Tag Archives: JFK Assassination

Ex-Chief Of Mossad Says World Better Not Pry Into Who They Assassinate And Pull Trigger On

World better not pry into how we decide to pull trigger on someone – ex-chief of Mossad

By Jim W. Dean, Managing Editor Veterans Today

Ex-Mossad Efraim Halevy
Ex-Mossad Efraim Halevy

… from Russia Today, Moscow

[ Editor’s Note: It’s always a treat to get an interview with these ex-Mossad chief’s as they have a history of being very outspoken, which we rarely see among the Western ones. The only thing we get better than this is something like the rare gem The Gatekeepers amazing documentary where the filmmaker Dror Moreh got the ex-Shin Bet heads to interview about their handling the occupation with its stunning revelations.

At VT we sometimes have had personal contacts at this level, but not the freedom to make films about them or print interviews, so we like to share what we find that has been, where you get to read gems like this:

“I mean that intelligence is not a science. I believe that intelligence is an art, and therefore, just as there’s no orderly way to paint a picture, so there’s no orderly way to carry out intelligence, because every intelligence operation is an operation in itself, and one operation does not compare or is similar to any other.”… Jim W. Dean ]


– First published … December 19, 2016 –

In a world where terrorism can strike at any moment – where terrorists resort to stabbing, ramming attacks, and mass shooting – no one is safe from the threat of extremism. Recent terrorist attacks in Europe highlight the need to ramp up security – and many are pointing to Israel as a model. Surrounded by hostile countries and conflict zones, Israel has managed to contain the extremist threat.

The Israeli Mossad is one of planet’s top intelligence agencies and is known for its relentless pursuit of terrorists. How does Israel’s mighty intelligence apparatus work against terrorism? How can peace be kept in a country where the enemy is waiting around every corner? We lift the lid on the counter-terrorism methods used by one of the world’s top spy agencies with a former director of the Mossad – Efraim Halevy.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Efraim Halevy, the former director of Israel’s powerful intelligence agency, the Mossad, ex-head of Israel’s National Security Council – welcome to the show, it’s really great to have you with us. Now, Mr. Halevy you say there’s no such thing as an orderly way to carry out intelligence. Does this mean there’s no laws, no rules of conduct for intelligence gathering?

Efraim Halevy: Intelligence is one of the oldest professions in the world, but there’s no law book concerning intelligence, there are no agreed rules on intelligence, and despite that, intelligence is a main player in the international relations and in domestic relations.

SS: Yeah, but okay, but when you say there’s no such thing as an orderly way to carry out intelligence – what exactly do you mean?

EH: I mean that intelligence is not a science. I believe that intelligence is an art, and therefore, just as there’s no orderly way to paint a picture, so there’s no orderly way to carry out intelligence, because every intelligence operation is an operation in itself, and one operation does not compare or is similar to any other.

SS:How does intelligence gathering against terrorism work? Are terrorist groups being infiltrated, are undercover agents working among terrorists?

EH: All of the methods used by the intelligence over the years are employed. Most certainly, you have agents undercover, most certainly you have electronic intelligence with all of the new developments in that field. Every element that you have in modern day information technology is used and is employed in intelligence. By the way, not only by intelligence agencies, but also by groups like ISIS and Hezbollah.

SS:You know, I’m particularly interested in undercover agent work. How do you gain the trust of a radical group? I mean, it must be hard to infiltrate IS, for example.

EH: I’m sure it is difficult to infiltrate the Islamic State, but there you’re going to question their motivation. What motivates somebody who is in the Islamic State to cooperate? And I should imagine, probably, the major motivation is disgust with the methodology used by the Islamic State, not only in treating its enemies, but also treating some of its own people.

SS:So, are you saying that people that are part of the Islamic State are appalled by their own methods, but they can’t leave because if they leave they are going to die? So, they choose to cooperate?

EH: I believe, that, probably – I am only surmising, I’ve not been there for quite some time, so I can only surmise – I believe that many of the people who cooperate, cooperate because they’re unable to leave and, on the other hand, they feel that they are not of their own will involved in the big effort of…shall we say, of evil, which has to be overcome – and they want to contribute their part to this.

SS:Alright, so I get your first point: in order to infiltrate an organisation like ISIS you’ve got to find someone who is appalled by their own methods – but once you infiltrate, if your undercover agent gains the trust, right, of the terrorist cell – will he have to do as the others do? For example, I don’t know, behead someone? Is this expected of the agent?

EH: I think I cannot give an exact answer to that, and I don’t believe anybody has the right answer to that. But I believe that in the end, in order to achieve the ultimate aim, sometimes, along the way, we have to do things which normally we would not like to do.

SS: The intelligence has helped curb the amount of bombings that are happening in Israel, but what’s the use of it when people resort to stabbings or drive-by shootings?

EH: I believe – and it’s my personal view – that it’s wrong to call stabbings “terrorism”. I believe, terrorism is something more organized, is part of a larger movement. Stabbings and similar events are individual reactions to what is happening and what is perceived in one way or another as threatening the fabric and society, of the people who are doing the stabbings, and therefore they carry it out. The general word, the general term of “terrorism”, although it’s applied to that, is not a terrorism which can be codified like organisations like ISIS or organisation like Hamas or organisation like Hezbollah.

SS: How can such attackers with no formal ties to any terrorist groups be caught before they act?

EH: It is a serious problem. I think no formula has been found for that and therefore, an individual who decides on his own to carry out a terrorist act, if he’s careful and if he knows how to operate, most probably, will be able to arrive on the scene. But there are a lot of methods and ways of monitoring central areas, main highways, transportation systems and so forth, so sometimes you catch these people as they are on their way.

SS: You’ve seen Mossad operate abroad, doing “normal” intelligence work like spying, surveillance – but also undertakes targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders. How do you decide when to pull the trigger on someone? When is enough enough for Mossad?

EH: I don’t personally wish to go into this field of when we make a decision to remove somebody to a better world. I think, the international society would be better served by not prying into this unnecessarily. You will not find, I believe, any intelligence officer, either side of the divide in this world of ours, who will want to talk about it, and I want to keep my hands clean on that. As I said, I don’t want to say that we make such decisions – I don’t want to go into the details of how we decide, how we carry out operations, which operations are carried out, which are not. I think, it would be better for the peace and tranquility of the international society to leave these questions unanswered.

SS: Sure. America looks to use drones when taking out terrorists. Does Mossad uses drones too, or it only works the old fashioned way, with agents on the ground?

EH: Mossad has all the means and all the methodologies which are used in intelligence in modern day life. Mossad is at the forefront of the technology, in all the fields that you can think of, and I think that Mossad has done extremely well in developing some of the more advanced types of weaponry and systems which carry weaponry.

SS: When one of Mossad’s most infamous operations – the attempted assassination of Hamas leader Khaled Mashal went wrong – you played an active part in regulating the situation after. Two Mossad agents were captured and Israel managed to get them back. If an operation like that backfires, does Mossad try and get its agents back at all costs?

EH: The word “all costs”, I think, is not the right term to use. It is true that I’ve played a very central role in solving the problem which arose as a result of an operation which did not reach successful conclusion in 1997, and in that area, I performed the role of a special emissary, action on behalf of the Prime Minister of Israel at a time, who was Mr. Netanyahu in his first term, and I did not wish to reach a point in which “all costs” are paid in order to get the result. I think we had to get a result which would make it a win-win situation, in other words, when both we and those who have been wronged by us, would emerge from the situation with a feeling and a public aura of having been successful.

SS:Mossad is known to go after perpetrators of terrorist attacks anywhere they escape – Mossad’s special unit, the Kidon, is responsible for that – this tactic may work for revenge, but does it deter terrorists from striking again?

EH: Look, I don’t want to talk about deterrence, because in the end, let us be frank with ourselves – we have not reached a point in which we can say that actions we have taken have ‘deterred terrorism’. I think that the word “deterrence” is a word, or a theme which should be forgotten in dealing with these matters. What we can do is to destroy capabilities, what we can do is to get the other side to realize that the pain of continuing what they’re doing would be insufferable for them. If that is called a deterrence, then yes, deterrence. But if you look at things in the Middle East, if you look at the way the relations of Israel and its neighbors have revolved on terrorism – when it comes to organized terrorism, I am not talking about small groups, organized terrorism, like Hezbollah, like Hamas – what we have achieved, is, I think, a mutual deterrence and not just deterrence.

SS:But, in order to stop a terrorist you need to put fear in him – how do you put fear in people who are willing to blow themselves up?

EH: I think, the use of the term “fear” is misplaced. We don’t want to get the other side to fear, we want the other side to take a logical approach, which leads it to the conclusion that the price that would be paid is not a price which they would wish to pay. In other words, we have to make the price such that the other side does not think it’s worth its while to pay it.

SS:Are cyber warfare tools part of Mossad arsenal? Like trojan worms, viruses, etc?

EH: I’m not permitted to refer to any specific means that is in our arsenal. I’m sorry, I know it’s interesting, but I cannot relate to that.

SS:It truly is. Just tell me in general – do cyber tools make spying easier? Or the amount of information to process it is just too big to manage?

EH: There’s nothing too big to manage, and I don’t want to go into details of the cyber warfare – it is something which is being, I think, used, and exploited around the world, and this is something which a great threat to international security in the end – because, once you begin a major confrontation in the cyber field, the penalty for all those players who will be involved in it would be enormous.

SS:Now, it’s no secret that Mossad recruits some of its agents online – you can fill out an application form on the web site. You were the first one to institute this practice, like you’ve said – how does this process work? If you like a candidate you do just invite him over for an interview? How successful has been recruitment process for agents?

EH: First of all, let me say, you are right, I was the first one who put Mossad on the Net, and there was enormous opposition to that in the Mossad, people thought that I was doing the wrong thing. Now, of course, you cannot imagine without it. Obviously, this is only a first step in recruiting somebody, it’s a method of casting net as wide as possible, and once you reach a stage in which you want to actually decide whether to recruit somebody or not, you don’t do it by correspondence, you do it by face-to-face contact.

SS:But, who do you pull in more – people from the web or just people that you see in the streets and you approach them?

EH: I don’t know, and I don’t think any statistics are drawn up in this field. I think we recruit people from all ways of getting it to people, all methods of communication, and in the end, we have as wide as possible choice as one can hope for.

SS:Social media like Facebook and Twitter, they have turned into a platform for terrorists to incite violence. They spread radical ideas and exchange plans. Is this cyber-terrorism the world is facing a new kind and will it be in the future?

EH: It’s not the future, I think it is the present – and yes, one of the things we have to take into account is that the terrorist groups use these methods and these tools for their own vile deeds. I can tell you that without the use of Internet, the attack on the U.S. on 9/11 would not have been possible. This all was organized through IT means and methods, and the road from that to other ways of carrying out warfare, like cyber warfare and so forth, are at a disposal of terrorist groups, and they have used it in some areas, some cases, almost to perfection.

SS: ‘Lone-wolf’ terrorist attacks – when people act on their own, without the assistance of a group but inspired a radical ideology – they are becoming more frequent, you’ve faced them in Israel and Europe has witnessed a whole series of such attacks over the past year. Is there a direct link between online incitement and lone wolf attacks? Since the internet provides easy and fast access to radical ideas..

EH: It would not be useful to attribute too much to the methodology. What we’re witnessing in the XXI century is widespread understanding that individuals and small groups can use the means at a disposal of states and of state organs, no less than the state organs. That is something which is troubling, and that is one of the aspects that people have to take into account when they’re putting together means of preventing penetration and ways and means of sabotaging the capabilities of intelligence and state organs all around the world.

SS:Can social media actually help uncover terrorist plots or find potential terrorists through tracing of their online activity? Are there special intelligence units monitoring online interactions?

EH: Without going to any details and I will not do that, I believe that the only way to give sufficient protection in this world of XXI century is to try and to cover all ways and means of IT traffic. Now, this is something, of course, which is enormous, because every year, it increases exponentially. So you have to have ways and means of prioritizing what you’re doing and to be able to get to what you need in orderly and in a scientific way – this is an enormous challenge and I think that intelligence and other security agencies all around the world are devoting a lot of effort to try and to find ways and means of prioritizing what they’re doing so that they would get to what they need to get.

SS: The Knesset has recently adopted an anti-terror bill, giving sweeping surveillance powers to security forces. Now in a democratic state, the right not to be searched, spied on, arrested at will is fundamental – but in the face of terrorism what’s a way out of this democratic dilemma?

EH: What has to be clear is that in this state that we’re at the moment, until the international climate changes, international social behaviour changes, we will have to be careful in the degree of freedom which social and other nets are allowed to operate. There’s no way of otherwise doing this. There’s a clash between those who wish to have an entirely liberal system of life, way of life, and those who understand that in order to be able to protect societies and states effectively you have to have, at least temporarily, capability of covering certain types of activities with means which were not used until recently.

SS:In Israel there are checkpoints in every gate in every town, security is tight everywhere, yet you move around the big cities without much delay, and the measures aren’t annoying or too constraining. How do you do it?

EH: First of all, I invite you to visit Israel – you will come to major cities and will not notice checkpoints on every street, on every corner…

SS: That is exactly my question – how do you do it? I know there are checkpoints but we don’t notice them.

EH: How do we do it… I won’t say that there are checkpoints but you don’t notice them – there are no checkpoints, period. It’s not checkpoints you don’t notice… there are other means of surveilling areas – there’s electronic surveillance, there’s photographic surveillance – various means of surveillance, and this allows people of Israel to conduct their way of life without any real restriction. Therefore, if you come to the cities, like in Tel-Aviv, from which I’m broadcasting now, or in Jerusalem, even, where there’s more tension, or in other cities throughout the country, you will not find an immediate presence and the sense of a presence of a security capability which covers everything. It s done in a more discreet way, and it is very effective.

SS:Western states today are facing the kind of terrorism Israel has been living with for decades. Is the constant threat of terrorism a new normal for the West?

EH: I think the threat of terrorism is not only a threat to the West, it’s a threat to all over. There have been terrorist attacks in other areas of the world, including Eastern Europe, including Russia. Russia has also experienced terrorism in recent years. I remember when I was head of the Mossad there was a major terrorist attack on a theater in Moscow – and this was a very-very highly reported event. So terrorism is like a disease, it cannot be restricted by borders and geography – therefore, I think, there’s a growing understanding, that in order to be able to deal with this, the more genuine cooperation can be achieved, everybody will benefit, all sides will benefit from such a cooperation.

SS:EU’s migrant crisis is making it more vulnerable to terrorism – a Syrian refugee was arrested in Germany in October for planning a major terrorist attack. Now Israel accepts almost no refugees – is that the only way to ensure public safety isn’t compromised?

EH:The reason we do not receive refugees is… we are a country which was born as a result of major international events and had to absorb hundreds of thousands of millions of our own people who were scattered around the world and therefore, we are not in a position to receive large numbers of refugees.

SS: Yeah, but my question really was – should we not accept refugees anywhere if we want no terrorism on grounds of our country? I am talking about refugees from war-torn countries, like Syria, Libya.

EH:I think you have to be very careful in going through a system of finding out whether there are no infiltrations of terrorists in this way, as well. There has to be a method to do this, and I think it has be deemed in quantity.

SS: Alright, Mr. Halevy, thank you very much for this interesting interview, for this insight that you gave us. We were talking to Efraim Halevy, the former director of Mossad and also the former head of the Israeli National Security Council, discussing Israel’s counter-terror expertise and how it can help the fight against terrorism across the world. That’s it for this edition of SophieCo, I will see you next time. Read More

Related Articles

Mordechai Vanunu and Michael Collins Piper Converge:

 The Israeli Mossad Assassinated JFK

by Mark Dankof

The American news media, for all the usual and most obvious reasons, has systematically ignored the most explosive news story in years, made all the more relevant by the countdown to further conflict in the Middle East as credible rumors continue to surface that Israel and the United States are planning an act of preemptive war against Iran in coming months.

The story, which appeared in the Express Newspapers of India on Monday, July 26th, quotes Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordecai Vanunu as crediting the Israeli Mossad with the assassination of President Kennedy. Even more incredibly, Vanunu states specifically that the motive for the assassination of Kennedy on the part of the Israeli government was related to the American President’s insistence that the Zionist State come clean about its nuclear program at the infamous Dimona plant in the Negev desert.

Vanunu was released by the Israeli authorities in April after 18 years imprisonment for a treason conviction related to the disclosure of state secrets regarding the Israelis’ nuclear program. His sensational public charge about the involvement of the Mossad in the Kennedy murder might simply be relegated to the realm of the utterances of a disgruntled or imbalanced man, except for one additional item.

Michael Collins Piper, the author of Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, has made a previous case for Israel’s direct involvement in the Dealey Plaza murder of John Kennedy on November 22, 1963 that is both plausible and compelling. The Vanunu account simply underscores and corroborates the case Piper made originally over a decade ago. The converging accounts of the two men are most disturbing.

Piper tells the reader of Final Judgment that 1963 proved to be a pivotal year in a publicly unreported conflict between America’s 35th President and Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, principally over Israel’s failure to submit its Dimona operation to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection, and secondarily to a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians. He subsequently proceeds to discuss the principle alleged players in the assassination plot itself in a way which corroborates the research of such respected Kennedy assassination scholars as the UK’s Anthony Summers and University of Texas professor Jim Marrs. Readers of the work of Summers and Marrs will be intimately familiar with names like Sam Giancana, Johnny Roselli, Carlos Marcello, Guy Banister, William Harvey, William Sullivan, George de Mohrenschildt, James Jesus Angleton, Richard Helms, Alpha 66, and Santos Trafficante. Typically, the demonstrated links of these individuals with organized crime syndicates, the anti-Castro Cuban exilic community of the early 1960s, and an element of the Central Intelligence Agency involved with the first two groups, has resulted in past tentative conclusions that the crux of the plot that took Mr. Kennedy’s life involved a convergence of interest of these three (3) key constituencies involved in a sordid triumvirate deliberately concealed from the American public 40 years ago by the Warren Commission.

Piper does not discredit this conclusion reached by his predecessors in their research of the circumstances that led specific individuals to participate in a plot to kill the President. He simply demonstrates what has been hidden from view before now: that those fingered by the meticulous academic research of Summers, Marrs, and others, have even deeper demonstrable associations with the Israeli lobby and Israeli intelligence.

Final Judgment’s case in this regard is principally built on the key significance of Meyer Lansky as the real power player in American organized crime in the 1950s and 1960s, the superior of Giancana, Roselli, Marcello, Mickey Cohen, Mickey Weiner, Moe Dalitz, Frank Costello, and others previously mentioned as participants in the Kennedy conspiracy. In turn, Lansky’s role as a committed Zionist and fund-raiser for the State of Israel involved direct, palpable links between his criminal empire, his Miami-based banks, and the Banque de Credit International (BCI) in Geneva, Switzerland. This latter entity served as the European-based money laundering center for Mr. Lansky’s global activities. BCI in turn, was headed up by an Israeli banker, Tibor Rosenbaum, former Director for Finances and Supply for the Israeli Mossad. Piper then demonstrates that BCI was a chief share holder in a Rome-based corporation called CMC/Permindex, whose chairman of the board was none other than Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, Canada, a major fund-raiser for Israel and known asset for Israeli intelligence. CMC/Permindex, in turn, proves to be a major point of intersection which brings the shadowy Bloomfield into direct or indirect contact with Clay Shaw (the chief target of the Jim Garrison JFK investigation in New Orleans), Guy Banister, James Jesus Angleton, FBI Division 5 chief William Sullivan (who spearheaded the FBI investigation for the Warren Commission and served as FBI liaison and friend of Angleton), ex-Cuban President Carlos Prio Socarras (provable gun-running business partner of Oswald assassin Jack Ruby), Ernest Israel Japhet (chairman and president of Israeli Bank Leumi), Shaul Eisenberg (a key figure in Israel’s nuclear bomb development and participant with Rosenbaum in the Swiss-Israel Trade Bank), elements of the French nationalist Secret Army Organization (OAS), CIA agent Theodore Shackley (the CIA’s chief of station in Miami during the CIA-Lansky assassination plots against Fidel Castro), and Abe Feinberg, New York Jewish businessman used by Ben Gurion as the liaison for secret meetings with President Kennedy to resolve the dispute of the latter two over Dimona. It is thus the BCI and CMC/Permindex players and links which Piper employs to show that the players, alliances, and assets were firmly in place to bring those with motive, means, and opportunity together in a plot which culminated in Dallas.

Secondarily, Piper buttresses his case by showing the results for Israel subsequent to the tragedy in Dallas in November of 1963. The removal of Kennedy brought an end to American demands for IAEA inspections of the Israeli nuclear program, and the ascension to the White House of Lyndon Johnson, whose long ties to Meyer Lansky and Carlos Marcello had assisted the barefoot boy of the Texas Hill Country in his arrival at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. More significantly, Johnson’s arrival in the Oval Office represented a sea change in American Middle Eastern policy, establishing for Piper the Israel-First direction of every American Chief Executive from LBJ onward, to the detriment of the independence of the American government from the undue influence of the Israeli lobby, the maintenance of regional peace and stability in the most dangerous area of the globe, and any vestiges of hope for positive American political relationships with the Islamic world.

