Maverick Jack Anderson was also a target of assassination by the Nixon Watergate "Plumbers". From Wikipedia: In 1972 Anderson was the target of an assassination plot in the White House. Two Nixon administration conspirators admitted under oath they plotted to poison Anderson on orders from senior White House aide Charles (Chuck) Colson. White House "plumbers" G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt met with a CIA operative to discuss the possibilities, including drugging Anderson with LSD, poisoning his aspirin bottle, or staging a fatal mugging. The plot was aborted when the plotters were arrested for the Watergate break-in. Nixon had long been angry with Anderson, blaming Anderson's election eve story about a secret loan from Howard Hughes to Nixon's brother for Nixon's loss of the 1960 presidential election. http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1972/1101720403_400.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDbodTKnTjc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Anderson_(columnist)
Very interesting, these people were a huge part of the assassination of JFK. It is also likely Watergate was a set-up to get Nixon out of office as he was refusing to dance to their tune, they deliberately got caught and left evidence linking it back to the Oval Office. That's why Hunt was paid millions of dollars in jail, he was threatening to tell all that was hush money. His wife then died in a plane crash, which he believed was a warning to him. She was carrying a lot of money at the time too. The famous phonecalls and conversations where Nixon referred to 'the whole Bay of Pigs thing' it is believed that was code for the Kennedy assassination, the Watergate burglars were involved and could have exposed the whole thing after they were caught. If you listen to the conversations with that in mind they make much more sense.
All of which is pure speculation without a shred of supporting evidence. There is nothing what so ever to make what you claim likely. - - - Updated - - - None of which is remotely relevant to the Kennedy assassination. Funny how they could not successfully stage a hotel burglary but you suspect they assassinated Kennedy without leaving any evidence.
You got that right, buddy. Again from the Wikipedia entry for Howard Hunt: A few days after the break-in, Nixon was recorded saying, to H. R. Haldeman, "This fellow Hunt, he knows too damn much." "[V]ery 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 FBI, ah CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and it's likely to blow the whole, uh, Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be very unfortunate for CIA and for the country at this time, and for American foreign policy, and he just better tough it and lay it on them." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt BTW, have you checked out Mark Lane's Plausible Denial. Well, Lane makes some spectacular discoveries there with the help and testimony of Castro's mistress Marita Lorenz. I think he blew the case wide open!
I read this in Dirty Truths by Michael Parenti: In 1978, former Nixon aide and Watergate felon Harry Haldeman published his autobiography The Ends of Power. In the book he disclosed information on the assassination of John F. Kennedy: "After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic cover-up. The CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA... in fact, Counter intelligence Chief James Angleton of the CIA called Bill Sullivan of the FBI and rehearsed the questions and answers they would give to the Warren Commission investigators."
So there is no evidence that any of this happened. Just one person's assertion which includes a claim that the evidence was erased so no connection can be made. This is why conspiracy theorists always fail they have NO evidence. Yet they claim they still have a valid claim
Apparently you missed the point. They are too incompetent to burglarize a hotel but competent enough to pull off a murder conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of people without leavinv one piece of evidence. That is a contradiction in logic.
That was not the first time they (i.e. the CIA) demonstrated their incompetence and it won't be the last For example, the Bay of Pigs episode was a complete fiasco and the CIA was heavily involved. How's that for incompetence! The Contra war against Nicaragua also demonstrated CIA incompetence. All that money, firepower and manpower and the CIA and their surrogates could not even conquer one single village, town or city in Nicaragua. How about Iraq??? Complete and utter fiasco! With a trillion dollar military budget we can't defeat some jihadists running around in sandals carrying light arms. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! However we should not underestimate them either. They have also done some vicious things and have overthrown foreign government our leaders don't like and they have set up death squads, made war, etc.
