Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
61. Me, yes, even if much of the Secret Government is beyond apparent control of the president.
Tue Oct 14, 2014, 04:56 PM
Oct 2014

For those new to the subject:

Nixon approved hiring a Secret Service man who said he'd 'kill on command' to guard Ted Kennedy. You can hear Nixon and Haldeman discuss it, about 40 minutes into the HBO documentary "Nixon by Nixon." While I had read the part of the transcript available years ago, and wrote about it on DU, almost no one I know has heard anything about it.



Ted Kennedy survived Richard Nixon's Plots

By Don Fulsom

In September 1972, Nixon’s continued political fear, personal loathing, and jealously of Kennedy led him to plant a spy in Kennedy’s Secret Service detail.

The mole Nixon selected for the Kennedy camp was already being groomed. He was a former agent from his Nixon’s vice presidential detail, Robert Newbrand—a man so loyal he once pledged he would do anything—even kill—for Nixon.

The President was most interested in learning about the Sen. Kennedy’s sex life. He wanted, more than anything, stated Haldeman in The Ends of Power, to “catch (Kennedy) in the sack with one of his babes.”

In a recently transcribed tape of a September 8, 1972 talk among the President and aides Bob Haldeman and Alexander Butterfield, Nixon asks whether Secret Service chief James Rowley would appoint Newbrand to head Kennedy’s detail:

Haldeman: He's to assign Newbrand.

President Nixon: Does he understand that he's to do that?

Butterfield: He's effectively already done it. And we have a full force assigned, 40 men.

Haldeman: I told them to put a big detail on him (unclear).

President Nixon: A big detail is correct. One that can cover him around the clock, every place he goes. (Laughter obscures mixed voices.)

President Nixon: Right. No, that's really true. He has got to have the same coverage that we give the others, because we're concerned about security and we will not assume the responsibility unless we're with him all the time.

Haldeman: And Amanda Burden (one of Kennedy’s alleged girlfriends) can't be trusted. (Unclear.) You never know what she might do. (Unclear.)

Haldeman then assures the President that Newbrand “will do anything that I tell him to … He really will. And he has come to me twice and absolutely, sincerely said, "With what you've done for me and what the President's done for me, I just want you to know, if you want someone killed, if you want anything else done, any way, any direction …"

President Nixon: The thing that I (unclear) is this: We just might get lucky and catch this son-of-a-bitch and ruin him for '76.

Haldeman: That's right.

President Nixon: He doesn't know what he's really getting into. We're going to cover him, and we are not going to take "no" for an answer. He can't say "no." The Kennedys are arrogant as hell with these Secret Service. He says, "Fine," and (Newbrand) should pick the detail, too.


Toward the end of this conversation, Nixon exclaims that Newbrand’s spying “(is) going to be fun,” and Haldeman responds: “Newbrand will just love it.”

Nixon also had a surveillance tip for Haldeman for his spy-to-be: “I want you to tell Newbrand if you will that (unclear) because he's a Catholic, sort of play it, he was for Jack Kennedy all the time. Play up to Kennedy, that "I'm a great admirer of Jack Kennedy." He's a member of the Holy Name Society. He wears a St. Christopher (unclear).” Haldeman laughs heartily at the President’s curious advice.

Despite the enthusiasm of Nixon and Haldeman, Newbrand apparently never produced anything of great value. When this particular round of Nixon’s spying on Kennedy was uncovered in 1997, The Washington Post quoted Butterfield as saying periodic reports on Kennedy's activities were delivered to Haldeman, but that Butterfield did not think any potentially damaging information was ever dug up.