The Vanunu-Piper allegations about Israel will not go away. The revelations of direct Israeli connections to key members of the Neo-Conservative foreign policy team of George W. Bush most desirous of conflict with Iraq; the virtual ownership of the United States Congress by the American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC); and the sycophancy of John Kerry toward these same interests, will culminate in a political boiling point in the United States if an expanded American involvement in a Middle Eastern war, the re-institution of an American Draft, and further instances of Middle East-related terrorism in the American homeland end up being connected by the public to the interests of Israel and Zionism and not those of the United States. Further exposure and corroboration of the Vanunu-Piper charges that the Israeli government was the driving force behind the death of John F. Kennedy–in conjunction with further exposure of Tel Aviv’s ongoing manipulation of the American government and media in issues of War and Empire–will commence a mass revolt against the policy elites that neither Tel Aviv nor Washington will be able to contain or control.

Between now and the first Tuesday in November, the policy elites will do their best to conceal fair disclosure and debate over who controls the present process and benefits by it. Suppression of information will be their modus operandi. Bush, Kerry, and their respective pals in Corporate America and Big Media will do their best to obfuscate the truth, ignore the discussion of the core issues of War and Peace, and hide the real identity of their financiers and handlers through such information suppression. Suppressing any serious examination or dissemination of the Vanunu-Piper case against Israel is already a done deal. It is a real shame. Pity us, the “free” American Republic, that no one will ask our two Presidential aspirants some pressing questions in the days ahead, including what they think of the following Presidential document from 41 years ago.

July 5, 1963

Dear Mr. Prime Minister (Levi Eshkol of Israel):

It gives me great personal pleasure to extend congratulations as you assume your responsibilities as Prime Minister of Israel. You have our friendship and best wishes in your new tasks. It is on one of these that I am writing you at this time.

You are aware, I am sure, of the exchange which I had with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion concerning American visits [i.e.: inspections] to Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona. Most recently, the Prime Minister wrote to me on May 27th. His words reflected a most intense personal consideration of a problem that I know is not easy for your Government, as it is not for mine. We welcomed the former Prime Minister’s strong reaffirmation that Dimona will be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes and the reaffirmation also of Israel’s willingness to permit periodic visits [inspections] to Dimona.

I regret having to add to your burdens so soon after your assumption of office, but I feel the crucial importance of this problem necessitates my taking up with you at this early date certain further considerations, arising out of Mr. Ben-Gurion’s May 27th letter, as to the nature and scheduling of such visits.

I am sure you will agree that these visits should be nearly as possible in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona project. As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Government’s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to the peace as the question of Israel’s effort in the nuclear field.

Therefore, I asked our scientists to review the alternative schedules of visits we and you had proposed. If Israel’s purposes are to be clear beyond reasonable doubt, I believe that the schedule which would best serve our common purposes would be a visit early this summer, another visit in June 1964, and thereafter at intervals of six months. I am sure that such a schedule should not cause you any more difficulty than that which Mr. Ben-Gurion proposed in his May 27th letter. It would be essential, and I understand that Mr. Ben-Gurion’s letter was in accord with this, that our scientists have access to all areas of the Dimona site and to any related part of the complex, such as fuel fabrication facilities or plutonium separation plant, and that sufficient time be allotted for a thorough examination.

Knowing that you fully appreciate the truly vital significance of this matter to the future well-being of Israel, to the United States, and internationally, I am sure our carefully considered request will have your most sympathetic attention.



John F. Kennedy

Assassination Of President McKinley Was By Jews!

By Brother Nathanael Kapner – Why I Left Judaism

THE JEWISH HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD  had lost a fierce battle with President Jackson with regard to keeping their Central Bank. For in 1834, Jackson removed all government deposits from the Rothschild’s “Second Bank of the United States.” 

A new System of National Banks was established in 1862 eliminating the Jew-controlledCentral Bank up through 1901. It was on September 6 1901 that President William McKinley was assassinated through the intrigues of the Rothschilds and their hit-men.

With McKinley out of the way, the path to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was easily paved through the pawns of Jewish agents of the House of Rothschild. Two such Rothschild agents were the powerful Jewish bankers Jacob Schiff and Max Warburg.

President William McKinley was known as a “hard money” man. This was because he advocated a gold standard. Unlike his opponent, William Jennings Bryan, McKinley was against “easy money” with no backing — printed by Jewish lenders at interest to the borrower – namely the US government. This was the essence of McKinley’s 1896 & 1900 successful campaign against William Jennings Bryan who advocated for “free and unlimited coinage of silver.”

BUT BY McKINLEY FIGHTING AGAINST “easy money,” (translate Jew-coined & printed-at-interest money) McKinley sealed his death warrant. A death warrant signed, sealed, and delivered by the powerful House Of Rothschild, criminals in bankers’ suits.

THE NEW YORK JEWISH CROWD WANTED Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt to be President. The Roosevelts were a wealthy group of NY socialites. Theodore Roosevelt Sr. (”Teddy” Roosevelt’s father) inherited the multi-million dollar family business, “Roosevelt & Son,” importers of plate glass. 

Through his many Jewish business connections, Theodore Roosevelt Sr. founded the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the American Museum of Natural History, and the New York Children’s Orthopedic Hospital. All of these institutions were and are Jew-intensive.

Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt had been groomed by the powerful NY Jewish political machine to be the Governor of NY and future President of the United States. In 1900, McKinley was forced by Republican partisans of the Jews to appoint “Teddy” Roosevelt as Vice President to get the “Jewish vote.” McKinley’s appointment of Roosevelt soon turned out to be his demise.

JEWS SWARMED OUT OF POLAND AND RUSSIA beginning in the 1880’s.

ON SEPTEMBER 6 1901, a 28 year old Polish Jew, Leon Czolgosz, walked into the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo NY where McKinley was speaking and shot McKinley twice in the abdomen at point blank range. McKinley died a week later and “Teddy” Roosevelt was sworn in as President, much to the delight of the NY Jews.

Prior to the assassination, Leon Czolgosz had fallen in with Emma Goldman’s Jewish anarchist crowd at Sach’s Cafe on Suffolk Street, their headquarters in New York City’s Lower East Side. (NYC’s Lower East Side was where Trotsky, owing to Jacob Schiff’s financial support, had recruited many communist Jews to travel with him to Russia to incite the October Revolution of 1917.)

Emma Goldman’s crowd had broken away from main-line socialists who were “under the eye of a paternal government.” Instead, Goldman’s crowd preached that social change could only be achieved through violence and assassinations. They preached that capitalists would never change on their own volition. Thus it was here at Sach’s Cafe that the assassination plot against President McKinley, a “capitalist,” was hatched.

One member of Emma Goldman’s group, the Jew, Julius Edelson, was quoted by the NY police as saying to them:

— “No matter how much Czolgolz has been damned for his good work, we know that he was a great man. He was a true hero.” — See: “Anarchists Attack Police” Here

And not only this, but the Jew, Emma Goldman, is extolled by Jewry as a “heroine” — even though she preached violence to attain her anarchist aims as recorded in The Jewish Women Archives:

— “Emma Goldman refused to condemn Czolgosz and other like-minded individuals who were driven to acts of violence against representatives of the capitalist system. Emma Goldman admired the sensitivity that led Czolgosz to this extreme.” —

Indeed – in Emma Goldman’s autobiography, Living My Life, when describing her arrest after McKinley’s assassination, she wrote, “My sympathies were with Czolgosz.”

See: Emma Goldman’s Use Of Violence-Tragedy At Buffalo, October 6 1901Here. (Click On “Full Image” & Scroll Down)

FOUR DAYS AFTER Czolgosz’ assassination of McKinley, on September 10 1901, Emma Goldman was arrested (but released!) in Chicago under suspicion of corroborating in President McKinley’s assassination. She was arrested many times prior to and after this arrest for “inciting to riot and violence.” Here

GOLDMAN’S LOVER WAS ANOTHER Jewish communist-anarchist by the name of Alexander Berkman. Berkman was imprisoned in 1892 for his attempted assassination of the steel magnate, Henry Clay Frick.

Emma Goldman assisted Berkman in his attempted assassination of Frick by obtaining a pistol for him to use Here (1st paragraph) And: Here. But at the trial Berkman refused to testify against his Jewish-communist lover, Emma Goldman.

Goldman visited Berkman in prison where they talked about their future anarchist plans Here. Both Goldman and Berkman were associated with the “Haymarket Anarchists,” a group led by 8 Jewish communists who threw a bomb into a crowd which killed 7 police officers during their Chicago anarchist rally in 1886 Here.

Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, being communists, were most likely funded by the powerful communist-supporter, Jacob Schiff, the renowned Jewish banker of Kuhn Loeb, who funded the burgeoning Bolshevik movement in Russia.

Through Emma Goldman’s association with Schiff, and other powerful Jews, she was *never* charged with her numerous crimes which included her role in the McKinley assassination as well as inciting violence against American police.

Eventually Emma Goldman was finally deported to Russia where she joined the Bolsheviks and later assisted them in inciting the communist rebels against the Christian loyalists in the Spanish Civil War.


The Missing Link That Connects Israel and Mossad To The JFK Assassination?

The Missing Link That Connects Israel and Mossad To The JFK Assassination?

Israel Killed JFK And Has Ruled America Ever Since

The United States has had three coups if you count the first one as being Jekyll Island in November of 1910. Those first coup plotters met at Jekyll Island and secretly wrote the law that became the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. All of the bankers who met in secret were Rothschild agents. This included Paul Warburg of the Rothschild dominated Kuhn Loeb bank. Nelson Aldrich who was a Senator married into the Rockefeller family. The Rockefellers were created by the Rothschilds as were J P Morgan, the Harrimans and the Bush family. Senator Aldrich was head of the National Monetary Commission created by President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt had become President after the Jews had successfully assassinated President McKinley. They previously had assassinated President Lincoln. John Wilkes Booth was Jewish. But I prefer not to count these earlier assassinations as coups. The remaining members of the Jekyll Island Six were Treasury Department employees. who did what they were told to do.

The first day of those meetings actually occurred in a private railway car on the evening of November 22, 1910. When the Jews took over America’s banking and monetary system in 1913, they took over the country. Not all coups involve tanks in the streets. It was no coincidence that President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 which was the 53rd anniversary of Israel’s earlier coup. President Kennedy had dared to attempt to take America back from the Jews.

All three of America’s coups involved Israel. I have defined an Israeli as anyone of Jewish descent who is loyal to Israel. There was no state of Israel in 1910 but there was an ongoing criminal enterprise which could be called Judaism Incorporated. Any educated person whose thoughts have not been contaminated by the Jews should view Israel as the enemy of all mankind.

Today I want to focus on the assassination of JFK as we are now facing the 51st anniversary of our President’s murder without being allowed to conduct a criminal investigation. Voltaire said you know who has power because you are not allowed to criticize them. We could rephrase that in today’s world by saying we know who owns the government by determining who has not been arrested for stealing money by the billions.

The following is from a video made by Michael Collins Piper. He has connected all the dots in the Kennedy assassination and tied them to Israel.

Mordecai Vanunu was the original whistleblower. In 1986 he told the world that Israel had nuclear weapons and published photos of the secret Dimona works in the British press. He said Prime Minister Ben Gurion ordered the assassination of JFK because the President opposed Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Ben Gurion resigned in protest over JFK’s Israeli policies. Vanunu also wrote a letter in 1997 saying that there was even a link between the assassination of Kennedy and Israel’s launching of the 1967 war.

Michael Collins Piper wrote Final Judgement: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination. Michael Collins Piper in this book argued that the Israelis killed Kennedy. Vanunu endorsed Piper’s book.

The Oliver Stone movie JFK was the kosher version of the assassination. Piper does not dispute that Clay Shaw had connections to the CIA. But the film neglects Shaw’s connections to the heart of the Israeli nuclear program. He was also on the Board of Directors of Permindex, a Swiss assassination bureau. Permindex is an Israeli front and was not run by the CIA as Oliver Stone had said. A primary shareholder in Permindex was the Banque De Credit International of Geneva, founded by Tibor Rosenbaum, an arms procurer and financier for the Mossad. That bank was used by Meyer Lansky to launder hot money. Permindex was owned by CMC of Rome, which was founded by a Hungarian Jew named George Mandel who had deep connections with Israel and the Mossad. Mandel was the first man to start rumors about Auschwitz being a death camp. The Chairman of the Board at Permindex was Louis Bloomfield, a Canadian Jew and close associate of Edgar Bronfman. He also had long standing connections with the Rothschilds dating back before WW II.

The Stern family funded Clay Shaw’s defense. They can be traced back to the Purple Gang of Detroit. The Stern family owned WDSU radio and TV stations in New Orleans. Prior to JFK’s assassination they ran stories on Lee Harvey Oswald denouncing him as a member the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. They did not tell the people of New Orleans that this an FBI front group. This gave Oswald the cover of being a Leftist while spying on American liberals. The Stern family was heavily invested in the NUMEC nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, which was the source of Israel’s first nuclear bomb. NUMEC also dumped nuclear waste in Pennsylvania.

Piper said Clay Shaw might have had more to do with CIA-Mossad attempts to assassinate Charles De Gaulle than he did with the assassination of President Kennedy.

Ed Asner played Guy Bannister, the private detective, in the movie JFK. Bannister was a good friend of Kent and Phoebe Courtney. Bannister and the Courtneys were active in conservative politics. But the Courtneys did frustrate the work of people on the Right that the Anti-Defamation League did not like. Joe Pesci played David Ferrie in the movie JFK. He was a pilot and a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald. Bannister, Ferrie and Oswald spied on Leftists in New Orleans. Guy Bannister also was a friend of A. I. Botnick who was the head of the New Orleans ADL office. The Courtneys, Bannister, Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald were actively spying on Leftists in New Orleans for the ADL and Botnick.

The producer of JFK was the Israeli spy Arnon Milchan who sold nuclear triggers to Israel. A J Weberman, an Israeli citizen, was the first to say that District Attorney Jim Garrison had an unpublished manuscript that charged Israel was behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

John King offered Jim Garrison a judgeship to stop his investigation of Clay Shaw. King was a business partner of Bernie Cornfeld whose Investors Overseas Service was a 2.5 billion dollar fraud. It was a subsidiary of Permindex and was linked to Tibor Rosenbaum and the Mossad.

The London Jewish Chronicle denounced President Kennedy’s UN delegation position that displaced Palestinians had the right to return to the land that Israel had illegally taken from them during the 1948 war. The Jewish Chronicle published this in London on November 22, 1963.

Adlai Stevenson, a former Presidential candidate, was the American UN ambassador at the time. Stevenson’s son was also a Senator and opposed Israel’s excesses. He was critical of Israel sinking the USS Liberty in the 1967 war, which killed 34 American sailors.

Lyndon Johnson said he wanted the USS Liberty to sink to the bottom of the Mediterranean even while the Israelis were attacking the ship. LBJ was sleeping with a former Irgun terrorist, Mathilde Krim. Her husband was one of LBJ’s many Jewish advisers.

A JFK researcher once wrote that Piper was on to something in his research linking Israel to the assassination of President. But he said that we had to proceed with caution. Because to be accused of anti-Semitism is about the same as being accused of being a child molester.

Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General in 1963. He gave the American Zionist Council, the predecessor to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), 72 hours to register as a foreign lobby. They formed AIPAC and waited for President Kennedy to be murdered so their legal problems would go away.

Frank Sturgis was an anti-Castro operative who was caught up in the Watergate burglary. He was an Israeli mercenary during the 1948 war. Cuban Intelligence believed Sturgis was in charge of communications for one of the JFK hit teams on November 22, 1963.

Meyer Lansky was key to the establishment of both Las Vegas and the state of Israel. The casinos launder the CIA’s Black Ops money along side Jewish mob money. The real crime boss of Chicago was Meyer Lansky’s partner Hyman Larner. Larner was closely connected with Israel and the Shah of Iran. Lucky Luciano wrote in his biography that his old friend and partner Meyer Lansky took over the mob from him. Sam (Santo) Trafficante of Tampa and Carlos Marcello of New Orleans were both lower level local bosses who were far out ranked by Lansky.

The Bronfman family bought Texas Pacific, an oil company. The Crown family of Chicago who had been part of organized crime bought General Dynamics. The late Sir Edgar Bronfman was given 240 million US dollars a year by organized crime for the right to export heroin from Canada into the US. He was allowed to write this down on his tax returns, which legitimatized his take from the heroin trade. This allowed him to at one time buy 20% of the combined assets of DuPont-Conoco. The Bronfman family has branched out into water privatization through Vivendi, which was exploited of the poor in Third World countries.

Lee Harvey Oswald tested negative for gunshot residue. Piper believes Oswald was in front of the Texas Schoolbook Depository when JFK was killed. There is a photo, which could be of Oswald standing in front of the building. Judyth Vary Baker, a medical researcher, worked with Oswald at the Riley Coffee Company of New Orleans, which was a CIA front run by a retired FBI agent. She was a child prodigy who developed cancer cells in mice that Oswald took to Dr Mary Sherman at LSU to be put in vaccines for Americans. Dr Mary Sherman died under mysterious and to date unsolved circumstances. Ed Haslam wrote a book called Dr Mary’s Monkey about this neglected part of Oswald’s life. Judyth Vary Baker also wrote about her affair with Oswald.

Jack Ruby was connected to two people who were involved in smuggling nuclear triggers to Israel. One was Lawrence Meyers. Piper had corresponded with James Earl Ray. Ray’s brother published a book saying that the Bronfmans and Israel had nothing to do with the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. A US intelligent agent helped put the book together.

Piper does not mention that JFK was assassinated on the 53rd anniversary of the first day of the meetings to found the Federal Reserve Bank. That meeting on November 22, 1910 could be considered the first Jewish coup. America’s second Jewish coup was of course the JFK assassination. And the third occurred on 9-11-2001 when Israel took down World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 with controlled demolitions.

There have been many books written that prove JFK was not killed by a lone assassin. But Michael Collins Piper the first to connect all the dots and trace them back to Israel.

Is Zionist Mole James Angleton The Missing Link That Connects Israel and Mossad To The JFK Assassination?

Video By Michael Collins Piper

Zionist Mole James Angleton Busted for JFK Murder

Regarding the murder of an American icon, President John F. Kennedy, there is no wiggle room left, now, for the Mossad and its hit men. Its agents have been identified, its moles exposed, its plots revealed, and its criminal acts proven.

It was the Mossad alone which was behind the murder of a sitting US President, John F. Kennedy, not anyone else: not the mob, elements of the US military, Cuban nationals, not even LBJ or George Bush.

Regardless, is it not unfathomable – chasing around shadows, non-existent ghost men, shadowy ‘psyops’ characters, while the real murderers and collaborators in murder are right before everyone’s eyes?

It will be proven, here, that it was the Zionist cabal, consisting of various levels of Mossad moles, which murdered the President and had the motive to do so. Claims that it was the mafia are unsubstantiated, as are the essentially ludicrous claims against anti-Castro elements. One such Mossad element who proves the case against this clique is none other than a former top man in Langley, Virginia’s CIA, James Jesus Angleton.

The Jesus middle name likely comes from his mother, who was a Mexican Sephardic Jew.

The “LBJ did it” stance is also without substance, even though neither LBJ nor the Bush family are entirely innocent of at least a degree of involvement, for instance, foreknowledge and cover-up.

The KGB? The official one in the charge of the Soviet government? That’s what the Zionists would have people believe, and they spread this rumor.

The plot was not, though, orchestrated by them. Rather, as will be demonstrated, here, it was achieved by Zionist agents, a litany of them, who in collaboration perpetrated the crime and then systematically covered it up.

The purpose, here, is to confirm the plotters, the key cover-up moles, and the actual forces behind the assassins: those who hired and coordinated them while covering their trails.

Distractions and dead ends prevent the culprits from being exposed. In this regard there are dozens of authors and Internet bloggers whose whole purpose is to deceive the people. This is through a variety of clever ruses; giving good, factual information in some arenas, creating the appearance of credibility, then purposely guiding people down the wrong path.

The cell consisted of operatives not working entirely independently but, in fact, working as paid agents of the CIA, including those in top-level positions. It also includes other moles who were technically independent of the agency. All these moles are/were Zionist Jews.

Regarding this information Angleton reveals his role in the crime: by his actions. Any police officer, any sound investigative detective, would regard his actions as suspect and immediately plan for his arrest for the crime, just based upon his cover-up acts and his obtuse statements, his attempts to deceive and confuse, and his blatant acts of obstruction, including, incredibly, the coaching of witnesses, including federal witnesses.

James Jesus Angleton

The key mole within the agency was one James Jesus Angleton. Clearly involved in the hit, and busting him amounts to one murderer down, dozens, in fact, hundreds more to go. Zionist mole and murderous Jew Angleton is directly tied to both the murder of JFK as well as the thorough, systematic cover-up of the crime.

Who is James Angleton? Born in Boise, Idaho, 1917, his father, James Hugh Angleton, was a former cavalry officer who met his wife, Carmen Mercedes Moreno, while serving in Mexico.

Angleton is likely a Jewish name. Yet, what about Moreno? The name is virtually entirely Sephardic:

His mother was a Jew, and so he did the vile bidding of the Jews. He was put in place to undermine the Kennedy administration. His role was strictly to protect Zionist interests, which means the guarding and protecting of the interests of world Jewry, including those of the Israeli entity, at any cost, even the cost of bloodthirsty murder. Moreover, that is precisely what he achieved.

Even President Ford was suspicious of him. Yet, nothing was done about it.

His purpose in the spy realm all along was, in fact, murder:

Angleton’s father and one of his Yale professors used their influence to get him a position with the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor of the CIA, working in the cryptically named X-2, the OSS’s counterintelligence unit. His training for the job concentrated on ways to keep secrets safe, as well as the craft of counterespionage, identifying and neutralizing double agents, individuals who swear their allegiance to the United States when in fact they are secretly working for the enemy.

