, June 17, 1972," he gets a call from CIA Chief of Security Howard Osborn [sic—elsewhere "Osborne"] informing Helms that "District police" have picked up five men in a break-in at Democratic Party National Headquarters at the Watergate. Helms is informed that James McCord is one of the ones arrested, along with "four Cubans." But then Osborn also allegedly tells Helms that "Howard Hunt also seems to be involved in some way."
  Helms purportedly asks Osborn: "Is there any indication that we could be involved in this?" and is told "None whatsoever."
  Next, "still sitting on the edge of the bed," Helms places a call to Acting Director of the FBI L. Patrick Gray. In Helms's own words:
  "It took a few more minutes than usual for the ever-efficient White House switchboard to locate Gray in a Los Angeles hotel room.
  "Gray said that he had been informed of the break-in, but had no details. I filled him in as much as I could and assured him that, despite the background of the apparent perpetrators, CIA had nothing to do with the break-in. I added that I couldn't imagine what anyone could hope to gain by breaking into those offices. Gray listened politely but had little to say.
  "'You might want to look into the relationship of John Ehrlichman, the President's domestic policy advisor, with McCord and Hunt,' I said. 'He'll be familiar with the circumstances in which Howard Hunt was hired for work at the White House and with McCord's job on the Committee to Re-elect the President as well.' Gray remained unresponsive. After repeating my assurance that CIA was not involved with any of the break-in group, I put the phone down."
  

The mind simply reels with the internal contradictions just in the account above, alone. First, we're supposed to believe that Helms is "preparing for bed" at 3:00 in the morning." Next, we're supposed to believe that by this time, police have already found the "connection" to E. Howard Hunt in an address books belonging to Bernard Barker and Eugenio Martinez. But according to the Washington Post, those items weren't found by investigators until in the afternoon of 17 June 1972.

These arrogant, criminal CIA scum are constitutionally incapable of forming a sentence without it containing a lie.

But you ain't seen nothing yet.

Here, now, is the same diseased rat's "sworn testimony" before Congress about how he supposedly learned about the "arrests," this "testimony" coming less than a year after arguably the most scandalous and sensational event in U.S. political history:

• DAVID DORSON: [Mr.] Helms, I'd like now to direct your attention to June of 1972 and ask you when, for the first time, did you hear of the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate?
  RICHARD HELMS: It's my impression that I heard about it— read about it in the newspapers or heard it on the radio. But, uh— [Pause] This is not any lapse of memory, this is just one of those things, that, uh, this far— this far back, it's hard to know just exactly who might have told me or how I might have heard it. It certainly was big news from the moment it happened.
  DAVID DORSON: And during the days immediately following the break-in, were there conversations at the CIA concerning the break-in?
  RICHARD HELMS: Yes. In the first place, sometime on that weekend I received a telephone call from Mr. Howard Osborne, the Director of Security [of CIA], to inform me that— uh, of the names of the individuals who had participated in the break-in, and also to say that Mr. Hunt, in some fashion, was connected with it. Mr. Osborne's call to me was a perfectly routine matter. It was a charge on him as Director of Security [of CIA] to inform me whenever anybody in the Agency [CIA] got in any kind of trouble, whether they're present employees or past employees—in other words, right now—so that I didn't have to catch up with these events like suicides, and house break-ins, and rapes, and the various things that happen to the employees of any organization in a city like Washington. So this was a perfectly routine thing, and when he heard about these ex-CIA people who had been involved in this burglary, he called me up and notified me about it. On Monday, when I came to the office, there'd been no mention in the papers of Mr. Hunt. So I got ahold of Mr. Osborne and said, "How come you told me that Mr. Hunt was involved with this?" And he said, "Well, there were some papers found in the hotel room, or one of the hotel rooms, with Hunt's name on it, and it looks as though he was somewhere in the area when the break-in took place." So I said, "All right." And then, from then on, obviously, there were various conversations in the Agency [CIA] as we went to work on various requests from the FBI for information about the people—and their background and so forth—that had formerly been employed by the Agency [CIA].
  

I won't even bother trying to catalog the lies and contradictions. Anybody who can't see them at this point wouldn't understand them if explained.

Ashton Gray

Edited July 13, 2006 by Ashton Gray