SOURCE:

http://surftofind.com/tedkennedy



I'm glad you're familiar with this, MontyPow. For everyone else interested in "Why does that matter?" The Warren Commission, and the nation's mass media, never heard about the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro until the Church Committee in 1975. You'd think that would be a matter of concern to all Americans, especially considering how then-vice president Nixon was head of the "White House Action Team" that contacted the Mafia for murder. They might be the same traitors or clowns who investigated Sen. Church himself, merely for serving the People. We don't know for sure as the names are apparently beyond the reach of Congress and the Executive.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Seems the New York Times has done a lot of ''favors'' for CIA. Octafish Oct 2014 #1
Inquiring minded journalists should be asking that very same question! Segami Oct 2014 #2
The corrupt nature of the press is revealed because the People know squat. Octafish Oct 2014 #60
propaganda? BetsysGhost Oct 2014 #64
CIA remains under control of BushInc. No president can crack the inner power circle blm Oct 2014 #10
Just stop it. Stop giving a free pass to the Presidents that should know better. MontyPow Oct 2014 #54
Sorry, but, I know far too much to follow your preferred narrative. blm Oct 2014 #55
So you don't vote for President, I presume. MontyPow Oct 2014 #56
Glad you asked. Unless you've got Top Secret clearance and a numbered Swiss bank account... Octafish Oct 2014 #57
I'm familiar with this information. MontyPow Oct 2014 #59
Me, yes, even if much of the Secret Government is beyond apparent control of the president. Octafish Oct 2014 #61
No, no - Monty is certain that every president controls every part of the CIA. blm Oct 2014 #66
Not what I said. Interesting that you felt the need to pretend I blm Oct 2014 #62
The implication is clear. MontyPow Oct 2014 #63
Inner power circle at CIA...no...couldn't possibly be...would blm Oct 2014 #65
I read your post. I concluded that with such powers there is no point in voting. MontyPow Oct 2014 #67
YOUR 'conclusion' is BS- argue with yourself. blm Oct 2014 #68
Tin foil hats are dangerous to ones health. MontyPow Oct 2014 #77
Yeah - I hear that's what Gary Webb died from - blm Oct 2014 #91
But what about Jack Webb? MontyPow Oct 2014 #95
Dick Cheney's 'just conspiracy theory nuts' club is blm Oct 2014 #96
I have no idea what you are talking about. MontyPow Oct 2014 #99
LOLOL - of COURSE you wouldn't know what I am referencing blm Oct 2014 #100
You are correct, sir. Major Hogwash Oct 2014 #79
Good to see other alert citizens chime in. blm Oct 2014 #90
AND for bush/cheney. calimary Oct 2014 #23
Astute observations. (NT) The Wizard Oct 2014 #29
Thanks for reminding me! navarth Oct 2014 #37
the bush debate wire. mopinko Oct 2014 #47
The Emperor's New Hump Octafish Oct 2014 #80
a cheater is a cheater. mopinko Oct 2014 #82
When is it appropriate for reporters/editors to engage in prior restraint? exboyfil Oct 2014 #3
These days that info would lead the nightly news. Its sad. 7962 Oct 2014 #74
Bingo--that's the real rub Supersedeas Oct 2014 #92
Remember how in the movies CJCRANE Oct 2014 #4
Did you have "Condor" in mind? Eleanors38 Oct 2014 #48
You mean this? KansDem Oct 2014 #52
That's the one. "You're about to become a very lonely man." Eleanors38 Oct 2014 #93
Or, in reality, the Washington Post? WinkyDink Oct 2014 #50
Off to the greatest page for you malaise Oct 2014 #5
"revealing the CIA’s failed attempt to hinder Iran’s nuclear program" bananas Oct 2014 #6
Good interview on Terry Gross today erronis Oct 2014 #76
The Intercept :James Risen’s new book on war-on-terror abuses comes out tomorrow Ichingcarpenter Oct 2014 #7
Thanks! Segami Oct 2014 #8
The Times was busy publishing Libby exclusives. n/t Orsino Oct 2014 #9
And NYT's reporter Judith Miller helped shovel their dung. Segami Oct 2014 #13
Smells like Cheney to me. Frustratedlady Oct 2014 #11