Early history

Angleton father was a so-called “ultra-conservative” and a fascist sympathizer, in other words, a Bolshevik Jew. Who else at that time sympathized with this Jewish invention other than fellow Zionists.

In 1937 the family was sufficiently connected to place James Angleton in Yale University. He did poorly and ultimately joined the US Army, becoming, through his “fascist” father a mole in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). He was then sent in 1943 to London to be trained by the MI6. Afterwards, he served as a counter-intelligence agent in Italy.

Angleton – Originator of the Mossad?

Post war, Angleton worked for the War Department’s Strategic Services Unit , joining the CIA in 1947. “In 1951 he was sent to Israel where he helped establish Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service (Wikipedia).”

Shin Bet and Mossad, known terrorists and assassination moles: and this is the man who initiated it, who helped establish its infrastructure? Any surprise that Angleton was one of Kennedy’s murderers and by proxy also involved in the killing of Bobby Kennedy?

Ultimately, he became chief of the CIA’s counterintelligence unit: a Zionist chief to do the cabal’s bidding, just like George Cohen Tenet did for 911.

Consider it: the man who helped create the murderous and exceedingly anti-American Mossad was then in control of much of the CIA? It is not possible show a more compelling evidence of the Zionists in the assassination than this? It is a major issue, in fact, the issue, that every JFK researcher should spread to the entire world. Angleton was a Mossad infiltrator in the US espionage apparatus. His purpose was to protect the Zionist apparatus, including members of the Jewish mob, who had fully infiltrated all the major governments and espionage operations in the world.

A bizarre cover up after an assassination?

A woman named Mary Pinchot Meyer purportedly had an affair with President Kennedy. She was found dead under suspicious circumstances. Upon her death Angleton went into action. Meyer left word with friends in case anything happened to her about a sketch book or diary, where she may have made mention for her love for Mr. Kennedy. Angleton wanted to gain possession of the dairy in order to either use it as blackmail for the Kennedy family or destroy any evidence, in case it was incriminating to the cabal. See his actions, here:

Same killers means Angleton and fellow moles, including scoundrels like de Mohrenschildt, among others.

Cover-up mole for Zionist agents?

Angleton was tied to another Israeli infiltrator and hired hit-man or hit arranger, in this case a man living in Britain, named ‘Kim’ Philby. Another secretive Jewish agent, like Angleton, Philby was a Mossad spy. Angleton’s relationship to Philby is tantamount to proof that he was put into the CIA apparatus to protect various Zionist assets.

In the late 1950s Philby’s role as a potential double-crosser was first discovered in the CIA offices. Top CIA men were investigating two senior British officials, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean. Suddenly, in 1937 the two senior British officials led to the Soviet Union. Philby was suspected as the tip-off mole.

Per investigative research John Simkin, ” CIA director, Walter Bedell Smith, asked Angleton and William Harvey to write-up separate reports detailing what they knew about Philby. Harvey came to the conclusion that Philby was a Soviet spy. However, Angleton claimed that Philby had been “honestly duped” and warned Smith against taking the matter further. Smith took the advice of Angleton and Philby was able to continue his work until escaping to the Soviet Union four years later.”

This amounts to hard proof that Angleton’s entire purpose in the CIA was to work on behalf of the enemy, treacherous Israelis and other Zionist agents. Angleton was likely the source for Philby, who then informed his British friends of the danger.

Simkin clearly demonstrates another cover-up act by Angleton, in this case in collaboration with CIA director Richard Helms, demonstrating the great power of the Zionists over the agency. An agent named John M. Whitten was made responsible to investigate all information about Oswald after the murder. Ultimately, Whitten had become frustrated by not being provided with all the available data, particularly evidence from FBI files that showed Oswald visiting various a Cuban consulate and (purportedly) the Soviet Embassy in Mexico.

Notes Simkin:

Whitten and his staff of 30 officers, were sent a large amount of information from the FBI. According to Gerald D. McKnight “the FBI deluged his branch with thousands of reports containing bits and fragments of witness testimony that required laborious and time-consuming name checks.” Whitten later described most of this FBI material as “weirdo stuff.” As a result of this initial investigation, Whitten told Richard Helms that he believed that Oswald had acted alone in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Yet, after this on December 6th Whitten was exposed to a FBI report which showed the incredible, which was the fact that he and his team were being denied crucial information about Oswald, including facts concerning his ‘political’ activies (a mere ruse, even so) in the months prior to the hit. Whitten, apparently quite thorough, held a meeting arguing that all this required closer inspection, including Oswald’s purported attempt to shoot General Edwin Walker. Simkin reveals, here, something important, showing the power of disinformation, cover-up, and obfuscation, that is regarding Whitten’s statements to his higher-ups:

Whitten added that has he had been denied this information, his initial conclusions on the assassination were “completely irrelevant.”

In other words, the initial conclusion that Oswald really was the killer, that it was a lone gunmen, or that he was even involved were now to be discarded.

Says Simkin: “Helms responded by taking Whitten off the case. James Jesus Angleton was now put in charge of the investigation.”

Yet, was it Helms who pulled him off? Notes Gerald McKnight in his book Breach of Trust it was arch-Zionist mole and hostile Israeli-Firster Angleton who “wrested the CIA’s in-house investigation away from John Whitten…”

The mole continued to perpetrate his criminal acts at every level. Simkin also reveals that he played cover-up mole for other agencies, in this case, the FBI. Quoting former Nixon advisor H.R. Haldemann in his book, Ends of Power:

“…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.

James Angleton

Rehearse it? Really? That means Angleton was involved in the cover-up of a crime. It means obstruction of justice. It means, in fact, proves criminal intent. The man who set up the Mossad is ‘our man,’ not Jimmy Hoffa, not LBJ, not the Bush family, not anyone else. This is the man, an admitted hit man, who is tied to Kennedy’s assassination, this wretched Zionist Jew.

Two major Zionist agents have been identified, here, directly tied to both Kennedy’s killing the cover-up: James Angleton and Harold Adrian Russel (Kim Philby). There were hundreds of others. It proves and resolves one issue: it was Zionist Jews and such Jews alone who were responsible for the brutal murder of this president. All other theories, all other claims, are not only faulty, but the are, rather, patently erroneous.


Background On: James Jesus Angleton

James Jesus Angleton was born in Boise, Idaho, on 9th December, 1917. His father, Hugh Angleton, was a former cavalry officer who met his wife, a seventeen-year-old Mexican woman, Carmen Mercedes Moreno, while serving in Mexico, under General John J. Pershing. (1)

Hugh Angleton was an executive of the National Cash Register Company. (2) Thomas McCoy, a family friend, described him as “a six-foot-four, raw-boned, red-faced farm boy; a broad super-friendly guy, who was the outgoing salesman type and a born trader. He and his son were as different as one can imagine.” (3)

Carmen Mercedes Moreno was a devout Catholic who insisted on giving him the name of Jesus. “As he grew older he became proud of his Mexican background – but, at the beginning, no. He never liked to use his middle name… Who likes to go around with a middle name of Jesus?” (4)

In 1931 Hugh Angleton moved his family to Milan, for business reasons. He was very impressed with Benito Mussolini and his friend, Max Corvo, commented “Hugh Angleton… was ultra-conservative, a sympathizer with Fascist officials. He was certainly not unfriendly with the Fascists.” (5) In 1933 Angleton was sent to Malvern College. (6) “He learned all about snobbery, prejudice, and school beatings. Before he left three years later he had served as a prefect, a corporal in the Officers’ Training Corps, and joined the Old Malvern Society. He seems to have become more English than the English, a useful ruse perhaps for Malvern’s lone half-Mexican Yank.” (7) Angleton later recalled: “I was brought up in England in one of my formative years and I must confess that I learned, at least I was disciplined to learn, certain features of life, and what I regarded as duty.” (8)

James Jesus Angleton entered Yale University in 1937: “Angleton had already developed a distinctive personal style. He spoke with a slight English accent (probably not an affection after three years in the country), and was tall, athletic, bright, and handsome… By conventional standards he was a poor student, frequently missing class, excelling only in those subjects that interested him, and occasionally failing those that didn’t.” (9) A fellow student, Reed Whittemore, later commented: “All through Yale, Jim was backward at completing school papers… It may be that he was just lazy – or maybe he had a psychological problem. He had the class record for incompletes, but he could invariably whitewash over these missing grades because he had a favorable presence with the teachers, who for the most part liked him a lot.” (10)

Angleton and Whittemore edited a quarterly of original poetry, called Furioso, financed mostly by subscriptions raised by Whittemore’s aunt. Angleton and Whittemore were both promising poets and other contributors included Archibald MacLeish, Ezra Pound, E.E. Cummings and William Carlos Williams. Whittemore later commented: “When we were short of money, which was most of the tune, we paid off our poets with fine Italian cravats from the stock that the Angleton haberdasher in Italy kept replenishing.” (11)

James Jesus Angleton

In the autumn of 1941 Angleton moved on to Harvard Law School. Soon afterwards he met Cicely Harriet d’Autremont: “There was nothing in the room except a large reproduction of El Greco’s View of Toledo. It showed a huge unearthly green sky. Jim was standing underneath the picture. If anything went together, it was him and the picture. I fell madly in love at first sight. I’d never met anyone like him in my life. He was so charismatic. It was as if the lightning in the picture had suddenly struck me. He had an El Greco face. It was extraordinary.” (12) They became engaged in April 1943, a few weeks after Angleton had been drafted into the United States Army. Hugh Angleton, disapproved of the relationship but the wedding took place quietly three months later on 17th July, in Battle Creek, Michigan. (13)

James Hugh Angleton became a senior figure in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and was on the staff of Colonel William Donovan. It had been created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt soon after the outbreak of the Second World War. The OSS replaced the former American intelligence system, Office of the Coordinator of Information (OCI) that was considered to be ineffective. The OSS had responsibility for collecting and analyzing information about countries at war with the United States. It also helped to organize guerrilla fighting, sabotage and espionage.

In August 1944, Lieutenant Colonel James Hugh Angleton and Norman Holmes Pearson, Angleton’s former English professor at Yale University, contacted James R. Murphy, the head of the new X-2 CI (Counter Intelligence) branch of the OSS. On 25th September, 1943, Murphy issued a memo: “I would greatly appreciate it if you could get provisional security for Corporal James Angleton in order that he may commence OSS school on Monday. His father is with this branch… In addition young Angleton is very well known to Norman Pearson, who recommended him to me.” (14)

During his training James Jesus Angleton met Richard Helms, the former national advertising manager of the Indianapolis Times, who had joined the OSS in August 1943. In his autobiography, A Look Over My Shoulder (2003) he commented: “As a young man, Jim was bone thin, gaunt, and aggressively intellectual in aspect. His not entirely coincidental resemblance to T. S. Eliot was intensified by a European wardrobe, studious manner, heavy glasses, and lifelong interest in poetry.” (15)

James Jesus Angleton in London

On 28th December, 1943, James Jesus Angleton, arrived in London to work for the Italian section of X-2 C.I. Soon after arriving in England he met Kim Philby, who was head of MI6’s Iberian section. It was the start of a long friendship: “Once I met Philby, the world of intelligence that had once interested me consumed me. He had taken on the Nazis and Fascists head-on and penetrated their operations in Spain and Germany. His sophistication and experience appealed to us… Kim taught me a great deal.” (16) Phillip Knightley, the author of Philby: KGB Masterspy (1988), has pointed out: “Philby was one of Angleton’s instructors, his prime tutor in counter-intelligence; Angleton came to look upon him as an elder-brother figure.” (17)

Angleton impressed his senior officers and within six months he was promoted to the rank of second lieutenant and was appointed as chief of the Italian Desk for the European Theater of Operations. A colleague, John Raymond Baine, later remembered him as a well-respected officer: “His voice and manner were always on the quiet side. He never laughed loudly or acted in a boisterous way. Both his talk and his laughter were always soft. He was captivating, and had the ability to dominate a conversation without ever lifting his voice.” (18)

OSS Officer in Rome

In October 1944 Angleton was transferred to Rome as commanding officer of Special Counter-Intelligence Unit Z. In March 1945, he was promoted to first lieutenant and became head of X-2 for the whole of Italy. At the age of twenty-seven, he was the youngest X-2 Branch chief in all of OSS. According to Charles J.V. Murphy: “His (Angleton) unit uncovered some of the secret correspondence between Hitler and Mussolini that was later introduced into the Nuremberg trials as proof of their conspiracy.” (19) Raymond Rocca was his senior staff officer. The two men were to remain close friends for the next thirty years. (20)

After the war Angleton and Rocca remained in Italy. They worked closely “with Italian counterintelligence to uncover reams of data about Soviet operations”. (21) Angleton’s biographer, Tom Mangold, has pointed out: “As Italian fascism collapsed and the German retreat quickened, Angleton found himself targeting subtle new enemies, including lingering Fascists and, more importantly for him, nascent Communist networks. The young Counterintelligence chief was now in his element: recently declassified documents show Angleton at the zenith of his wartime career… His unit’s top secret intelligence sources… burgled their way across the open city with seeming impunity.” (22)

Cicely Angleton gave birth to a son, James Charles, in August, 1944. James Jesus Angleton did not return to the United States until November 1945. Tom Mangold has claimed that: “It had now been nearly two years since he left for Europe. The long-awaited reunion, during a two-day stopover in New York, was a total disaster. The couple had become casualties of the protracted separation.” (23)

Cicely claimed: “We just didn’t know each other anymore. Jim was wishing we were not married, but he was too nice to say it. He thought the situation was hopeless. He was all caught up in his career. We had both changed. He was typical of a war marriage. It was exactly what his father had warned us about in 1943… Jim no longer cared about our relationship, he just wanted to get back to Italy – back to the life he knew and loved. He didn’t want a family. The marriage seemed to be annihilated then and there.” (24) Cicely moved back to Tucson to live with her family. A few months later initiated divorce proceedings against her husband on grounds of desertion. However, Angleton did not want a divorce and he refused to sign the necessary documents.

Angleton now returned to Italy. It is claimed that William Donovan, the head of the Office of Strategic Services asked Angleton to “help the provisional Italian government beat off a threatened Communist takeover”. Angleton discovered documents to show that communist parties in Europe were following instructions from the Soviet Union. Angleton was also able to forecast the break-up of the relationship between Joseph Stalin and Josip Tito. “He (James Jesus Angleton) and his principal associate for all of his career, Raymond Rocca… ferreted out the exchange of correspondence between Stalin and Tito that foreshadowed the 1948 breach between them.” (25)

Central Intelligence Agency

In December 1947 Angleton returned to the United States. He met up with his wife, Cicely Angleton, and they agreed to make another effort to save their marriage. “He had calmed down a little, we got back together, we rediscovered each other. But he was a nervous wreck, nervous about family responsibilities, and his health had suffered badly. He was eager to make a go of it and I needed to be with him.” (26) They lived in Tucson until they moved to Washington in June 1948 to begin his career with the recently established Central Intelligence Agency.

Angleton’s first post was as a senior advisor to Frank Wisner, the director of the Office of Special Operations (OSO). The OSO had responsibility for espionage and counter-espionage. (27) Wisner was told to create an organization that concentrated on “propaganda, economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world”. Angleton’s job was to oversee special studies involving all countries where the CIA was operating. He later explained that his experiences in Europe meant that he was “sharply aware of the Soviet long-term objectives in subversion.” (28)

In January 1949 James Jesus Angleton had to travel to Europe on CIA business. He obviously believed that the mission was dangerous as he made out a three-page “Last Will and Testament”. His biographer, Tom Mangold, has argued that it provides “a rare insight into the private man”. (29) Angleton left most of his “real and personal property” to his wife. He bequeathed his precious fishing tackle to his young son, James Charles Angleton, “in order that he might have some small inclination to follow this sport – whether it will in fact be a satisfaction to him is material since no two humans need to seek the same retreat.” Angleton also left small mementos to Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, Raymond Rocca and Norman Holmes Pearson. (30)


James and Cicely Angleton associated with a group of people who lived in Georgetown. They were mainly journalists, CIA officers and government officials. This included Mary Pinchot Meyer, Cord Meyer, Anne Truitt, James Truitt, Frank Wisner, Thomas Braden, Richard Bissell, Desmond FitzGerald, Wistar Janney, Joseph Alsop, Tracy Barnes, Philip Graham, Katharine Graham, David Bruce, Ben Bradlee, Antoinette Pinchot Bradlee, Clark Clifford, Walt Rostow, Eugene Rostow, Chip Bohlen and Paul Nitze.

Nina Burleigh, the author of A Very Private Woman (1998) has pointed out: “The younger families – the Meyers, Janneys, Truitts, Pittmans, Lanahans, and Angletons – spent a great deal of leisure time together. There were evening get-togethers, and sometimes the families took weekend camping trips to nearby beaches or mountains when husbands could get away… On Saturday mornings in the fall, the adults got together and played touch football in a park north of Georgetown while their children biked around the sidelines, then all retired to someone’s house for lunch and drinks… The Janneys had a pool, and on hot summer nights the parties were aloud, drunken affairs, filled with laughter, dancing, and the sound of breaking glass and people being pushed into the pool.” (31) Ben Bradlee recalls in his autobiography, The Good Life (1995) that he was also part of the same group. “Socially our crowd consisted of young couples, around thirty years old, with young kids, being raised without help by their mothers, and without many financial resources.” (32)

Kim Philby

In 1949 Angleton’s old friend, Kim Philby, became MI6’s representative in Washington, as the top British Secret Service officer working in liaison with the CIA and FBI. He also handled secret communications between the British prime minister, Clement Attlee and President Harry S. Truman. According to Ray Cline, it had been left to the Americans to select their preferred candidate and it was James Jesus Angleton who was the main person advocating appointing Philby. (33) Philby wrote in My Secret War(1968): “At one stroke, it would take me right back into the middle of intelligence policy making and it would give me a close-up view of the American intelligence organisations.” (34)

Philby’s home in Nebraska Avenue became a gathering place for Washington’s intelligence elite. This included James Jesus Angleton, Walter Bedell Smith (Director of the CIA), Allen Dulles (Deputy Director of the CIA), Frank Wisner (head of the Office of Policy Coordination), William K. Harvey (CIA counter-intelligence) and Robert Lamphere (FBI Soviet Section). Philby made a point of dropping in on the offices of American intelligence officers in the late afternoon, knowing that his hosts would sooner or later “suggest drifting out to a friendly bar for a further round of shop talk.” (35) As one CIA officer pointed out: “Intelligence officers talk trade among themselves all the time… Philby was privy to a hell of a lot beyond what he should have known.” (36)

Philby was especially close to Angleton. Philby later explained they had lunch at Harvey’s Restaurantevery week: “We formed the habit of lunching once a week at Harvey’s where he demonstrated regularly that overwork was not his only vice. He was one of the thinnest men I have ever met, and one of the biggest eaters. Lucky Jim! After a year of keeping up with Angleton, I took the advice of an elderly lady friend and went on a diet, dropping from thirteen stone to about eleven in three months. Our close association was, I am sure, inspired by genuine friendliness on both sides. But we both had ulterior motives. Angleton wanted to place the burden of exchanges between CIA and SIS on the CIA office in London – which was about ten times as big as mine. By doing so, he could exert the maximum pressure on SIS’s headquarters while minimizing SIS intrusions into his own. As an exercise in nationalism, that was fair enough. By cultivating me to the full, he could better keep me under wraps. For my part, I was more than content to string him along. The greater the trust between us overtly, the less he would suspect covert action. Who gained most from this complex game I cannot say. But I had one big advantage. I knew what he was doing for CIA and he knew what I was doing for SIS. But the real nature of my interest was something he did not know. (37)

Burgess & Maclean

In 1950 Guy Burgess was appointed the first secretary at the British embassy in Washington. Kim Philbysuggested to Aileen Philby that Burgess should live in the basement of their house. Nicholas Elliottexplained that Aileen was completely opposed to the idea. “Knowing the trouble that would inevitably ensue – and remembering Burgess’s drunken and homosexual orgies when he had stayed with them in Instanbul – Aileen resisted this move, but bowed in the end (and as usual) to Philby’s wishes… The inevitable drunken scenes and disorder ensued and tested the marriage to its limits.” (38)

Meredith Gardner and his code-breaking team at Arlington Hall discovered that a Soviet spy with the codename of Homer was found on a number of messages from the KGB station at the Soviet consulate-general in New York City to Moscow Centre. The cryptanalysts discovered that the spy had been in Washington since 1944. The FBI concluded that it could be one of 6,000 people. At first they concentrated their efforts on non-diplomatic employees of the embassy. In April 1951, the Venona decoders found the vital clue in one of the messages. Homer had had regular contacts with his Soviet control in New York, using his pregnant wife as an excuse. This information enabled them to identify the spy as Donald Maclean, the first secretary at the Washington embassy during the Second World War. (39)

Kim Philby was told of the breakthrough. Philby took the news calmly as there was no real evidence, as yet, to connect him directly with Maclean, and the two men had not met for several years. MI5 decided not to arrest Maclean straight away. The Venona material was too secret to be used in court and so it was decided to keep Maclean under surveillance in the hope of gathering further evidence, for example, catching him in direct contact with his Soviet controller. Philby relayed the news to Moscow and demanded that Maclean be extracted from the UK before he was interrogated and compromised the entire British spy network.