The fiascos were discovered because you cannot keep such things under wraps. SOmeone always talks and evidence is always uncovered. On the other hand you wish to believe that in the case of JFK hundreds if not thousands were involved in the crime of the century and no one talked and no evidence has been found. That is simply stupid ad not plausible.
Do you know about Daniel Ellsberg and how the Nixon administration targeted him with Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy and other CIA "plumbers"?? Ellsberg was responsible for the "leak" of The Pentagon Papers --- a famous case which went all the way to the Supreme Court and involved The New York Times attempt to publish portions of the Pentagon Papers so the public could read it. They were planning to "silence" Ellsberg with all the connotations associated with the word. http://www.anglonautes.eu/history/h...m_opponents_cov_time_ellsberg_daniel_1971.jpg http://www.hulu.com/watch/337497 http://www.pbs.org/pov/mostdangerousman/chat.php http://bustedhalo.com/features/busted-daniel-ellsberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers BH: The Nixon administration also apparently had wanted to incapacitate you physically as well. Is that true? DE: It wasn’t enough because Nixon wasn’t sure I would get that sentence for legal reasons, which are too complicated to go on here, He wanted to be sure I didn’t put out documents that were more current on his own administration and to keep me from doing that, he took domestic crimes, or things that were then still domestic crimes, some of them are legal under the Patriot Act now, like warrant-less searches of my former psychoanalyst’s office or warrant-less wiretapping on which I was overheard. The latter of course Bush has been taking part in, he’s been pursuing for the last four years and the searches are allowed under the Patriot Act. But [Nixon] also set out to have me beaten up or possibly killed on the steps of the Capitol May 3, 1972. When these crimes became known—which wasn’t certain at all what would happen—and they became known largely through John Dean, [Nixon] himself then was faced with prosecution or first impeachment and that led to his resignation. So on the one hand, the most important effect of that was it made the war endable with Nixon out of power. I think he would have defied the congressional cut-off of funding. President Ford did obey and I think Nixon would not have obeyed. Just like Reagan, he would have just ignored it.
Wrong again, Nazi. People have talked. You're just not paying attention. How about a senior CIA agent writing a book on how he participated in the Kennedy assassination: http://www.amazon.com/First-Hand-Knowledge-Participated-CIA-Mafia/dp/1561711799 How about Howard Hunt deathbed confession: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvLTAJa5zAU https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=howad+hunt+confession Nazi, No soup for you. Bye Bye
Noboday has talked. The book you refer to is a work of fiction with ZERO corroborating evidence. There are literally hundreds of such books. Howard Hunt merely babbled on his death bed while delirious again not one speck of evidence supports his so called confession and much disputes it. Literally over one hundred such people have claimed to be the OTHER assassin. There is no evidence of any of this. No one has talked and no evidence has been found to support any such claim. If there was a conspiracy it had to involve hundreds if not thousands of people and such secrets cannot be kep. In this case you actually believe that this one has
That's a perfect example of how it works. Many people have talked...and no one believes them. By the way...look into Lamar Hunt's book about the mafia/CIA connection. He doesn't get into the nitty gritty stuff about who pulled what trigger, but rather who orchestrated it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and none of the people talking have any evidence for their claim which is why no one believes them. They have no credibility and the evidence proves them wrong
There are FBI tapes of Marcello making a jail house confession. Of course nothing will satisfy deniers like you. No matter how many people talked...you'll keep repeating that no one did.
There are tapes of HUNDREDS of people making confessions but you cannot produce a SPECK of evidence supporting ANY of them. It is common for people to lie and dream up grandiose tales about such things yet you selectively believe which ever one sounds best. This is worthless evidence
Trafficante also confessed to his lawyer Frank Ragano detailed in his book Mob Lawyer. Trafficante-- dying of heart and kidney disease--- told Ragano,"Carlos [Marcello] f---ed up. We should not have killed Giovanni [Italian for John]. We should have killed Bobby." Check this documentary ... Really ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOXfiVsv4Ns