Kicked and recommended! Enthusiast Oct 2014 #12
she regrets it now??? heaven05 Oct 2014 #14
That's embarrassing. aikoaiko Oct 2014 #15
And, to this very fucking day, anyone who disagrees with the Official Government Handout about djean111 Oct 2014 #16
word. KG Oct 2014 #19
Yup. truebrit71 Oct 2014 #21
Careful, there - I don't think being a Progressive is desired in the New Democratic Party any more. djean111 Oct 2014 #32
Or at least marginalize them but keep them around for voting purposes. < They may have screwed jtuck004 Oct 2014 #87
+1 valerief Oct 2014 #40
Risen was on Democracy Now! this morning deutsey Oct 2014 #17
The last line in "Three Days of the Condor" (1975): Eleanors38 Oct 2014 #42
merely ya say Supersedeas Oct 2014 #94
K & R mountain grammy Oct 2014 #18
I'm sure the Times regrets a lot of decisions gratuitous Oct 2014 #35
+ several thousand. nt navarth Oct 2014 #38
+ Fucking infinity! (no text) KingCharlemagne Oct 2014 #85
K&R ReRe Oct 2014 #20
I bet THAT would make one helluva book! truebrit71 Oct 2014 #22
I'd buy it, too! ReRe Oct 2014 #26
oh the white privilege of complaining after the fact...shouldn't this meeting have been part of the Supersedeas Oct 2014 #24
Jesus H Christ, you manage to put "white privilege" into THIS story? 7962 Oct 2014 #75
Now you know why I was shocked to hear that the White House had a direct link to Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #25
Russert's sell out was obvious The Wizard Oct 2014 #31
When did you find that out? Major Hogwash Oct 2014 #81
complicit media. our democracy is in real trouble. spanone Oct 2014 #27
+ a bazillion SoapBox Oct 2014 #30
+ and another. navarth Oct 2014 #39
And she's free to ask all she wants. name not needed Oct 2014 #28
So why would she capitulate? Either her patriotism got the best of her or she felt threatened. rhett o rick Oct 2014 #34
Anthrax anyone? nt valerief Oct 2014 #41
And Abramson is effectively conceding here that she failed at her job. closeupready Oct 2014 #45
And not too long ago the Times faced a major shitstorm for firing her. name not needed Oct 2014 #46
Corporate news cries crocodile tears, Rex not moved or convinced. Rex Oct 2014 #33
They have indeed established a pattern of collusion with the Agency: Maedhros Oct 2014 #69
K&R for the original post and subsequent informative posts and links. JEB Oct 2014 #36
JFK assassination: CIA and New York Times are still lying to us Octafish Oct 2014 #53
I am sure that is not the first time that happened bigwillq Oct 2014 #43
What kind of people still look to the Times as truth-tellers? closeupready Oct 2014 #44
I thought the more shocking piece of the report Calista241 Oct 2014 #49
And now Kindasleazy is picking football teams to play for national championship. liberal N proud Oct 2014 #51
To the Greatest Page woo me with science Oct 2014 #58
"in the calculus of all of the major stories we were dealing with" Rose Siding Oct 2014 #70
Kick for an extraordinary thread! Bookmarked for all the excellent information here. scarletwoman Oct 2014 #71
lol - if Risen had published an expose of our current administration's fuckups, you can just whereisjustice Oct 2014 #72
I have no problem with that at ALL. 7962 Oct 2014 #73
Greenwald and Timm should be all over this... Blue_Tires Oct 2014 #78
Wrong.... His website also broke this story Ichingcarpenter Oct 2014 #89
I only go by what I see Greenwald talking about on twitter Blue_Tires Oct 2014 #98
So, this didn't air on Sunday night and can only be found online. SleeplessinSoCal Oct 2014 #83
K&R. JDPriestly Oct 2014 #84
Translation: I regret that I was and am a tool. As the Church Lady might say, KingCharlemagne Oct 2014 #86
This kind of thing probably happens much more than we would prefer to believe. merrily Oct 2014 #88
In an interview with 60 Minutes that Ended Up Online? MinM Oct 2014 #97
Yep - Corpmedia. BushInc sez JUMP! and corpmedia sez HOW HIGH? blm Oct 2014 #101
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Jill Abramson: CONDI RICE...»Reply #61