Philby made the decision to use Guy Burgess to warn Maclean that he must flee to Moscow. The two men dined in a Chinese restaurant in downtown Washington, selected because it had individual booths with piped music, to prevent any eavesdroppers. Burgess said he would return to London in order to receive details of the escape plan. Before he left Philby made Burgess promise he would not flee with Maclean to Moscow: “Don’t go with him when he goes. If you do, that’ll be the end of me. Swear that you won’t.” Philby was aware that if Burgess went with Maclean, he would be suspected as a member of the network. (40)

Burgess arrived back in England on 7th May 1951, and immediately contacted Anthony Blunt, who got a message to Yuri Modin, the Soviet controller of the Philby network. Blunt told Modin: “There’s serious trouble, Guy Burgess has just arrived back in London. Homer’s about to be arrested… It’s only a question of days now, maybe hours… Donald’s now in such a state that I’m convinced he’ll break down the moment they arrest him.” (41)

After receiving instructions from his superiors, Modin arranged for Maclean to escape to the Soviet Union. Modin was informed that Maclean would be arrested on 28th May. The plan was for Maclean to be interviewed by the Foreign Secretary, Herbert Morrison. “It has been assumed that Morrison held a meeting and that someone present at that meeting tipped off Burgess.” (42) Another possibility is that a senior figure in MI5 was a Soviet spy, and he told Modin of the plan to arrest Maclean. This is the view of Peter Wright who suspects it was Roger Hollis who provided Modin with the information. (43)

On 25th May 1951, Burgess appeared at the Maclean’s home in Tatsfield with a rented car, packed bags and two round-trip tickets booked in false names for the Falaise, a pleasure boat leaving that night for St Malo in France. Modin had insisted that Burgess must accompany Maclean. He later explained: “The Centre had concluded that we had not one, but two burnt-out agents on our hands on our hands. Burgess had lost most of his former value to us… Even if he retained his job, he could never again feed intelligence to the KGB as he had done before. He was finished.” (44)

Maclean and Burgess took a train to Paris, and then another train to Berne in Switzerland. They then picked up fake passports in false names from the Soviet embassy. They then took another train to Zurich, where they boarded a plan bound for Stockholm, with a stop-over in Prague. They left the airport and now safely behind the Iron Curtain, they were taken by car to Moscow. (45) On his arrival in the Soviet Union Maclean issued a statement: “I am haunted and burdened by what I know of official secrets, especially by the content of high-level Anglo-American conversations. The British Government, whom I have served, have betrayed the realm to Americans … I wish to enable my beloved country to escape from the snare which faithless politicians have set … I have decided that I can discharge my duty to my country only through prompt disclosure of this material to Stalin.” (46)

When Donald Maclean defected in 1951 Philby became the chief suspect as the man who had tipped him off that he was being investigated. The main evidence against him was his friendship with Guy Burgess, who had gone with Maclean to Moscow. Philby was recalled to London. CIA chief, Walter Bedell Smithordered any officers with knowledge of Philby and Burgess to submit reports on the men. William K. Harvey replied that after studying all the evidence he was convinced that “Philby was a Soviet spy”. (47)

James Jesus Angleton reacted in a completely different way. In Angleton’s estimation, Philby was no traitor, but an honest and brilliant man who had been cruelly duped by Burgess. According to Tom Mangold, “Angleton… remained convinced that his British friend would be cleared of suspicion” and warned Bedell Smith that if the CIA started making unsubstantiated charges of treachery against a senior MI6 officer this would seriously damage Anglo-American relations, since Philby was “held in high esteem” in London. (48)

Chief of Counter-Intelligence Staff

In early 1951 James Jesus Angleton was appointed head of the CIA’s newly created Special Operations Group. In this post Angleton served as the CIA’s exclusive liaison with Israeli intelligence. “One might have expected his unit to be part of the agency’s Middle East Division. But it stayed under Angleton’s tight, zealous command for the next twenty years – to the utter fury of the division’s separate Arab desks. Angleton’s ties with the Israelis gave him considerable prestige within the CIA and later added significantly to his expanding counter-intelligence empire.” (49)

Allen Dulles, the new director of the CIA, commissioned Lieutenant General James Doolittle to report on the organization’s CIA ‘s covert intelligence-collecting capabilities. Doolittle concluded that the CIA was losing the spy wars with the KGB. Doolittle advised “the intensification of the CIA’s counter-intelligence efforts to prevent or detect and eliminate penetrations of CIA”. (50) In December, 1954, Dulles’ response to the report was to appoint Angleton to become first chief of the CIA’s newly created Counter-Intelligence Staff.

Another CIA senior officer, Tom Braden, recalls that Angleton often reported privately to Dulles: “Jim came in and out of Dulles’s office a lot. He always came alone and had this aura of secrecy about him, something that made him stand out-even among other secretive CIA officers. In those days, there was a general CIA camaraderie, but Jim made himself exempt from this. He was a loner who worked alone.” Braden claims that Dulles gave Angleton permission to secretly bug important Washington dinner parties. “One time, Jim secretly bugged the house of the wife of a very senior Treasury Department official, who entertained important foreign guests and diplomatic corps people. Dulles got a big kick from reading Jim’s report. Dulles was told about the bugging, but had no objection.” (51)

James Jesus Angleton
Angleton spent his time protecting the security of CIA operations through research and careful analysis of incoming information. “The task meant that considerable amounts of paper must be acquired, read, digested, filed, and refiled. Ironically, although Angleton had helped develop the CIA’s central registry (where names, reports, and cases were indexed), his staff had one of the worst records of any CIA component for contributing data into the main system after 1955. This was because of Angleton’s obsession with secrecy and his inability to trust the security of the CIA’s main filing system. He believed there was nothing to prevent someone from stealing from the CIA’s storehouse of secrets. Keeping the best files to himself also helped consolidate his bureaucratic power.” (52)The only man Angleton shared this information with was Raymond Rocca, his head of the staff’s new Research and Analysis Department. “Rocca’s friends say he was well suited for the job. He had an excellent memory, and was considered a plodding, thorough scholar who usually provided Angleton with more detail than was needed…. Rocca reviewed the past with the devotion of an archeologist rediscovering an ancient tomb. Nearly every old Soviet intelligence case, dating back to the Cheka (the first Bolshevik secret police), was dutifully stored in the historical archives, and analyzed repeatedly… Critics of Angleton’s methodology say that both he and Rocca wasted enormous quantities of time studying the gospels of prewar Soviet intelligence operations at the very moment that the KGB had shifted the style and emphasis of its operations against the West.” (53)During the 20th Party Congress in February, 1956, Nikita Khrushchev launched an attack on the rule of Joseph Stalin. He argued: ” Stalin acted not through persuasion, explanation and patient co-operation with people, but by imposing his concepts and demanding absolute submission to his opinion. Whoever opposed this concept or tried to prove his viewpoint, and the correctness of his position, was doomed to removal from the leading collective and to subsequent moral and physical annihilation. This was especially true during the period following the 17th Party Congress, when many prominent Party leaders and rank-and-file Party workers, honest and dedicated to the cause of communism, fell victim to Stalin’s despotism.”James Jesus Angleton leaked doctored versions of the speech to numerous foreign government in a disinformation campaign. Charles J.V. Murphy has argued: “Many of Angleton’s covert operations after he joined the CIA remain secret. The only people who know what he really did are his superiors and those who worked with him. One exploit that can be told came early in 1956. In collaboration with a friendly intelligence service, his unit acquired a copy of Nikita Khrushchev’s famed denunciation of Stalin to the 20th Party Congress.” (54)

Anatoli Golitsyn – Soviet Defector

In December 1961, Anatoli Golitsyn, a member of staff at the Soviet embassy in Helsinki, Finland, walked into the American embassy and asked for political asylum. (55) Golitsyn was immediately flown to the United States and lodged in a safe house called Ashford Farm near Washington. CIA officers found him as being “unpleasant and egotistical”. They also commented that as a major in the First Chief Directorate of the KGB, he was “almost too fortunate and too high up to have a reason to defect”. Golitsyn demanded that he be interviewed by James Jesus Angleton. He insisted that no one else in the CIA was smart enough or knew enough to question him. Attorney General Robert Kennedy went to see Golitsyn and was told that the CIA was deliberately keeping him away from Angleton. He promised to take up the case with President John F. Kennedy. (56)

As a result of President Kennedy’s intervention, Golitsyn was interviewed by Angleton. A fellow officer, Edward Perry, later recalled: “With the single exception of Golitsyn, Angleton was inclined to assume that any defector or operational asset in place was controlled by the KGB.” Angleton and his staff began debriefing Golitsyn. He told Angleton: “Your CIA has been the subject of continuous penetration… A contact agent who served in Germany was the major recruiter. His code name was SASHA. He served in Berlin… He was responsible for many agents being taken by the KGB.” (57) In these interviews Golitsyn argued that as the KGB would be so concerned about his defection, they would attempt to convince the CIA that the information he was giving them would be completely unreliable. He predicted that the KGB would send false defectors with information that contradicted what he was saying.

Anatoli Golitsyn and his wife Svetlana at Coconut Grove in Los Angeles (1961)
James Jesus Angleton later told a Senate Committee: “Golitsyn possesses an unusual gift for the analytical. His mind without question is one of the finest of an analytical bent… and he is a trained historian by background. It is most difficult to dispute with him an historical date or event, whether it pertains to the Mamelukes or Byzantine or whatever it may be. He is a true scholar. Therefore, he is very precise in terms of what he states to be fact, and he separates the fact from speculation although he indulges in many avenues and so on.” (58)Peter Wright, the author of Spycatcher (1987) has argued that Angleton believed Golitsyn: “A string of senior CIA officers, most notably Dave Murphy, the head of the Soviet Division, unfairly fell under suspicion, their careers ruined. In the end, the situation became so bad, with so many different officers under suspicion as a result of Golitsyn’s leads, that the CIA decided the only way of purging the doubt was to disband the Soviet Division, and start again with a completely new complement of officers. It was obviously a way out of the maze, but it could never justify the damage to the morale in the Agency as a whole.” (59)
Defection of Kim Philby

On 23rd January, 1963, Kim Philby fled to Moscow. Nicholas Elliott later claimed that he and MI6 were surprised by the defection. “It just didn’t dawn on us.” (60) Ben Macintyre, the author of A Spy Among Friends (2014) argues: “This defies belief. Burgess and Maclean had both defected… Philby knew he now faced sustained interrogation, over a long period, at the hands of Peter Lunn, a man he found unsympathetic. Elliott had made it quite clear that if he failed to cooperate fully, the immunity deal was off and the confession he had already signed would be used against him… There is another, very different way to read Elliott’s actions. The prospect of prosecuting Philby in Britain was anathema to the intelligence services; another trial, so soon after the Blake fiasco, would be politically damaging and profoundly embarrassing.” (61)

Desmond Bristow, MI6’s head of station in Spain, agreed with this analysis: “Philby was allowed to escape. Perhaps he was even encouraged. To have him brought back to England and convicted as a traitor would have been even more embarrassing; and when they convicted him, could they really have hanged him?” (62) Yuri Modin, who was the man the KGB selected to talk to Philby before he defected, also believes this was the case: “To my mind the whole business was politically engineered. The British government had nothing to gain by prosecuting Philby. A major trial, to the inevitable accompaniment of spectacular revelation and scandal, would have shaken the British establishment to its foundations.” (63)

James Jesus Angleton, who had been loyal defender for many years was extremely embarrassed. Philby and Angleton had thirty-six meetings at CIA headquarters between 1949 and 1951. Every one of the discussions that they had were typed up by Angleton’s secretary Gloria Loomis. This was also true of the weekly meeting they had at Harvey’s Restaurant in Washington. Angleton was so ashamed about all the CIA secrets he had given to Philby he destroyed all these documents. Angleton told Peter Wright: “I had them burned. It was all very embarrassing.” He added that if he were a chap who murdered people he would kill Philby. (64)

Leonard McCoy, a senior officer in the CIA, later told Tom Mangold: “My guess is that he must have inadvertently leaked a lot to Philby. During those long boozy lunches and dinners. Philby must have picked him clean on CIA gossip, internal power struggles, and more importantly, personality assessments… At that time, the CIA had active operations going in Albania, the Baltic, the Ukraine, and from Turkey into southern Russia. We had agents parachuting in, floating in, walking in, boating in. Virtually all of these operations were complete failures. After the war, we had also planted a whole stay-behind network of agents in eastern Europe. They were all rolled up. It’s difficult to draw conclusions why they all failed, but Philby must have played his part.” (65)

CIA agent, Miles Copeland, was aware of these regular meetings. He later commented: “What Philby provided was feedback about the CIA’s reactions. They (the KGB) could accurately determine whether or not reports fed to the CIA were believed or not… what it comes to, is that when you look at the whole period from 1944 to 1951, the entire Western intelligence effort, which was pretty big, was what you might call minus advantage. We’d have been better off doing nothing.” (66)

It is believed that the defection of Kim Philby was partly responsible for his paranoia. Dr. Jerrold Post, a psychologist who knew Angleton later commented: “There’s little doubt it would have contributed to his paranoia. He must have wondered if he could ever trust anyone again. Psychologically, it would have been a major event. If you give or invest your friendship to a person and he betrays that investment as cynically as Philby betrayed Angleton’s, then future trust has gone.” (67) Another top CIA psychologist, Dr. John Gittinger, claimed: “It absolutely shattered Angleton’s life in terms of his ability to be objective about other people. It’s like being devoted to your wife and finding her in bed with another man. There’s nothing worse than a disillusioned idealist.” (68)

The Assassination of John F. Kennedy

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in November 1963, Richard Helms was given the responsibility of investigating Lee Harvey Oswald and the CIA. Helms initially appointed John M. Whittento undertake the agency’s in-house investigation. After talking to Winston Scott, the CIA station chief in Mexico City, Whitten discovered that Oswald had been photographed at the Cuban consulate in early October, 1963. Scott had not reported this matter to Whitten, his boss, at the time. Nor had Scott told Whitten that Oswald had also visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico. In fact, Whitten had not been informed of the existence of Oswald, even though there was a 201 pre-assassination file on him that had been maintained by the Counterintelligence/Special Investigative Group. (69)

Whitten and his staff of 30 officers, were sent a large amount of information from the FBI. According to Gerald D. McKnight “the FBI deluged his branch with thousands of reports containing bits and fragments of witness testimony that required laborious and time-consuming name checks.” Whitten later described most of this FBI material as “weirdo stuff”. As a result of this initial investigation, Whitten told Helms that he believed that Oswald had acted alone in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (70)

On 6th December, Nicholas Katzenbach invited Whitten and Birch O’Neal, Angleton’s trusted deputy and senior Special Investigative Group (SIG) officer to read Commission Document 1 (CD1), the report that the FBI had written on Lee Harvey Oswald. Whitten now realized that the FBI had been withholding important information on Oswald from him. He also discovered that Richard Helms had not been providing him all of the agency’s available files on Oswald. This included Oswald’s political activities in the months preceding the assassination. (71)

John M. Whitten had a meeting where he argued that Oswald’s pro-Castro political activities needed closer examination, especially his attempt to shoot the right-wing General Edwin Walker, his relationship with anti-Castro exiles in New Orleans, and his public support for the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee. “None of this had been passed to us.” Whitten added that has he had been denied this information, his initial conclusions on the assassination were “completely irrelevant.” (72)

Helms responded by taking Whitten off the case. James Jesus Angleton was now put in charge of the investigation. According to Gerald McKnight, the author of Breach of Trust (2005), Angleton “wrested the CIA’s in-house investigation away from John Whitten because he either was convinced or pretended to believe that the purpose of Oswald’s trip to Mexico City had been to meet with his KGB handlers to finalize plans to assassinate Kennedy.” As McKnight explains: “Angleton, like his professional counterpart, Hoover, dropped the Cuban angle in the assassination and turned the investigation over to Counterintelligence’s Soviet Division to determine whether the KGB had influenced Oswald in any way.” (73)

The Warren Commission

Over the next few months James Jesus Angleton worked with William Sullivan of the FBI in providing information to the Warren Commission. During this period Angleton continued to interview Anatoli Golitsyn. Golitsyn argued that the KGB sought a virtual takeover of Western intelligence services and had turned several CIA agents. Angleton was convinced by this story and as Tom Mangold, the author of Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) has pointed out: “With these revelations, a minor and undistinguished KGB officer, working in tandem with the CIA’s chief of Counterintelligence was now able to throw the CIA and much of Western intelligence into a decade of deep confusion and doubt. The acceptance of Golitsyn’s logic led to the betrayal and dismissal of some of the CIA’s finest officers and agents.” (74)

In January 1964 Yuri Nosenko, deputy chief of the Seventh Department of the KGB, who had been providing information since 1961, contacted the CIA and said he wanted to defect to the United States. He claimed that he had been recalled to Moscow to be interrogated. Nosenko feared that the KGB had discovered he was a double-agent and once back in the Soviet Union would be executed. He claimed that he had been put in charge of the KGB investigation into Lee Harvey Oswald. He denied the Oswald had any connection with KGB. After interviewing Oswald it was decided that he was not intelligent enough to work as a KGB agent. They were also concerned that he was “too mentally unstable” to be of any use to them. Nosenko added that the KGB had never questioned Oswald about information he had acquired while a member of the U.S. Marines. This surprised the CIA as Oswald had worked as a Aviation Electronics Operator at the Atsugi Air Base in Japan. (75)

J. Edgar Hoover welcomed the information from Nosenko: “Nosenko’s assurances that Yekaterina Furtseva herself had stopped the KGB from recruiting Oswald gave Hoover the evidence he needed to clear the Soviets of complicity in the Kennedy murder – and, even more from Hoover’s point of view, clear the FBI of gross negligence. Hoover took this raw, unverified, and untested intelligence and leaked it to members of the Warren Commission and to President Johnson.” (76) Hoover leaked this information to the Warren Commission. This pleased its members as it helped to confirm the idea that Oswald had acted alone and was not part of a Soviet conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy.

James Jesus Angleton at the funeral of Allen Dulles in January 1969
Despite the fact that the Warren Commission received information from Hoover about Yuri Nosenko his name is not mentioned in the final report. Although the commission favoured Hoover’s interpretation that he was a genuine defector, it was decided that it was better not to include the information. This was decided after Nosenko’s CIA case-officer, Tennant Bagley, spoke to commission members on 24th July, 1964: “Nosenko is a KGB plant and may be publicly exposed as such some time after the appearance of the Commission’s report. Once Nosenko is exposed as a KGB plant, there will arise the danger that his information will be mirror-read by the press and public, leading to conclusions that the USSR did direct the assassination.” (77)According to Mark Riebling: “That was enough to settle the question. The commission had been founded for no other reason to avert rumors which might cost ‘forty million lives’, and later that afternoon decided it would be ‘undesirable to include any Nosenko information’ information’ in its report. The defector’s FBI debriefings would remain classified in commission files.” Richard Helms points out that Hoover was not happy with this decision: “When the Warren people sided with us, it cut across Mr. Hoover’s assertion that the Russians had had nothing to do with the assassination.” (78)Some researchers have claimed that Angleton was involved in covering up CIA’s involvement in the assassination of Kennedy. H. R. Haldeman, President Nixon’s chief of staff, claimed in his book, The Ends of Power: “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.” (79)
Death of Mary Pinchot Meyer

Timothy Leary has claimed that a few days after John F. Kennedy had been killed he received a disturbing phone call from Mary Pinchot Meyer. He wrote in his autobiography, Flashbacks (1983): Ever since the Kennedy assassination I had been expecting a call from Mary. It came around December 1. I could hardly understand her. She was either drunk or drugged or overwhelmed with grief. Or all three.” Meyer told Leary: “They couldn’t control him any more. He was changing too fast. They’ve covered everything up. I gotta come see you. I’m afraid.” (80)

Mary Pinchot Meyer

On 12th October, 1964, Mary Pinchot Meyer was shot dead as she walked along the Chesapeake and Ohio towpath in Georgetown. Henry Wiggins, a car mechanic, was working on a vehicle on Canal Road, when he heard a woman shout out: “Someone help me, someone help me”. He then heard two gunshots. Wiggins ran to the edge of the wall overlooking the towpath. He later told police he saw “a black man in a light jacket, dark slacks, and a dark cap standing over the body of a white woman.” (81)

Mary appeared to be killed by a professional hitman. The first bullet was fired at the back of the head. She did not die straight away. A second shot was fired into the heart. The evidence suggests that in both cases, the gun was virtually touching Mary’s body when it was fired. As the FBI expert testified, the “dark haloes on the skin around both entry wounds suggested they had been fired at close-range, possibly point-blank”. (82)

The murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer
Ben Bradlee points out that the first he heard of the death of Mary Pinchot Meyer was when he received a phone-call from Wistar Janney, his friend who worked for the CIA: “My friend Wistar Janney called to ask if I had been listening to the radio. It was just after lunch, and of course I had not. Next he asked if I knew where Mary was, and of course I didn’t. Someone had been murdered on the towpath, he said, and from the radio description it sounded like Mary. I raced home. Tony was coping by worrying about children, hers and Mary’s, and about her mother, who was seventy-one years old, living alone in New York. We asked Anne Chamberlin, Mary’s college roommate, to go to New York and bring Ruth to us. When Ann was well on her way, I was delegated to break the news to Ruth on the telephone. I can’t remember that conversation. I was so scared for her, for my family, and for what was happening to our world. Next, the police told us, someone would have to identify Mary’s body in the morgue, and since Mary and her husband, Cord Meyer, were separated, I drew that straw too.” (83)Peter Janney, the author of Mary’s Mosaic (2012) has questioned this account of events provided by Bradlee. “How could Bradlee’s CIA friend have known ‘just after lunch’ that the murdered woman was Mary Meyer when the victim’s identity was still unknown to police? Did the caller wonder if the woman was Mary, or did he know it, and if so, how? This distinction is critical, and it goes to the heart of the mystery surrounding Mary Meyer’s murder.” (84)That night Antoinette Pinchot Bradlee received a telephone call from Mary’s best friend, Anne Truitt, an artist living in Tokyo. She told her that it “was a matter of some urgency that she found Mary’s diary before the police got to it and her private life became a matter of public record”. (85) Mary had apparently told Anne that “if anything ever happened to me” you must take possession of my “private diary”. Ben Bradlee explains in The Good Life (1995): “We didn’t start looking until the next morning, when Tony and I walked around the corner a few blocks to Mary’s house. It was locked, as we had expected, but when we got inside, we found Jim Angleton, and to our complete surprise he told us he, too, was looking for Mary’s diary.” (86)James Jesus Angleton later claimed that he had also received a telephone call from Anne Truitt. His wife, Cicely Angleton, confirmed this in an interview given to Nina Burleigh. (87) However, an article by Ron Rosenbaum and Phillip Nobile, in the New Times on 9th July, 1976, gives a different version of events with the Angleton’s arriving at Mary’s house that evening to attend a poetry reading and that at this stage they did not know she was dead. (88)

Joseph Trento, the author of Secret History of the CIA (2001), has pointed out: “Cicely Angleton called her husband at work to ask him to check on a radio report she had heard that a woman had been shot to death along the old Chesapeake and Ohio towpath in Georgetown. Walking along that towpath, which ran near her home, was Mary Meyer’s favorite exercise, and Cicely, knowing her routine, was worried. James Angleton dismissed his wife’s worry, pointing out that there was no reason to suppose the dead woman was Mary – many people walked along the towpath. When the Angletons arrived at Mary Meyer’s house that evening, she was not home. A phone call to her answering service proved that Cicely’s anxiety had not been misplaced: Their friend had been murdered that afternoon.” (89)

A Soviet Mole

Angleton became convinced that the CIA had been penetrated by a “mole” working for the KGB. He ordered, Clare Edward Petty, a member of the ultra-secret Special Investigation Group (SIG), to carry out a study into the possibility that a Soviet spy existed in the higher levels of the CIA. Angleton suggested that Petty should take a close look at David Edmund Murphy. The Soviet defector, Anatoli Golitsyn, had suggested that Murphy might have been recruited as a spy when working in Berlin in the 1950s. Angleton’s suspicions were increased by Murphy speaking fluent Russian and marrying a woman who had previously lived in the Soviet Union. (90)

Murphy had been accused of being a Soviet spy by one of his own officers, Peter Kapusta. He originally expressed this opinion to Sam Papich, the FBI’s liaison man with the CIA. “Kapusta called in the middle of the night. It was one or two o’clock in the morning. The FBI did not investigate. From the beginning, the bureau looked at the Murphy matter strictly as an internal CIA problem. We received certain information, including Kapusta’s input. By our standards, based on what was available, FBI investigation was not warranted.” (91) This information was passed to Angleton and he became convinced that he was a Soviet mole.

Petty investigated Murphy’s wife and found that her family had fled from Russia after the Russian Revolution. They moved to China before settling in San Francisco. Petty could find no evidence that she was pro-communist. Newton S. Miler, a member of SIG had investigated Murphy in the early 1960s. He discovered that a large number of his operations had been unsuccessful: “Just a series of failures, things that blew up in his face. Odd things that happened. The scrapes in Japan and Vienna. They (the KGB) may have been setting up Murphy just to embarrass CIA. But you have to consider these incidents may have been staged to give him bona fides.” (92) Petty came to the conclusion that Murphy was “accident prone”.

Petty eventually produced a twenty-five-page report that concluded that there was a “probability” that Murphy was innocent. Petty felt that Murphy may have been targeted by the KGB, but was never recruited. (93) However, Angleton rejected the report as he was convinced he was a spy. In 1968 Angleton arranged for Murphy to be removed from his job as head of the Soviet Division and assigned to Paris as station chief. Angleton then contacted the head of French intelligence and warned him that Murphy was a Soviet agent. (94)

Tennant Bagley

Angleton now asked Petty to investigate his close colleague, Tennant Bagley, who had been the case-officer dealing with Yuri Nosenko. This was a surprising suggestion as Bagley had always been a loyal supporter of Angleton and told the Warren Commission that “Nosenko is a KGB plant and may be publicly exposed as such some time after the appearance of the Commission’s report. Once Nosenko is exposed as a KGB plant, there will arise the danger that his information will be mirror-read by the press and public, leading to conclusions that the USSR did direct the assassination.” (95)

However, Angleton believed that Bagley had deliberately mishandled the attempted recruitment of a minor Polish intelligence officer in Switzerland. “Petty fastened on an episode that had taken place years earlier, when Bagley had been stationed in Bern, handling Soviet operations in the Swiss capital. At the time, Bagley was attempting to recruit an officer of the UB, the Polish intelligence service, in Switzerland. Petty concluded that a phrase in a letter from Michal Goleniewski, the Polish intelligence officer who called himself Sniper… the KGB had advance knowledge that could only have come from a mole in the CIA.” (96)

James Jesus Angleton
Petty spent a year investigating Bagley, who had remained one of Angleton’s strongest supporters. Petty’s 250 page report on Bagley concluded that he “was a candidate to whom we should pay serious attention”. However, Angleton rejected the report and told Petty: “Pete’s not a KGB agent, he’s not a Soviet spy.” As Tom Mangold, the author of Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter(1991) has pointed out: “A lesser man than Petty might have given up at this stage. He had investigated, on his master’s behalf, a former chief and deputy chief of the Soviet Division – incredible targets in themselves – and had failed to prove either case. But Petty remained convinced that a mole existed.” (97)
James Jesus Angleton – Soviet Spy?

Clare Edward Petty continued to search for the Soviet mole and eventually reached the conclusion that it was the man who had ordered the investigation, James Jesus Angleton, who had penetrated the CIA, and was in league with Anatoli Golitsyn, who was not a genuine defector: “It was at that point that I decided I’d been looking at it all wrong by assuming Golitsyn was good as gold. I began rethinking everything. If you turned the flip side it all made sense. Golitsyn was sent to exploit Angleton. Then the next step, maybe not just an exploitation, and I had to extend it to Angleton. Golitsyn might have been dispatched as the perfect man to manipulate Angleton or provide Angleton with material on the basis of which he (Angleton) could penetrate and control other services…. Angleton made available to Golitsyn extensive sensitive information which could have gone back to the KGB. Angleton was a mole, but he needed Golitsyn to have a basis on which to act…. Golitsyn and Angleton. You have two guys absolutely made for each other. Golitsyn was a support for things Angleton had wanted to do for years in terms of getting into foreign intelligence services. Golitsyn’s leads lent themselves to that. I concluded that logically Golitsyn was the prime dispatched agent.” (98)

In 1971 Petty began “putting stuff on index cards, formulating my theory”. Petty later told David C. Martin: The case against Angleton was a great compilation of circumstantial material. It was not a clear-cut case.” However, an unnamed senior CIA officer explained to Martin that his investigation of Angleton was deeply flawed: “There was a lot of supposition, factual situations which were subject to varying interpretations. You could draw conclusions one way or the other, and we felt the conclusions by the fellow who was making the case were overdrawn… Petty was a very intense person. He was seized with this theory, and like all people in this field, once they get seized with this thing, you wonder whether they’re responsible or not.” (99) Newton S. Miler, a member of SIG supported this view: “Petty… would decide on a bottom line before he started and then fit everything to his conclusions. He wanted recognition, he wanted to be seen as a spycatcher. In the end, he turned against everyone, and even had disputes with Ray Rocca and myself. I always thought Ed a bit odd.” (100)

Petty told James H. Critchfield, the CIA head of the Eastern European and Near East divisions about his suspicions. As he later pointed out: “I reviewed Angleton’s entire career, going back through his relationships with Philby, his adherence to all of Golitsyn’s wild theories, his false accusations against foreign services and the resulting damage to the liaison relationships, and finally his accusation against innocent Soviet Division officers.” As a result of his investigation, Petty concluded that there was an “80-85 percent probability” that Angleton was a Soviet mole.

Clare Edward Petty decided not to tell his boss, Jean M. Evans, about his investigation. “Petty worked in absolute secrecy, never revealing to anyone except Critchfield that he was gathering information to accuse his own boss, James Angleton, as a Soviet spy. By the spring of 1973, after toiling for some two years, Petty felt he could not develop his theory any further. He decided to retire.” (101)

Harold Wilson Plot

James Jesus Angleton became convinced that Anatoli Golitsyn was the most important Soviet defector. Angleton’s colleague, E. Henry Knoche, claimed: “Angleton had a special view of the world. You almost have to be 100 per cent paranoid to do the job. You always have to fear the worst. You always have to assume, without necessarily having the proof in your hands, that your own organization has been penetrated and there’s a mole around somewhere. And it creates this terrible distrustful attitude.” (102)

He believed the story that Hugh Gaitskell had been murdered in January 1963 to allow Harold Wilson, a KGB agent, to become leader of the Labour Party. Angleton believed Golitsyn but few senior members of the CIA agreed with him. They pointed out that Gaitskell had died after Golitsyn had left the Soviet Unionand would have had to know in advance what was about to take place.

However, Angleton remained convinced and according to David Leigh, the author of The Wilson Plot(1988) argues that Angleton developed a “fanatical belief that Wilson was under Soviet control”. (103) Angleton passed this information onto Peter Wright and Arthur Martin of MI5. Wright admitted in his biography that he had been suspicious of Gaitskell’s death at the time: “I knew him personally and admired him greatly… After he died his doctor got in touch with MI5 and asked to see somebody from the Service. Arthur Martin, as the head of Russian Counter-espionage, went to see him. The doctor explained that he was disturbed by the manner of Gaitskell’s death. He said that Gaitskell had died of a disease called lupus disseminata, which attacks the body’s organs. He said that it was rare in temperate climates and that there was no evidence that Gaitskell had been anywhere recently where he could have contracted the disease.” (104)

In 1968 Wright joined forces with Cecil King, the newspaper publisher, in a plot to bring down the government of Harold Wilson and replace it with a coalition led by Lord Mountbatten. According to Ken Livingstone: “Matters began to hot up when the press baron Cecil King, a long-standing MI5 agent, began to discuss the need for a coup against the Wilson Government. King informed Peter Wright that the Daily Mirror would publish any damaging anti-Wilson leaks that MI5 wanted aired, and at a meeting with Lord Mountbatten and the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Solly Zuckerman, he urged Mountbatten to become the leader of a Government of national salvation.” (105) Solly Zuckerman got up and before he left said: “This is rank treachery. All this talk of machine guns at street corners is appalling.” Zuckerman told Mountbatten not to have anything to do with the conspiracy and as a result it ended in failure. (106)

James Schlesinger

In February, 1973, James Schlesinger replaced Richard Helms as Director of the CIA. Angleton immediately went to see Schlesinger and gave him a list of more than 30 people that he considered to be Soviet agents. This list included top politicians, foreign intelligence officials and senior CIA officials. Those named included Harold Wilson, the British prime minister, Olof Palme, the Swedish prime minister, Willy Brandt, chairman of the West German Social Democratic Party, Averell Harriman, the former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, Lester Pearson, the Canadian prime minister, Armand Hammer, the chief executive of Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Henry Kissinger, the National Security Adviser and Secretary of State under President Richard Nixon. (107)

Schlesinger listened to Angleton for seven hours. After consulting with other senior figures in the CIA he concluded that he was suffering from paranoia. However, he liked Angleton and decided against forcing him into retirement. Schlesinger later recalled: “Listening to him was like looking at an Impressionist painting… Jim’s mind was devious and allusive, and his conclusions were woven in a quite flimsy manner. His long briefings would wander on, and although he was attempting to convey a great deal, it was always smoke, hints, and bizarre allegations. He might have been a little cracked but he was always sincere.” (108)

Schlesinger discovered that Angleton had been running Operation Chaos since 1967. President Lyndon B. Johnson had ordered the CIA to determine whether the anti-Vietnam War movement was being financed or manipulated by foreign governments. Angleton put Richard Ober in charge of the project that collected information on the peace movement, New Left activists, campus radicals and black nationalists. The CIA joined forces with the FBI to spy on these people: “The agencies buried their long-standing rivalries to cooperate on mail intercepts, phone taps, monitoring meetings, the use of LSD to pump people for information, and surveillance of… expatriates as well as travelers passing through certain select areas abroad.” (109)

James Jesus Angleton was ordered to attend a meeting in his office. Schlesinger demanded to know what this large and expensive project had yielded. When he was given the answer, “Not very much,” he ordered Angleton to stop the entire operation. Apparently he told him: “Jim, this thing is not only breaking the law, but we’re getting nothing out of it.” (110) On 9th May, 1973, James Schlesinger issued a directive to all CIA employees: “I have ordered all senior operating officials of this Agency to report to me immediately on any activities now going on, or might have gone on in the past, which might be considered to be outside the legislative charter of this Agency. I hereby direct every person presently employed by CIA to report to me on any such activities of which he has knowledge. I invite all ex-employees to do the same. Anyone who has such information should call my secretary and say that he wishes to talk to me about “activities outside the CIA’s charter”. (111)


In early 1973, James Schlesinger appointed William Colby as head of all clandestine operations. Colby was now Angleton’s direct superior. One of his first actions was to take a close look at HT-LINGUAL, a huge secret mail-opening scheme, that Angleton had been running since November 1955. Angleton’s staff were intercepting letters between the United States and the Soviet Union and other Communist countries. Angleton thought that it was “probably the most important overview that counter-intelligence had” because the “enemy regarded America’s mails as inviolate, mail coverage was likely to provide clues to the identities of Soviet agents”. Angleton was aware the mail-operating operation was illegal and that if it were ever exposed “serious public reaction in the United States would probably occur.” (112)

Colby investigated HT-LINGUAL and discovered that over the last twenty years over 215,000 letters were opened in New York City alone. “Each morning three CIA officers reported to a special room at New York’s LaGuardia Airport, where a postal clerk delivered from two to six sacks of mail… Working with a Diebold camera, the three officers photographed the exteriors of about 1,800 letters each day. Each evening they stashed about 60 of the letters in an attaché case or stuffed them in their pockets and took them to the CIA’s Manhattan Field Office for opening.” (113)

Colby later commented: I couldn’t find it had produced anything… I wrote a memo saying it should be terminated.” (114) Angleton questioned this decision and pointed out that they had been able to find out “whether illegal Soviet agents hidden in the United States were communicating to and from the USSR through the U.S. mails.” (115) Schlesinger decided to “suspend it but not terminate it”.

William Colby

In July 1973, James Schlesinger became President Nixon’s Secretary of Defence and William Colby was appointed as the new Director of the CIA. Colby was a strong critic of Angleton’s activities: “Colby had long believed that the true function of the agency was to collect and analyze information for the President and his policymakers. He maintained that it was not the CIA’s function to fight the KGB; the KGB was merely an obstacle en route to scaling the walls surrounding the Politburo and the Central Committee. In Colby’s mind, his concept of the CIA’s mission was an article of faith. But in Angleton he saw only a KGB fighter and a failed spycatcher.” (116)

Colby pointed out: “I couldn’t find that we ever caught a spy under Jim. That really bothered me. Every time I asked the second floor about this question, I got ‘Well, maybe’ and ‘Perhaps,’ but nothing hard. Now I don’t care what Jim’s political views were as long as he did his job properly, and I’m afraid, in that respect, he was not a good CI chief. As far as I was concerned, the role of the Counterintelligence Staff was basically to secure penetrations into the Russian intelligence services and to debrief defectors. Now I’m not saying that’s easy, but then CI was never easy. As far as this business of finding Soviet penetrations within the CIA, well, we have the whole Office of Security to protect us. That is their job… The isolation of the Counterintelligence Staff from the Soviet Division was a huge problem. Everyone knew it. The CI Staff was so far out on its own, so independent, that it had nothing to do with the rest of the agency, The staff was so secretive and self-contained that its work was not integrated into the rest of the agency’s operations. There was a total lack of cooperation.”

Colby told David Wise that he feared that Angleton would commit suicide if he was removed from his post. He therefore decided to gradually ease him out. He took away Angleton’s control over proposed clandestine operations. This was followed by removing his power to review operations already in progress. As each of these roles were removed, the size of Angleton’s staff dwindled from hundreds to some forty people. However, Angleton refused to resign: “Taking away FBI liaison and the other units was designed to lead him to see the handwriting on the wall. He just wouldn’t take the bait.” (117)

On 17th December, 1974, Colby called Angleton into his office and told him that he wanted him to retire. He offered him a post as a special consultant, in which he would compile his experiences for the CIA’s historical record. “I told him to leave the staff to write up what he had done during his career. This reflected my desire to get rid of him, but in a dignified way – so he could get down his experience on paper. No one knew what he had done! I didn’t! I told him to take either the consultancy or honorable retirement. We also discussed that he would get a higher pension if he accepted early retirement… He dug in his heels. I couldn’t get him to leave the job on his own. I just couldn’t edge him out.” (118)

The following day Seymour Hersh, who worked for the New York Times, phoned Colby and told him that he had an important story about the CIA. The two men met on 20th December. Hersh revealed that he had discovered both of the domestic operations run by Angleton – HT-LINGUAL and Operation Chaos. “Hersh told Colby that he intended to publish the news that the CIA had engaged in a massive spying campaign against thousands of American citizens (which violated the CIA charter). Colby tried to contain the damage, and he attempted to correct some of the exaggerations Hersh had picked up. But, in so doing, he effectively confirmed Hersh’s information.” (119)

Colby now had a meeting with Angleton and told him that Hersh was about to publish a story about his illegal operations. As a result he was forced to sack him. Angleton went to a public pay phone and called Hersh. He begged him not to run the pending story. as an inducement, he promised to give the journalist other classified information to publish instead. “He told me he had other stories which were much better. He really wanted to buy me off with these leads. One of the things he offered sounded very real – he said it was about something the United States was doing inside the Soviet Union. It could have been totally poppycock, who knows. I didn’t write it.” Angleton later accused Colby of giving information about the illegal operations to Hersh. However, in his interview with Tom Mangold he denied it. (120)

On 22nd December, 1974, Seymour Hersh published his story in the New York Times. Angleton was identified as the head of the CIA’s counter-intelligence staff and the man responsible for these illegal operations. David Atlee Phillips, saw him soon after the article was published: “We talked for a few minutes, standing in the diffused glow of a distant light. Angleton’s head was lowered, but occasionally he glanced up from under his brim of his black homburg… We then rambled on about nothing particular. I thought to myself that I had never seen a man who looked so infinitely tired and sad.” (121)

James Jesus Angleton Files

George T. Kalaris was appointed to replace James Jesus Angleton. William Colby pointed out: “I put George in there because he’s a very good, straightforward fellow. He wasn’t flashy. He knew how to run stations, and I had trust and faith in him. The situation needed a sensible person like him to put the place together again after all the chaos. I also needed someone who had not taken a side on any of the major issues…. I wrote George a very basic memorandum of instruction. I ordered him to go to it – to go get agents, to go penetrate the enemy.” (122)

Angleton went to see Kalaris on 31st December, 1974. He told the new head of counter-intelligence that he intended to “crush” him. “It’s nothing personal. It’s just that you are caught in the middle of a big battle between Colby and me. I feel sorry for you. I studied your personnel records, and I repeat, you are going to be crushed.” Angleton then went on to criticize the choice of Kalaris to run the department: “To qualify for working on my staff you would need eleven years of continuous study of old cases, starting with The Trust and the Rote Kapelle and so on. Not ten years, not twelve, but precisely eleven. My staff has made detailed study of these requirements. And even that much experience would make you only a journeyman counter-intelligence analyst.” Angleton then went on to say that the Soviets had not been successful in compromising the CIA’s Counter-intelligence Staff, because he had been there to protect it. “But this is not true of the Soviet Division”. (123)

Kalaris now instigated an investigation into Angleton’s filing system. His team found “entire sets of vaults and sealed rooms scattered all around the second and third floors of CIA headquarters”. They came across over 40 safes, some of them had not been opened for over ten years. No one on Angleton’s remaining staff knew what was in them and no one had the combinations anymore. Kalaris was forced to call in a “crack team of safebusters to drill open the door”. The investigators found “Angleton’s own most super-sensitive files, memoranda, notes and letters… tapes, photographs” and according to Kalaris “bizarre things of which I shall never ever speak”. This included files on two senior figures in MI5, Sir Roger Hollis and Graham Mitchell. There were also files on a large number of journalists. (124)

The investigators also found documents concerning Lee Harvey Oswald and on 18th September, 1975, George T. Kalaris wrote a memo to the executive assistant to the deputy director of Operations of the CIA describing the contents of Oswald’s 201 file. “There is also a memorandum dated 16 October 1963 from (redacted but likely Winston Scott) to the United States Ambassador there concerning Oswald’s visit to Mexico City and to the Soviet Embassy there in late September – early October 1963. Subsequently there were several Mexico City cables in October 1963 also concerned with Oswald’s visit to Mexico City, as well as his visits to the Soviet and Cuban Embassies.” (125) As John Newman, the author of Oswald and the CIA (2008) has pointed out: “the significance of the Kalaris memo is that it disclosed the existence of pre assassination knowledge of Oswald’s activities in the Cuban Consulate, and that this had been put into cables in October 1963.” (126)

The investigators discovered that Angleton had not entered any of the official documents from these safes into the CIA’s central filing system. Nothing had never been filed, recorded, or sent to the secretariat. “Angleton had been quietly building an alternative CIA, subscribing only to his rules, beyond peer review or executive supervision.” Over the next three years “a team of highly trained specialists another three full years just to sort, classify, file, and log the material into the CIA system.” Leonard McCoy, was giving the responsibility of inspected the most important files. McCoy was advised “to retain less than one half of 1 per cent of the total, or no more than 150-200 out of the 40,000.” The rest of Angleton’s files were then destroyed. (127)

James Truitt

James Truitt gave an interview to the National Enquirer that was published on 23rd February, 1976, with the headline, “Former Vice President of Washington Post Reveals… JFK 2-Year White House Romance“. Truitt told the newspaper that Mary Pinchot Meyer was having an affair with John F. Kennedy. He also claimed that Mary had told them that she was keeping an account of this relationship in her diary. Truitt added that the diary had been removed by James Jesus Angleton and Ben Bradlee when Meyer was murdered on 12th October, 1964. (128)

The newspaper sent a journalist to interview Bradlee about the issues raised by Truitt. According to one eyewitness account, Bradlee “erupted in a shouting rage and had the reporter thrown out of the building”. Nina Burleigh claims that it was Watergate that motivated Truitt to give the interview. “Truitt was disgusted that Bradlee was getting credit as a great champion of the First Amendment for exposing Nixon’s steamy side in Watergate coverage after having indulgently overlooked Kennedy’s hypocrisies.” Truitt was also angry that Bradlee had not exposed Kennedy’s affair with Mary Pinchot Meyer in his book, Conversations with Kennedy. Truitt had been close to Meyer during this period and had received a considerable amount of information about the relationship. (129)

Ben Bradlee, who had gone on holiday with his new wife, Sally Quinn, gave orders for the Washington Post to ignore the story. However, Harry Rosenfeld, a senior figure at the newspaper, commented, “We’re not going to treat ourselves more kindly than we treat others.” (130) However, when the article was published it included several interviews with Kennedy’s friends who denied he had an affair with Meyer. Kenneth O’Donnell described her as a “lovely lady” but denied that there had been a romance. Timothy Reardon claimed that “nothing like that ever happened at the White House with her or anyone else.” (131)

Bradlee and James Jesus Angleton continued to deny the story. Some of Mary’s friends knew that the two men were lying about the diary and some spoke anonymously to other newspapers and magazines. Later that month Time Magazine published an article confirming Truitt’s story. (132) In an interview with Jay Gourley, Bradlee’s former wife, and Mary’s sister, Antoinette Pinchot Bradlee admitted that her sister had been having an affair with John F. Kennedy: “It was nothing to be ashamed of. I think Jackie might have suspected it, but she didn’t know for sure.” (133)

Two journalists, Ron Rosenbaum and Phillip Nobile, decided to carry out their own investigation into the case. After interviewing James Truitt and several other friends of Mary Pinchot Meyer, including the Angletons, they published an article, entitled, “The Curious Aftermath of JFK’s Best and Brightest Affair” in the New Times on 9th July, 1976. According to this version, the search for the diary took place on Saturday, 17th October, five days after her murder. As well as Antoinette (Tony) Bradlee, James and Cicely Angleton, Cord Meyer and Anne Chamberlain, were also present. The search party found nothing. (134)

New Times (9th July, 1976)
Later that same day, Tony Bradlee was said to have discovered a “locked steel box” in Mary’s studio. Inside it was one one of Mary’s artist sketchbooks, a number of personal papers and “hundreds of letters”. Peter Janney, the author of Mary’s Mosaic (2012) points out: “Tony Bradlee later claimed that the presence of a few vague notes written in the sketchbook – allegedly including cryptic references to an affair with the president – persuaded her that she’d found her sister’s missing diary. But Mary’s artist sketchbook wasn’t her real diary. It was just a ruse.” (135) The contents of the box were given to Angleton who claimed he burnt the diary.
Investigation by Cleveland Cram

In 1976 Cleveland Cram, the former Chief of Station in the Western Hemisphere, met Ted Shackley and George T. Kalaris at a cocktail party in Washington. Kalaris, who had replaced Angleton as Chief of Counterintelligence, asked Cram if he would like to come back to work. Cram was told that the CIA wanted a study done of Angleton’s reign from 1954 to 1974. “Find out what in hell happened. What were these guys doing.” (136)

Cram took the assignment and was given access to all CIA documents on covert operations. The study took six years to complete. In one section, Cram looks at the reliability of information found in books about the American and British intelligence agencies. Cram praises certain authors for writing accurate accounts of these covert activities. He is especially complimentary about the books written by David C. Martin, the author of Wilderness of Mirrors (1980), Tom Mangold the author of Cold Warrior (1991) and David Wise the author of Molehunt (1992). Cram points out that these authors managed to persuade former CIA officers to tell the truth about their activities. In some cases, they were even given classified documents.

Cram is highly critical of the work of Edward J. Epstein, the author of Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald (1978). Cram makes it clear that Epstein, working with James Jesus Angleton, was part of a disinformation campaign. Cram writes: “Edward J. Epstein’s Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswaldprovided enormous stimulus to the deception thesis by suggesting that Yuri Nosenko, a Soviet defector, had been sent by the KGB to provide a cover story for Lee Harvey Oswald, who the book alleged was a KGB agent…. Epstein’s suggested that Nosenko’s defection from the KGB was in reality a mission to provide a cover story for Oswald, which would absolve the Soviet Government of complicity in the assassination of President Kennedy.” (137)

Cram is equally dismissive of Epstein’s book, Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA(1989): “Like Legend, it is propaganda for Angleton and essentially dishonest. The errors are too many to document here… In summary, this is one of many bad books inspired by Angleton after his dismissal that have little basis in fact. An interview with Epstein in Vanity Fair magazine in May 1989 suggests he too has had second thoughts about Angleton and even about Golitsyn, his pet defector. Epstein admitted that Golitsyn shaped Angleton’s views and possibly was a liar.” (138)

Cleveland Cram investigation lasted six years. According to David Wise “The names of the mole suspects were considered so secret that their files were kept in locked safes in yet another vault directly across from Angleton’s office… Cram… produced twelve legal-sized volumes, each three hundred to four hundred pages. Cram’s approximately four-thousand-page study has never been declassified. It remains locked in the CIA’s vaults.” (139) However, a 71 page report, Of Moles and Molehunters: A Review of Counterintelligence Literature, was declassified in 2003.

The Church Committee

In the summer of 1975 Senator Frank Church began investigating evidence of illegal or improper CIA activities. Angleton’s HT-LINGUAL and Operation Chaos programs were “among the matters placed under intense public scrutiny”. (140) According to one observer, when Angleton appeared before the Church Committee “the feared former chief of the CIA’s Counter-intelligence Staff looked for all the world like someone who had emerged from a damp underground cave where he had spent three decades of Cold War creeping among the stalagmites… What was absolutely chilling was the realization that such a man could have held a high position for so long in so powerful an agency of government.” (141)

James Jesus Angleton testifying in 1975
One of the most dramatic confessions made by Angleton came during his executive session testimony to the Church Committee. When he was asked about the CIA’s failure to destroy its stocks of dangerous shellfish toxin that had been created to assassinate Fidel Castro, he replied that: “It is inconceivable that a secret intelligence arm of the government has to comply with all the overt orders of the government.” When he was question in public session by Richard Schweiker, about this statement, he refused to withdraw the comment. (142)After giving his testimony Angleton went straight to CIA headquarters to speak to Walter Elder, the CIA’s chief liaison officer to Congress. He told him that the Church Committee was a plot masterminded by Kim Philby: “The Church Committee has opened up the CIA to a frontal assault by the KGB. This is the KGB’s chance to go for the jugular. The whole plan is being masterminded by Kim Philby in Moscow. The KGB’s only object in the world is to destroy me and the agency. The committee is serving as the unwitting instrument of the KGB.” (143)
House Select Committee on Assassinations

On 16th May, 1978, John M. Whitten appeared before the House Select Committee on Assassinations(HSCA). He criticizedRichard Helms for not making a full disclosure about the Rolando Cubela plot to the Warren Commission. He added ” I think that was a morally highly reprehensible act, which he cannot possibly justify under his oath of office or any other standard of professional service.” (144)

Whitten also said that if he had been allowed to continue with the investigation he would have sought out what was going on at JM/WAVE. This would have involved the questioning of Ted Shackley, David Sanchez Morales, Carl E. Jenkins, Rip Robertson, George Joannides, Gordon Campbell and Thomas G. Clines. As Jefferson Morley has pointed out in The Good Spy: “Had Whitten been permitted to follow these leads to their logical conclusions, and had that information been included in the Warren Commission report, that report would have enjoyed more credibility with the public. Instead, Whitten’s secret testimony strengthened the HSCA’s scathing critique of the C.I.A.’s half-hearted investigation of Oswald. The HSCA concluded that Kennedy had been killed by Oswald and unidentifiable co-conspirators.” (145)

John M. Whitten also told the HSCA that James Jesus Angleton involvement in the investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy was “improper”. Although he was placed in charge of the investigation by Richard Helms, Angleton “immediately went into action to do all the investigating”. When Whitten complained to Helms about this he refused to act. Whitten believes that Angleton’s attempts to sabotage the investigation was linked to his relationship with the Mafia. Whitten claims that Angleton also prevented a CIA plan to trace mob money to numbered accounts in Panama. Angleton told Whitten that this investigation should be left to the FBI. When Whitten mentioned this to a senior CIA official, he replied: “Well, that’s Angleton’s excuse. The real reason is that Angleton himself has ties to the Mafia and he would not want to double-cross them.” (146)

James Jesus Angleton
Whitten also pointed out that as soon as Angleton took control of the investigation he concluded that Cuba was unimportant and focused his internal investigation on Oswald’s life in the Soviet Union. If Whitten had remained in charge he would have “concentrated his attention on CIA’s JM/WAVE station in Miami, Florida, to uncover what George Joannides, the station chief, and operatives from the SIG and SAS knew about Oswald.” Jefferson Morley, the author of Our Man in Mexico (2008) has pointed out that in February 1964, the Warren Commission general counsel Lee Rankin, asked the CIA for the cables concerning Lee Harvey Oswald during his time in Mexico City, Angleton stonewalled. Angleton’s deputy, Raymond Rocca told Richard Helms, “Unless you feel otherwise, Jim would prefer to wait the commission out on the matter.” (147)John Newman, the author of Oswald and the CIA (2008), has argued: “In my view, whoever Oswald’s direct handler or handlers were, we must now seriously consider the possibility that Angleton was probably their general manager. No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind to manage this sophisticated plot. No one else had the means necessary to plant the WWIII virus in Oswald’s files and keep it dormant for six weeks until the president’s assassination. Whoever those who were ultimately responsible for the decision to kill Kennedy were, their reach extended into the national intelligence apparatus to such a degree that they could call upon a person who knew its inner secrets and workings so well that he could design a failsafe mechanism into the fabric of the plot. The only person who could ensure that a national security cover-up of an apparent counterintelligence nightmare was the head of counterintelligence.” (148)
Death of James Jesus Angleton

In his retirement Angleton returned to his hobbies with enthusiasm. His orchid growing, trout fishing and the leather and jewelry work consumed most of his time. His health was poor and he was eventually persuaded to give up drinking alcohol in the late 1970s but continued to smoke until he was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1986. (149)

Angleton told Cicely Angleton that he wanted “to go into the woods on my own like an Indian and deal with the end of my life, like an Apache”. However, he was admitted to Sibley Memorial Hospital to receive the necessary treatment. Near the end, Angleton “suddenly sat up in bed, bolt upright, with his eyes closed, and began intoning an American Indian death chant, uttering incomprehensible words with an Apache inflection.” Cicely commented: “He was an Apache to the end. He never complained. He took his punishments without a murmur.” (150)

James Angleton died of lung cancer on 11th May, 1987, and was buried in his hometown of Boise, Idaho

(1) Ben Macintyre, A Spy Among Friends (2014)

Angleton was also moving on, and up. The Central Intelligence Agency was formally established in September 1947. Three months later, after three years in Rome, Angleton returned to Washington to take up a new role in the Office of Special Operations (OSO), with responsibility for espionage and counter-espionage. Reunited with his long-suffering wife and their young son, Angleton set up home in the Virginia suburbs, and on New Year’s Eve he formally applied to join the CIA, the intelligence organisation he would serve, shape and dominate for almost three decades.

The OSO was the intelligence-gathering division within the fledgling CIA, and from here Angleton began to carve out his own empire, working day and night, driving himself, his colleagues and his secretaries with manic determination. He started in a small office, with a single secretary; within a year he had been promoted, rated “excellent”, and awarded a pay rise and a much larger office; two years later he was deploying six secretaries and assistants, and amassing a vast registry of files on the British model, which would become “the very mechanism through which the CIA organised the secret war against the Soviet Union”. As that war expanded, so did Angleton’s power. “He was totally consumed by his work. There was no room for anything else,” said his secretary. At weekends he fished,
usually alone, or tended his orchids. Astonishingly, Cicely not only put up with his peculiarities, but loved him for them.

(2) Kim Philby, My Secret War (1968)

The driving force of OSO at the time was Jim Angleton, who had formerly served in London and had earned my respect by openly rejecting the Anglomania that disfigured the young face of OSO. We formed the habit of lunching once a week at Harvey’s where he demonstrated regularly that overwork was not his only vice. He was one of the thinnest men I have ever met, and one of the biggest eaters. Lucky Jim! After a year of keeping up with Angleton, I took the advice of an elderly lady friend and went on a diet, dropping from thirteen stone to about eleven in three months.

Our close association was, I am sure, inspired by genuine friendliness on both sides. But we both had ulterior motives. Angleton wanted to place the burden of exchanges between CIA and SIS on the CIA office in London-which was about ten times as big as mine. By doing so, he could exert the maximum pressure on SIS’s headquarters while minimizing SIS intrusions into his own. As an exercise in nationalism, that was fair enough. By cultivating me to the full, he could better keep me under wraps. For my part, I was more than content to string him along. The greater the trust between us overtly, the less he would suspect covert action. Who gained most from this complex game I cannot say. But I had one big advantage. I knew what he was doing for CIA and he knew what I was doing for SIS. But the real nature of my interest was something he did not know.

Although our discussions ranged over the whole world, they usually ended, if they did not begin, with France and Germany. The Americans had an obsessive fear of Communism in France, and I was astonished by the way in which Angleton devoured reams of French newspaper material daily. That this was not a private phobia of Angleton’s became clear at a later date when a British proposal for giving Alexandre Parodi, head of the d’Orsay, limited secret information, was firmly squashed by Bedell Smith in person. He told me flatly that he was not prepared to trust a single French official with such information.

Angleton had fewer fears about Germany. That country concerned him chiefly as a base of operations against the Soviet Union and the Socialist states of Eastern Europe. CIA had lost no time in taking over the anti-Soviet section of the German Abwehr, under Reinard von Gehlen, and many of Harvey’s lobsters went to provoke Angleton into defending, with chapter and verse, the past record and current activities of the von Gehlen organization.

(3) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991)

The Counterintelligence Staff’s primary function was blocking opposition ‘home runs’ – preventing penetrations at home and abroad, and protecting the security of CIA operations through research and careful analysis of incoming information. The task meant that considerable amounts of paper must be acquired, read, digested, filed, and refiled. Ironically, although Angleton had helped develop the CIA’s central registry (where names, reports, and cases were indexed), his staff had one of the worst records of any CIA component for contributing data into the main system after 1955. This was because of Angleton’s obsession with secrecy and his inability to trust the security of the CIA’s main filing system. He believed there was nothing to prevent someone from stealing from the CIA’s storehouse of secrets. Keeping the best files to himself also helped consolidate his bureaucratic power.

As Angleton extended his turf, his popularity, which had never been high with the operating divisions at home or the overseas stations, declined further. Officially, he was allowed access to everyone’s personnel, operational, and communications files throughout the CIA. He needed and used this power to review all proposed and continuing operations and to approve the recruitment of agent candidates. It was a task he conducted with zeal, and with little regard for his own or his staff’s popularity.

Newton “Scotty” Miler, Angleton’s loyal former Chief of Operations, says succinctly, “The majority of CIA people didn’t understand the role of the CI Staff and they didn’t like it being a watchdog. The divisions didn’t like us looking down their throats to see if they were being deceived or manipulated. ”

But none of this had the slightest effect on Angleton’s early efforts. He was driven by a single-minded determination to do his job, to protect the agency and the United States from harm, and to organize and centralize a new counter-intelligence empire that would withstand all future assaults.

In early 1962, the CIA moved into its present headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The offices of Angleton’s Counter-Intelligence Staff, which had now increased to nearly two hundred people, were located on the southwest corner of the second floor and took up most of two corridors of the building’s center and side wings…

At the entrance to Angleton’s outer office there was a large reception room with a sofa, chairs, magazines, and three secretaries. One was Bertha Dasenburg, his personal assistant. Mrs. Dasenburg, of German extraction, had served in the Red Cross in Italy during World War II and joined Angleton’s staff in 1952. She had a deserved reputation as a self-sacrificing and hardworking secretary who seemed to enjoy being on the inside, sharing the knowledge, and exercising power as Jim Angleton’s gatekeeper. She had the authority to grant or deny access to her boss.

Angleton’s inner office was large (20 by 25 feet). The windows on the far wall were covered with venetian blinds that were permanently closed when he was in residence (but always opened by Dasenburg as soon as he left). He sat in a high-backed leather chair behind a large, executive-style wooden desk that dominated the room. (One CIA psychologist, Dr. Jerrold Post, who visited Angleton’s office later, noted that the place felt like a fortress and was laid out in such a way that no , one could stand behind its tenant.

The dark and imposing feel of Angleton’s office was accentuated by the large, black safes that dotted the walls of his outer office. Angleton also maintained his own special vault room just across the hall. Access to this secure chamber was granted only in the presence of Angleton or the indomitable Bertha. The vault had specially strengthened walls, an electronic pushbutton entry system for access during working hours, and a combination door lock for night security. This was the secret heart of Angleton’s secret world…

To understand Angleton and his research methodology, one must know a little about the man closest to him throughout his working life. The man was Raymond Rocca, Angleton’s former Rome OSS colleague, who led the effort to reconstruct the past as head of the staff’s new Research and Analysis Department.

Rocca’s friends say he was well suited for the job. He had an excellent memory, and was considered a plodding, thorough scholar who usually provided Angleton with more detail than was needed. Like Miler, Rocca was an uncritical Fundamentalist whose loyalty to Angleton was beyond question.

Rocca reviewed the past with the devotion of an archeologist rediscovering an ancient tomb. Nearly every old Soviet intelligence case, dating back to the Cheka (the first Bolshevik secret police), was dutifully stored in the historical archives, and analyzed repeatedly…

Critics of Angleton’s methodology say that both he and Rocca wasted enormous quantities of time studying the gospels of prewar Soviet intelligence operations at the very moment that the KGB had shifted the style and emphasis of its operations against the West.

(4) Peter Wright, Spycatcher (1987)

The day after my ordeal with Hoover, I lunched with James Angleton, the CIA Chief of Counterintelligence. We had met once before on my first trip to Washington in 1957, and I was struck then by his intensity. He had a razor-sharp mind and a determination to win the Cold War, not just to enjoy the fighting of it. Every nuance and complexity of his profession fascinated him, and he had a prodigious appetite for intrigue. I liked him, and he gave enough hints to encourage me into thinking we could do business together.

Angleton’s star was fast rising in Washington in the late 1950s, particularly after he obtained the secret text of Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin from his contacts in Israel. He was one of the original wartime OSS recruits, and was trained in the arts of counterespionage by Kim Philby at the old MI6 office in Ryder Street. The young Yale intellectual struck up an instant friendship with his pipe-smoking English tutor, and the relationship deepened when Philby was posted to Washington as Station Chief in 1949. Ironically it was Philby who first detected the obsession with conspiracy in the fledgling CIA Chief of Counterintelligence. Angleton quickly acquired a reputation among British Intelligence officers for his frequent attempts to manipulate to his own advantage the mutual hostility of MIS and MI6.

(5) H. R. Haldeman, The Ends of Power (1978)

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.

(6) Steve Sewall, James Angleton (22nd July, 2003)

My father, Richard B. Sewall, taught English at Yale for forty years. In the 1960’s, he was the first Master of Ezra Stiles College. He retired in 1976. In June of last year, ten months before his death last April at age 95, he flew from Boston to Chicago to spend three months with me…

My father had finished his meal. We had discussed family matters. I fell silent, wondering how I might resume the dialogue that had guided me over the past 35 years. His eyes, sunken and watery, were fixed on me. Age be damned, I told myself, we’re gonna talk, full throttle, just like we always have.

I read my father an excerpt from Joseph Trento’s magisterial Secret History of the CIA. This extraordinary book is a history of American intelligence since World War II and, in many respects, of American foreign and domestic affairs as well. James Jesus Angleton ’41, Yale’s second most famous spy (the first being Nathan Hale), is a central figure in this book. Appointed by CIA founder Allen Dulles (a Princeton alum), Angleton was the founding Director of CIA Counterintelligence. It was his job to protect the CIA from penetration by Soviet spies.

At Yale, Angleton had majored in English. My father recalled his name and said he had taught him. Angleton, I said, was a true aesthete. He edited a poetry magazine that he himself hand-delivered to subscribers at all hours of the night. On a visit to Harvard, he had heard a lecture by the English literary critic William Empson and taken it upon himself to bring Empson to lecture at Yale. Not bad for an undergraduate, we agreed.

In 1974, CIA Director William Colby dismissed Angleton for his failed attempt to expose a Soviet mole who, Angleton was convinced, had totally penetrated the CIA. Angleton’s obsessive witch hunt had destroyed the careers of dozens of wrongly accused agents and demoralized the entire agency.

But time confirmed his worst fears. As Trento and David Wise before him have shown, CIA counterintelligence and FBI counterintelligence as well were indeed totally compromised by Soviet agent Igor Orlov, a “man with the soul of a sociopath” yet supremely disciplined and loyal to Stalin. Angleton missed nabbing Orlov by a hairsbreadth. Under scrutiny for years – CIA and FBI agents openly visited Gallery Orlov, the quaint art and picture-framing store that Igor and his wife Eleanore managed in Alexandria, Virginia – Orlov managed to pass two polygraph tests and got away clean.

(7) Joseph Trento, Secret History of the CIA (2001)

Within the confines of (Angleton’s) remarkable life were most of America’s secrets. “You know how I got to be in charge of counterintelligence? I agreed not to polygraph or require detailed background checks on Allen Dulles and 60 of his closest friends… They were afraid that their own business dealings with Hitler’s pals would come out. They were too arrogant to believe that the Russians would discover it all… You know, the CIA got tens of thousands of brave people killed… We played with lives as if we owned them. We gave false hope. We – I – so misjudged what happened.”

I asked the dying man how it all went so wrong.

With no emotion in his voice, but with his hand trembling, Angleton replied: “Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars. The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted. These people attracted and promoted each other. Outside of their duplicity, the only thing they had in common was a desire for absolute power. I did things that, in looking back on my life, I regret. But I was part of it and I loved being in it… Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, Carmel Offie, and Frank Wisner were the grand masters. If you were in a room with them you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell.” Angleton slowly sipped his tea and then said, “I guess I will see them there soon.”

(8) Nina Burleigh, A Very Private Woman (1998)

Bradlee offered a completely different recollection of events. In Bradlee’s book Angleton was described as an uninvited visitor to Mary’s house and studio. Bradlee remembered that he and Tony were twice surprised to bump into an embarrassed Jim Angleton wearing gloves and carrying tools, breaking into Mary’s house and studio, searching for the diary that Anne Truitt had sent them all to find. The first incident occurred the morning after the murder, according to Bradlee; he and Tony went to Mary’s townhouse on Thirty-fourth Street, where they found Angleton already inside. “We found his presence odd, to say the least, but took him at his word,” Bradlee wrote. The search party did not find the diary on that round. Later that day, as Bradlee remembered it, he and Tony decided to search Mary’s studio in the alley behind their house. There again they stumbled upon Angleton in the process of picking a padlock. “He would have been red-faced if his face could have gotten red, and he left almost without a word,” Bradlee wrote.

Bradlee and Tony then went inside the studio and eventually found the diary. The Bradlees read it later that night. According to the newsman, the diary was six by eight inches, with fifty or so pages, mostly filled with paint swatches and descriptions of how the colors were mixed. About ten of the pages contained “phrases” which described a love affair, and “after reading only a few phrases it was clear that her lover had been the President of the United States, although his name was never mentioned. But Tony Bradlee told a reporter for the National Enquirer it was more explicit and that “there were some JFK’s in it.” She also told the tabloid’s Jay Gourley “it was nothing to be ashamed of.”

In Cicely Angleton and Anne Truitt’s account of the diary search, a group of Mary’s friends, including Tony, the Angletons, “and one other friend of Mary Meyer’s,” together searched for Mary’s diary. At some point, according to the two women, Tony Bradlee discovered the diary and “several papers bundled together” in Mary’s studio. After she and Ben looked at the diary, Tony gave the bundle and the diary to Angleton and asked him to burn it all.

The Bradlees’ reaction to their new knowledge of Mary’s relationship with Kennedy was confusion and betrayal, Bradlee recalled. Yet Ben Bradlee was also admiring. “There was a boldness in pulling something like that off that I found fascinating,” he wrote. Tony was more disturbed. “She felt she was Jack Kennedy’s friend, at least as much as Mary was, and all of a sudden she had come to realize that there was this difference. She had been kept in the dark by her sister and her friend.” They also recognized they held a political hot potato in their hands. “We both concluded this was in no sense a public document, despite the braying of the knee jerks about some public right to know,” he wrote.

So they gave the diary and private papers to Jim Angleton. Angleton later told journalists Philip Nobile and Ron Rosenbaum that he went through the papers, catalogued them, and offered some letter writers the option of repossessing their letters. Angleton said he had read the diary, that two other people, whom he cryptically identified to the two journalists as “M” and “F,” had read the diary, and that Mary’s eldest son, Quentin, was also allowed to read it. Angleton then burned the loose papers that were not repossessed, mostly personal letters; Angleton later personally assured Ken Noland he had burned the artist’s letters to Mary. But the counter-intelligence chief did not destroy the diary, and on this matter the women and Bradlee agree. Several years later he gave it back to Tony Bradlee. At that point, according to Anne Truitt and Cicely Angleton, the final erasure of Mary’s private life was accomplished in almost ritual fashion by Tony Bradlee and Anne Truitt. According to the women, Tony burned the diary herself, “in the presence of Anne Truitt.”

Some parts of the diary may have been preserved and passed around for a short period. Helen Stern used Mary’s own writing about her art, taken from the papers left after her death, to create the brochure for a posthumous art show in 1967. Angleton believed some of her papers were still stored at Milford. Over the years, other people close to the family have suspected that Mary’s diary was never really burned but is stored at the summer house. If that is so, the Pinchot-Pittman family has not admitted it.

In death, thanks to Anne Truitt’s machinations and James Angleton’s professional curiosity, Mary’s private life came to seem a matter of national security. In later years, as his reputation grew, Angleton cast a long and sinister shadow over the story. It is very possible Angleton did keep a copy or notes on the diary somewhere. Like J. Edgar Hoover, Angleton had preserved his position at the pinnacle of national security by collecting secrets, not discarding them. Richard Helms claimed he never saw the diary. Other CIA men, including those instructed to go through Angleton’s safes after he was forced to resign in 1976, also said the diary was not in his papers. Helms said that if Angleton had taken the diary to the CIA-and Helms would not confirm that he did-Angleton was justified because it might have embarrassed the president.

(9) David C. Martin, Wilderness of Mirrors (1980)

How could the KGB even dream of pulling off so convoluted a scheme? “Helms and I have talked about this many times,” a high-ranking officer said. “I do not believe that any son of a bitch sitting in Moscow could have any conception that he could dispatch Golitsin here and disrupt the Allied intelligence services to the extent he did. Nobody could have expected Angleton to buy it, lock, stock, and barrel.” And no one sitting in Moscow could have predicted with any certainty that Nosenko would be fingered as a plant and thereby build up Golitsin. Furthermore, it seemed incredible that the KGB would entrust to an agent whose mission was to be discovered as a fraud the message that the Soviet Union had not had a hand in Kennedy’s death. Such a plot could only fuel suspicions of Soviet complicity. It was true that Angleton’s counterintelligence staff, although convinced that Nosenko was lying, had concluded that there was no evidence to support the contention that Oswald was working for the Russians when he killed Kennedy. But surely the KGB could not control the workings of the counterintelligence staff with so fine a hand.

Could not – unless they already had a man inside the counterintelligence staff who could influence the handling of the case. Who controlled the counterintelligence staff? Who had directed the handling of both Golitsin and Nosenko, championing Golitsin, denigrating Nosenko, yet stopping short of the conclusion that the KGB had ordered Kennedy shot? Who but James Jesus Angleton?

Such a case had indeed been outlined. It had the attraction that all conspiracy theories possess. It provided a cause commensurate with the effect. “The effect of Golitsin was horrendous,” a chief of the Soviet Bloc Division said, “the greatest disaster to Western security that happened in twenty years.” Now, for the first time, the possibility arose that the entire fiasco was not a self-inflicted wound but the work of an infernal Soviet machination. Who better to cast as the villain than Angleton himself? Two men who had headed the Soviet Bloc Division at different times, neither aware that an effort had been made to develop a case against Angleton, would make the same point in almost identical terms. “If I were to pick a Soviet agent at the Agency, it would be Angleton for all the harm he’s done,” said one. “There is just as much reason to say Angleton could be the guy because he has done so much to be destructive,” said the other. Popov, Goleniewski, Penkovsky, Golitsin, Nosenko. Everything that had gone wrong could plausibly be traced to Angleton. Complexity became simplicity. With Angleton as the mole, the KGB could dispatch any number of false defectors confident that they would be handled according to plan. “He is the guy who is perfectly placed,” one of the Soviet Bloc chiefs said. “He’s even better to have than the Director.” The Soviets had penetrated the counterintelligence operations of the British with Kim Philby and of the Germans with Heinz Felfe. Why not the CIA with Angleton?

(10) David Wise, Molehunt (1992)

In 1975, after twenty-six years in the agency, Cram had retired. In the fall of 1976, he was attending a cocktail party in Washington given by Harry Brandes, the representative of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian security service. Theodore G. Shackley, the assistant DDO, called over Kalaris, and the two CIA men cornered Cram.

“Would you like to come back to work?” he was asked. The agency, Cram was told, wanted a study done of Angleton’s reign, from 1954 to 1974. “Find out what in hell happened,” Cram was told. “What were these guys doing?”

Cram took the assignment. For the duration, he moved into a huge vault down the hall from what had been Angleton’s office. It was a library like room with a door that had to be opened by a combination lock. There many of the materials he needed were at hand-the vault, for example, contained thirty-nine volumes on Philby alone, all the Golitsin “serials,” as Angleton had called the leads provided by his prize defector, and all of the Nosenko files.

But even this secure vault had not been Angleton’s sanctum sanctorum. Inside the vault was another smaller vault, secured by pushbutton locks, which contained the really secret stuff, on George Blake, Penkovsky, and other spy cases deemed too secret for the outer vault.

Kalaris thought Cram’s study would be a one-year assignment. When Cram finally finished it in 1981, six years later, he had produced twelve legal-sized volumes, each three hundred to four hundred pages. Cram’s approximately four-thousand-page study has never been declassified. It remains locked in the CIA’s vaults.

But some of its subject matter can be described. Cram obviously spent a substantial amount of time reviewing the history of the mole hunt that pervaded the era he studied. In doing so, he had considerable difficulty. The names of the mole suspects were considered so secret that their files were kept in locked safes in yet another vault directly across from Angleton’s (then Kalaris’s) office.

Even though Cram had carte blanche to conduct his study, he had trouble at first gaining access to this most sensitive material. In part, he was hampered as well by the chaotic and often mysterious nature of Angleton’s files.

Eventually, Cram got access to the vaulted files on individuals kept in the locked safes. But among Kalaris and his staff, Cram detected an edginess that Angleton, in Elba, might somehow return and wreak vengeance on those who had dared to violate his files by reading them.

(11) Cleveland C. Cram, Of Moles and Molehunters: A Review of Counterintelligence Literature (1993)

Epstein, Edward J. Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989 (335 pages).

Epstein published Deception in mid-1989, just as the Soviet Union was on the verge of its demise in the autumn of 1991. The concurrent dismantling of the KGB, its major intelligence arm, led almost overnight to the disappearance of what was once a small industry in the West employing dozens of self-appointed experts in universities and think tanks who were devoted to the study of Soviet deception, disinformation, and subversion. Their endeavors, and Epstein’s book, now have the smell of attic dust.

Like its predecessor Legend, Deception has two parts. The first 105 pages explain Angleton’s theories, as developed by Epstein, largely from lengthy interviews with Anatole Golitsyn. The remainder of the book describes various forms of deception. One chapter is devoted to another Soviet defector, Vitali Yurchenko, who Epstein believes is a KGB provocateur similar to Nosenko. The conclusion is a long chapter on glasnost, which Epstein dismisses as simply another massive KGB deception.

The most arresting information in the book is the author’s confession regarding his sources for this book and Legend. After Angleton died on 11 May 1987, Epstein apparently felt free to admit that the former chief of CIA counterintelligence had been his major source since 1976 when they first met.

Most astute observers had concluded that Angleton was leaking classified information to Epstein and others, but nothing was officially done to caution the discredited cold warrior. On the other hand, when CIA found that Clare E. Petty had been leaking classified material to the press, he received an official warning letter. Even in forced retirement, Angleton enjoyed protected and special status, as he had when he was at the Agency.

In Part One, Epstein recites again, as in Legend, the Angleton belief in the KGB program of deception and penetration, which the former CI Staff chief had heard about from Golitsyn and then embellished. One of Golitsyn’s major claims, made almost immediately after his defection, was that the KGB would soon send another defector to “mutilate” Golitsyn’s leads, as Angleton invariably put it. Thus when Nosenko defected to the CIA in 1964, Angleton viewed him as the predicted plant. This in turn ensured that Golitsyn would maintain his primacy as the CI Staff’s resident expert on the subject.

When Nosenko did not confess that he was a false defector, CIA incarcerated him for three years under severe conditions. Epstein blames this action entirely on the management of the Soviet Division in CIA’s Directorate of Operations, and he portrays Angleton as agonizing helplessly on the sidelines. This is patently absurd. Angleton was aware of all the legal considerations associated with such action and of the construction of the prison quarters but never raised an objection. If he had, as Epstein claims he did, one word from him to Director Richard Helms would have prevented Nosenko’s detainment.

This is but one of many errors and misinterpretations in the book. Like Legend, it is propaganda for Angleton and essentially dishonest. The errors are too many to document here, but one more example will give the flavor. On page 85, Epstein cites Golitsyn’s assertion that Soviet intelligence was divided into an “outer” and an “inner” KGB to support the deception program. Nothing, however, can be found in any of Golitsyn’s debriefings that remotely supports this. Moreover, no other Soviet source or defector has ever reported the existence of two KGBs, including the most senior defector of recent times, Oleg Gordievsky.

Golitsyn probably developed this fiction after visiting England, when other evidence indicates he began to embroider and fabricate. One exasperated senior FBI officer wrote to Director J. Edgar Hoover: “Golitsyn is not above fabricating to support his theories.” Epstein, who makes considerable pretensions to scholarship, should have been more conscientious in checking such stories with more responsible sources before labeling them as fact.

In summary, this is one of many bad books inspired by Angleton after his dismissal that have little basis in fact. An interview with Epstein in Vanity Fair magazine in May 1989 suggests he too has had second thoughts about Angleton and even about Golitsyn, his pet defector. Epstein admitted that Golitsyn shaped Angleton’s views and possibly was a liar. The interview ended with the remark: “Actually, I don’t know whether to believe Angleton at all!”

(12) Peter Wright, Spycatcher (1987)

Harvey listened to my Cyprus experiences, he was struck by the parallel between the two problems: both small islands with a guerrilla force led by a charismatic leader. He was particularly struck by my view that without Grivas, EOKA would have collapsed.

“What would the Brits do in Cuba?” he asked.

I was a shade anxious about being drawn into the Cuban business. Hollis and I had discussed it before I came to Washington, and he made no secret of his view that the CIA were blundering in the Caribbean. It was a subject, he felt, to steer clear of if at all possible. I was worried that if I made suggestions to Angleton and Harvey, I would soon find them being quoted around Washington by the CIA as the considered British view of things. It would not take long for word of that to filter back to Leconfield House, so I made it clear to them that I was talking off the record.

I said that we would try to develop whatever assets we had down there-alternative political leaders, that kind of thing.

“We’ve done all that,” said Harvey impatiently, “but they’re all in Florida. Since the Bay of Pigs, we’ve lost virtually everything we had inside . . .”

Harvey began to fish to see if I knew whether we had anything in the area, in view of the British colonial presence in the Caribbean.

“I doubt it,” I told him, “the word in London is steer clear of Cuba. Six might have something, but you’d have to check with them.” “How would you handle Castro?” asked Angleton. “We’d isolate him, turn the people against him …”

“Would you hit him?” interrupted Harvey.

I paused to fold my napkin. Waiters glided silently from table to table. I realized now why Harvey needed to know I could be trusted.

“We’d certainly have that capability,” I replied, “but I doubt we would use it nowadays.”

“Why not?”

“We’re not in it anymore, Bill. We got out a couple of years ago, after Suez.”

At the beginning of the Suez Crisis, M16 developed a plan, through the London Station, to assassinate Nasser using nerve gas. Eden initially gave his approval to the operation, but later rescinded it when he got agreement from the French and Israelis to engage in joint military action. When this course failed, and he was forced to withdraw, Eden reactivated the assassination option a second time. By this time virtually all MI6 assets in Egypt had been rounded up by Nasser, and a new operation, using renegade Egyptian officers, was drawn up, but it failed lamentably, principally because the cache of weapons which had been hidden on the outskirts of Cairo was found to be defective.

“Were you involved?” Harvey asked.

“Only peripherally,” I answered truthfully, “on the technical side.”

I explained that I was consulted about the plan by John Henry and Peter Dixon, the two M16 Technical Services officers from the London Station responsible for drawing it up. Dixon, Henry, and I all attended joint M15/MI6 meetings to discuss technical research for the intelligence services at Porton Down, the government’s chemical and biological Weapons Research Establishment. The whole area of chemical research was an active field in the 1950s. I was cooperating with M16 in a joint program to investigate how far the hallucinatory drug lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) could be used in interrogations, and extensive trials took place at Porton. I even volunteered as guinea pig on one occasion. Both M15 and M16 also wanted to know a lot more about the advanced poisons then being developed at Porton, though for different reasons. I wanted the antidotes, in case the Russians used a poison on a defector in Britain, while M16 wanted to use the poisons for operations abroad.

Henry and Dixon both discussed with me the use of poisons against Nasser, and asked my advice. Nerve gas obviously presented the best possibility, since it was easily administered. They told me that the London Station had an agent in Egypt with limited access to one of Nasser’s headquarters. Their plan was to place canisters of nerve gas inside the ventilation system, but I pointed out that this would require large quantities of the gas, and would result in massive loss of life among Nasser’s staff. It was the usual M16 operation-hopelessly unrealistic and it did not remotely surprise me when Henry told me later that Eden had backed away from the operation. The chances of its remaining undeniable were even slimmer than they had been with Buster Crabbe.

Harvey and Angleton questioned me closely about every part of the Suez Operation.

“We’re developing a new capability in the Company to handle these kinds of problems,” explained Harvey, “and we’re in the market for the requisite expertise.”

Whenever Harvey became serious, his voice dropped to a low monotone, and his vocabulary lapsed into the kind of strangled bureaucratic syntax beloved of Washington officials. He explained ponderously that they needed deniable personnel, and improved technical facilities-in Harvey jargon, “delivery mechanisms.” They were especially interested in the SAS. Harvey knew that the SAS operated up on the Soviet border in the 1950s tracking Russian rocket signals with mobile receivers before the satellites took over, and that they were under orders not to be caught, even if this meant fighting their way out of trouble.

“They don’t freelance, Bill,” I told him. “You could try to pick them up retired, but you’d have to see Six about that.”

Harvey looked irritated, as if I were being deliberately unhelpful. “Have you thought of approaching Stephenson?” I asked. “A lot of the old-timers say he ran this kind of thing in New York during the war. Used some Italian, apparently, when there was no other way of sorting a German shipping spy. Probably the Mafia, for all I know …”

Angleton scribbled in his notebook, and looked up impassively. “The French!” I said brightly. “Have you tried them? It’s more their type of thing, you know, Algiers, and so on.”

Another scribble in the notebook.

“What about technically – did you have any special equipment?” asked Harvey.

I told him that after the gas canisters plan fell through, M16 looked at some new weapons. On one occasion I went down to Porton to see a demonstration of a cigarette packet which had been modified by the Explosives Research and Development Establishment to fire a dart tipped with poison.

(13) John Newman, Oswald and the CIA (2008)

It is now apparent that the World War III pretext for a national security cover-up was built into the fabric of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy. The plot required that Oswald be maneuvered into place in Mexico City and his activities there carefully monitored, controlled, and, if necessary, embellished and choreographed. the plot required that, prior to 22 November, Oswald’s profile at CIA HQS and the Mexico station be lowered; his 201 file had to be manipulated and restricted from incoming traffic on his Cuban activities. The plot required that, when the story from Mexico City arrived at HQS, its significance would not be understood by those responsible for reacting to it. Finally, the plot required that, on 22 November, Oswald’s CIA files would establish his connection to Castro and the Kremlin.

The person who designed this plot had to have access to all of the information on Oswald at CIA HQS. The person who designed this plot had to have the authority to alter how information on Oswald was kept at CIA HQS. The person who designed this plot had the authority to alter how information on Oswald was kept at CIA HQS. The person who designed this plot had to have access to project TUMBLEWEED, the sensitive joint agency operation against the KGB assassin, Valery Kosikov. The person who designed this plot had the authority to instigate a counterintelligence operation in the Cuban affairs staff (SAS) at CIA HQS. In my view, there is only one person whose hands fit into these gloves: James Jesus Angleton, Chief of CIA’s Counterintelligence Staff.

Angleton and his molehunters had always held Oswald’s files very close to the vest – from the time of the young Marine’s defection in October 1959 and his offer to provide classified radar information to the Soviets. That offer had lit up the counterintelligence circuits in Washington, D.C. like a Christmas tree. Angleton was the only person who knew – except for perhaps one of his direct subordinates – both the Cuban and Soviet parts of Oswald’s story. He was the only one in the Counterintelligence Staff with enough authority to instigate a counterintelligence operation in the SAS against the FPCC.

In my view, whoever Oswald’s direct handler or handlers were, we must now seriously consider the possibility that Angleton was probably their general manager. No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind to manage this sophisticated plot. No one else had the means necessary to plant the WWIII virus in Oswald’s files and keep it dormant for six weeks until the president’s assassination. Whoever those who were ultimately responsible for the decision to kill Kennedy were, their reach extended into the national intelligence apparatus to such a degree that they could call upon a person who knew its inner secrets and workings so well that he could design a failsafe mechanism into the fabric of the plot. The only person who could ensure that a national security cover-up of an apparent counterintelligence nightmare was the head of counterintelligence.

(14) Charles J.V. Murphy, Time Magazine (24th February, 1975)

I had known Jim Angleton for years, but I had never fully appreciated some of his qualities until a fishing trip to the Adirondacks 14 years ago. It was a bone-chilling early spring day, and with another member of the party, I had retired fishless to the bank for a consoling drink and to wait for Angleton. Finally, he came into view, waist-deep in the icy water and feeling for safe footing among the slippery rocks. He was using a 2¾-oz. Leonard rod and casting with easy grace, the tiny fly landing lightly 80 or 90 ft. below him. He took 1 ½ hours to draw abreast of us, never quitting a run or a pool until he had tested every inch of the surface with one or another of some dozen flies. In the end, though, he had five fine native trout in his creel.

Such meticulousness stood him well in the grinding, exhausting and unforgiving discipline of counterintelligence. His job was to locate, identify and neutralize the operations of hostile espionage agents, particularly those of the Soviet KGB, at home and abroad. The task offered few rewards and demanded an angler’s perseverance and patience, unflagging watchfulness and a passion for anonymity. General William Donovan, the director of the Office of Strategic Services (a precursor to the CIA), called him the OSS’s “most professional counterintelligence officer.” In the years that followed, all the directors of the CIA leaned on him. Allen Dulles seldom made a move on the clandestine side without first consulting him. Walter Bedell Smith made him his youthful éminence grise and bequeathed him his cherished fly-tying equipment. John McCone found him a fascinating and shrewd counselor.

Angleton had a storybook background for his work. His Illinois-born father, James Hugh Angleton, joined the National Guard in Idaho in 1916 and chased Pancho Villa south of the border under General John J. (“Black Jack”) Pershing. While there, Angleton courted and married a beautiful Mexican girl of 17. On returning to Boise, where their first son, christened James Jesus, was born in 1917, Angleton pére established himself as a star salesman for the National Cash Register Co. In the 1920s he took charge of the company’s European operations. In 1933 he bought the firm’s franchise for Italy and moved his family to Milan and later to Rome, where they lived in a handsome old villa. For years he headed the American Chamber of Commerce in Italy and was the trusted bridge between the American embassy and Italian industry.

His son’s familiarity with high cuisine, wine and good tailoring was thus all naturally acquired. So too was his profound abhorrence of totalitarianism. Says Angleton: “If one has lived much of his life abroad, as I have, one is apt to judge his country more precious than do those who know no other country well.” He recalls the day in 1936, when he was 18 and working through a summer holiday as an apprentice mechanic in National Cash Register’s Paris factory, that the workers heard about the Wehrmacht reoccupation of the Rhineland. Says Angleton: “The workers to a man threw down their tools and standing at attention sang the Marseillaise. Then they streamed into the street, cursing the government. I stayed up all night, listening to the furious talk of the workers in the bistros. It was my first political experience – an experience in despair. And the war lengthened the experience. While gathering evidence for the Nuremberg war trials, I came upon the horrifying proof of the extermination of 6 million Jews. To prevent war, to preserve freedom are continuing causes with me. They have shaped my life.”

After 3½ years at Malvern College in England, he entered Yale in the class of 1941. Says Poet Reed Whittemore, Angleton’s college roommate and still a close friend: “He was quite British in his ways, though he had treasured his Middle Western accent. He was a mixture of pixiness and earnestness, very much at home in Italian literature, especially Dante, as well as the fine points of handicapping horses. He was an owl; he stayed up late, talking, reading or playing poker.”

In their junior year, Whittemore and Angleton edited a quarterly of original poetry, called Furioso, financed mostly by subscriptions raised by Whittemore’s aunt. Contributors included Ezra Pound, E.E. Cummings, Archibald MacLeish and William Carlos Williams. Rates were $1 a page. “When we were short of money, which was most of the tune,” Whittemore remembers, “we paid off our poets with fine Italian cravats from the stock that the Angleton haberdasher in Italy kept replenishing.”

As the war came on, Angleton’s father moved the family to New York and joined the OSS. He took part in the planning of the Italian invasion, went ashore with the assault forces at Anzio and rose to colonel. Son Jim had meanwhile entered Harvard Law School and married Cicely d’Autremont of Tucson, Ariz., a junior at Vassar. He was called up in 1943, put through basic training and also assigned to OSS and sent to Italy. His unit uncovered some of the secret correspondence between Hitler and Mussolini that was later introduced into the Nuremberg trials as proof of their conspiracy.

After the war, Donovan asked him to help the provisional Italian government beat off a threatened Communist takeover. Angleton assisted the carabinieri in rebuilding a counter-intelligence service. Through it, he acquired the Soviet instructions to the Italian Communists for supporting the Greek Communists in the civil war in Greece. He and his principal associate for all of his career, Raymond Rocca, who retired recently from the CIA, where he had been Angleton’s chief deputy, ferreted out the exchange of correspondence between Stalin and Tito that foreshadowed the 1948 breach between them.

Late in 1947 Angleton resigned from the Army as a major and returned to Washington. By then, he had become, as he puts it, “sharply aware of the Soviet long-term objectives in subversion.” Having long ago turned his back on law, he joined the CIA, which had been created some months earlier. Angleton was put in charge of helping to organize its clandestine side.

Many of Angleton’s covert operations after he joined the CIA remain secret. The only people who know what he really did are his superiors and those who worked with him. One exploit that can be told came early in 1956. In collaboration with a friendly intelligence service, his unit acquired a copy of Nikita Khrushchev’s famed denunciation of Stalin to the 20th Party Congress. Angleton and his lieutenants also developed the evidence that helped lead the FBI in 1957 to the KGB agent Colonel Rudolf Abel, who had operated since 1948 from an obscure photographer’s shop in Brooklyn. The numbers of spies who have been caught in Angleton’s net run into the dozens. They include George Blake, a senior officer in the British Secret Service; George Paques, a NATO official whose activities were in part the basis of the book and film Topaz; and Heinz Felfe, a high-ranking officer of the West German intelligence service.

Angleton’s CIA staff was small – no more than a few score, mostly senior men who had been with him since the agency’s founding. They were chiefly specialists on the “adversary” services; a foreign intelligence officer says that the operation was “the best in the world.” Three of Angleton’s people, including Rocca, have left the agency, angry over its failure to stand by their boss.

His defenders regard Angleton as a casualty of the times. They believe that he was forced out because some important U.S. policymakers no longer hold counterintelligence an indispensable function and so strongly believe in the durability of detente that they are uncomfortable with a clandestine organization that persists in regarding the KGB as a serious threat. In this respect, Angleton’s departure is reminiscent of the fate of a fictional counter-intelligence man, George Smiley, the sad hero of John le Carré’s Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Fired during a staff shake-up at the British Secret Service, Smiley was later called back to root out a suspected “mole,” or traitor, who had burrowed deeply into his old organization. The mole resembles Kim Philby, the famed British double agent. It was Angleton who provided some of the information that enabled the British to nail down the case against Philby before the English spy fled to Moscow.

(15) Stephen Engelberg, New York Times (12th May, 1987)

James Angleton, the erudite Central Intelligence Agency officer whose search for Soviet agents inside the Government stirred an uproar in the murky worlds of intelligence for a generation, died here this morning of lung cancer. He was 69 years old, Mr. Angleton, who joined the C.I.A. at its inception in 1947, served for more than 20 years as head of its counterintelligence office. He was forced to resign his post in 1974 by William E. Colby, then Director of Central Intelligence, who had become convinced that Mr. Angleton’s efforts were harming the agency.

The tall, donnish intelligence official remains one of the most fascinating figures in the history of the C.I.A. His counterintelligence office was considered one of the most secret in the agency, and the problems it analyzed resembled the multidimensional chess games depicted in the best espionage fiction.

With his departure, the agency cut the counterintelligence staff to 80 from 300, and turned away from some of the techniques he had pioneered. Today, some intelligence officials and members of Congress say this may have been an overreaction. They say that the recent disclosures about highly damaging Soviet espionage operations suggest that Mr. Angleton was more accurate in his suspicions than was once believed.

Counterintelligence is one of the most thankless jobs in spy craft. Its practitioners think the unthinkable, examining each operation, recruit or defector for the possibility that it may be a deception. Counterintelligence agents also try to recruit agents who work for hostile intelligence services, hoping to confuse opponents with cleverly packaged false information.

Friends and associates agree that Mr. Angleton, who wore glasses and had a pronounced stoop, was ideally suited for his life’s work. His view of the world was characterized by an abiding suspicion – opponents called it paranoia – about the Soviet Union’s motives and maneuvers.

When the Soviet Union and China split in the early 1960’s, Mr. Angleton remained convinced that the widely reported antagonism was a ruse concocted by the two Communist powers.

The defection of Yuri Nosenko from the Soviet Union in January 1964 prompted a prolonged investigation by Mr. Angleton and his staff. Mr. Nosenko insisted that he had been the Soviet case officer for Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President Kennedy.

Mr. Angleton was inclined to doubt Mr. Nosenko’s insistence that the Soviet security agency, the K.G.B., had no connection to the attack on the President. Mr. Nosenko was released after being interrogated for more than three years, and the consensus at the C.I.A. was that he had been a legitimate defector. Mr. Nosenko was subsequently hired as a lecturer at courses given by the agency. Powerful Role in Agency

Mr. Angleton may have lost the battle over Mr. Nosenko, but he wielded great power inside the agency for decades. His section had access to more information than virtually any other because it was permitted to examine virtually all C.I.A. operations. The counterintelligence staff under Mr. Angleton could and did effectively end the careers of C.I.A. officers suspected of working for the Soviet Union. He often declined to explain why a particular officer had fallen under suspicion.

In addition, Mr. Angleton handled one of the agency’s most sensitive relationships with an allied intelligence service, its ties to the Israelis. Mr. Angleton handled ”the Israeli account” as it was termed in C.I.A. argot, for more than a decade. Indeed, Mr. Colby, the agency director who forced his resignation, earlier insisted that Mr. Angleton relinquish his control over Israeli matters.

Even with the passage of decades, it is difficult to compile a reasonably certain account of Mr. Angleton’s espionage successes, which remain classified. For instance, by one account he was instrumental in obtaining, the text of Nikita S. Khrushchev’s secret denunciation of Stalin in 1956.

He was also said to have been deeply involved in the unmasking of Kim Philby, the British double agent. Others say that for a time, at least, Mr. Angleton was deceived by Mr. Philby a man who had come to be his friend.

James Jesus Angleton was born in 1917, the year of the Russian Revolution, in Boise, Idaho. His father worked for the National Cash Register Company in Italy, and James Angleton spent summers in Italy while attending Malvern College in England. In 1937, he entered Yale University, where he roomed with E. Reed Whittemore Jr., the poet. The two founded a literary magazine, reflecting what would be Mr. Angleton’s lifelong interest in the letters. His favorite poets, friends say, were T.S. Eliot and E.E. Cummings, and in Washington he was often found at lectures on the writings of James Joyce.

Two years after being graduated from Yale, he was recruited by a professor into the Office of Strategic Services, the World War II intelligence agency and forerunner to the C.I.A.

Senator Malcolm Wallop, a Wyoming Republican who was a strong defender of Mr. Angleton, said in a statement today: ”James Angleton lived long enough to serve his country before, during and after World war II. He was the architect of the best counterintelligence the United States ever had. In the mid-1970’s, Angleton went out of fashion, but he lived long enough to see time and events vindicate him and show how little his accusers understood of the difficult and inherently thankless business of counterintelligence.”

In World War II Mr. Angleton directed agents working against Nazi Germany. In 1944 he traveled to Rome where he worked on operations aimed at the Italian Fascist intelligence service. After the war, he worked closely with Italian counterintelligence to uncover reams of data about Soviet operations.

When he returned to the United States, he began to specialize in studying the K.G.B. Mr. Angleton built huge files on the espionage operations of the Russians, and was authorized in 1954 by Allen W. Dulles, then the director of agency, to set up its first counterintelligence staff.

In 1975 Mr. Angleton was awarded the C.I.A.’s highest award, the Distinguished Intelligence Medal.

Mr. Angleton has been sharply criticized in recent years in the memoirs of some intelligence officials, including Adm. Stansfield Turner, the director of Central Intelligence under President Carter. Admiral Turner wrote that he had got Congress to appropriate money to compensate officers whose careers had been ruined because they had come under the suspicion of Mr. Angleton.

But his staff of counterintelligence operatives were quick to defend him and his methods to reporters and others.

”He was truly a Renaissance man, ” said N. Scott Miler, the chief of operations under Mr. Angleton. ”He had a remarkable amount of knowledge about world events, art, literature. most remarkable people I have ever known.”

Mr. Angleton is survived by his wife, Cicely d’Autremont; a son, James Charles Angleton, of Los Angeles, and two daughters, Guru Sangat Kaur, of Great Falls, Va., and Lucy d’Autremont Angleton, of New Mexico. He also leaves a brother, Hugh Angleton of Boise, and two sisters, Carmen Mercedes Angleton of Rome and Delores Guarnieri of Florence, Italy.


(1) Charles J.V. Murphy, Time Magazine (24th February, 1975)

(2) David Wise, Molehunt (1992) page 40

(3) Thomas McCoy, interviewed by Jeff Goldberg (28th April, 1988)

(4) Cicely Angleton, interviewed by Tom Mangold (30th May, 1988)

(5) Max Corvo, interviewed by Jeff Goldberg (17th February, 1988)

(6) Stephen Engelberg, New York Times (12th May, 1987)

(7) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) page 34

(8) James Jesus Angleton, interview in the television programme, This Week (November, 1976)

(9) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) page 34

(10) Reed Whittemore, interviewed by Tom Mangold (6th June, 1988)

(11) Charles J.V. Murphy, Time Magazine (24th February, 1975)

(12) Cicely Angleton, interviewed by Tom Mangold (30th May, 1988)

(13) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) page 37

(14) James R. Murphy, Office of Strategic Services memo (25th September, 1943)

(15) Richard Helms, A Look Over My Shoulder (2003) page 153

(16) Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA (2001) page 37

(17) Phillip Knightley, Philby: KGB Masterspy (1988) page 118

(18) John Raymond Baine, interviewed by Jeff Goldberg (14th April, 1988)

(19) Charles J.V. Murphy, Time Magazine (24th February, 1975)

(20) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) page 41

(21) Stephen Engelberg, New York Times (12th May, 1987)

(22) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) page 42

(23) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) page 43

(24) Cicely Angleton, interviewed by Tom Mangold (3rd March, 1989)

(25) Charles J.V. Murphy, Time Magazine (24th February, 1975)

(26) Cicely Angleton, interviewed by Tom Mangold (3rd March, 1989)

(27) Joseph Trento, Secret History of the CIA (2001) page 46

(28) Charles J.V. Murphy, Time Magazine (24th February, 1975)

(29) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) page 45

(30) James Jesus Angleton, Last Will and Testament, (22nd January, 1949)

(31) Nina Burleigh, A Very Private Woman (1998) page 125

(32) Ben Bradlee, The Good Life (1995) page 118

(33) Anthony Cave Brown, Treason of Blood (1995) page 386

(34) Kim Philby, My Secret War (1968) page 145

(35) Kim Philby, letter to Leonard Mosley (April, 1977)

(36) Ben Macintyre, A Spy Among Friends (2014) page 131

(37) Kim Philby, My Secret War (1968) page 151

(38) Nicholas Elliott, Never Judge a Man by His Umbrella (1991) page 186

(39) David C. Martin, Wilderness of Mirrors (1980) page 49

(40) Ben Macintyre, A Spy Among Friends (2014) page 149

(41) Yuri Modin, My Five Cambridge Friends (1994) page 201

(42) Robert Cecil, A Divided Life: A Biography of Donald Maclean (1988) page 135

(43) Peter Wright, Spycatcher (1987) pages 170

(44) Yuri Modin, My Five Cambridge Friends (1994) page 204

(45) Time Magazine (25th June, 1951)

(46) Donald Maclean, statement (May, 1951)

(47) Ben Macintyre, A Spy Among Friends (2014) page 156

(48) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) page 45

(49) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) page 50

(50) David C. Martin, Wilderness of Mirrors (1980) pages 61-62

(51) Tom Braden, interviewed by Jeff Goldberg (29th April, 1989)

(52) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) page 54

(53) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) page 59-60

(54) Stephen Engelberg, New York Times (12th May, 1987)

(55) Christopher Andrew, The Defence of the Realm: The Authorized History of MI5 (2009) page 435

(56) Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA (2001) page 232

(57) Clare Edward Petty, interviewed by Joseph Trento (21st July, 1988)

(58) James Jesus Angleton, testimony before the Senate (5th October, 1978)

(59) Peter Wright, Spycatcher (1987) page 315

(60) Tom Bower, The Perfect English Spy (1995) page 301

(61) Ben Macintyre, A Spy Among Friends (2014) page 255

(62) Desmond Bristow, A Game Of Moles: Deceptions of an MI6 Officer (1993) page 281

(63) Yuri Modin, My Five Cambridge Friends (1994) page 238

(64) Peter Wright, interviewed by Tom Mangold (22nd February, 1989)

(65) Leonard McCoy, interviewed by Tom Mangold (5th October, 1989)

(66) Michael Howard Holzman, James Jesus Angleton, the CIA, and the Craft of Counterintelligence (2008) page 125

(67) Dr. Jerrold Post, interviewed by Tom Mangold (30th May, 1988)

(68) Dr. John Gittinger, interviewed by Tom Mangold (23rd November, 1988)

(69) Jefferson Morley, Our Man in Mexico (2008) page 233

(70) Gerald D. McKnight, Breach of Trust (2005) page 348

(71) Jefferson Morley, Washington Monthly (December, 2003)

(72) John M. Whitten, House Select Committee on Assassinations (16th May, 1978)

(73) Gerald D. McKnight, Breach of Trust (2005) page 349

(74) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) page 109

(75) Richard Helms, A Look Over My Shoulder (2003) page 240

(76) Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA (2001) page 284

(77) Tennant H. Bagley, testimony to the Warren Commission (24th July, 1964)

(78) Mark Riebling, Wedge: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11 (1994) page 217

(79) H. R. Haldeman, The Ends of Power (1978) page 63

(80) Timothy Leary, Flashbacks (1983) page 194

(81) Testimony of Henry Wiggins (12th October, 1964)

(82) Nina Burleigh, A Very Private Woman (1998) page 263

(83) Ben Bradlee, The Good Life (1995) pages 258-262

(84) Peter Janney, Mary’s Mosaic (2012) page 72

(85) Nina Burleigh, A Very Private Woman (1998) page 267

(86) Ben Bradlee, The Good Life (1995) page 267

(87) Cicely Angleton , interviewed by Nina Burleigh (1996)

(88) Ron Rosenbaum and Phillip Nobile, New Times (9th July, 1976)

(89) Joseph Trento, Secret History of the CIA (2001) pages 280-282

(90) David C. Martin, Wilderness of Mirrors (1980) page 198

(91) Sam Papich, quoted by David Wise in Molehunt (1992) page 219

(92) Newton S. Miler, quoted by David Wise in Molehunt (1992) page 220

(93) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) page 298-299

(94) David C. Martin, Wilderness of Mirrors (1980) page 198-199

(95) Tennant H. Bagley, testimony to the Warren Commission (24th July, 1964)

(96) David Wise, Molehunt (1992) page 234

(97) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) page 299

(98) Clare Edward Petty, quoted by David Wise in Molehunt (1992) page 235

(99) David C. Martin, Wilderness of Mirrors (1980) page 212-213

(100) Newton S. Miler, interviewed by Tom Mangold (25th June, 1989)

(101) David Wise, Molehunt (1992) page 237

(102) Edward Jay Epstein, Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA (1989) page 41

(103) Peter Wright, Spycatcher (1987) pages 362

(104) David Leigh, The Wilson Plot (1988) page 156

(105) Ken Livingstone, speech in the House of Commons (10th January, 1996)

(106) Stephen Dorril and Robin Ramsay, Smear! Wilson and the Secret State (1992) page 179

(107) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) pages 303-308

(108) James Schlesinger, interviewed by Tom Mangold (16th May, 1989)

(109) Deborah Davis, Katharine the Great (1979) page 241

(110) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) pages 309

(111) James Schlesinger, directive to all CIA employees (9th May, 1973)

(112) Mark Riebling, Wedge: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11 (1994) page 148

(113) David C. Martin, Wilderness of Mirrors (1980) page 69

(114) David Wise, Molehunt (1992) pages 238-239

(115) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) pages 312

(115) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) pages 313

(116) William Colby, interviewed by Tom Mangold (12th June, 1989)

(117) David Wise, Molehunt (1992) pages 239-240

(118) William Colby, interviewed by Tom Mangold (12th June, 1989)

(119) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) page 317

(120) Seymour Hersh, interviewed by Tom Mangold (20th June, 1989)

(121) David Atlee Phillips, The Night Watch (1977) page 264

(122) William Colby, interviewed by Tom Mangold (12th June, 1989)

(123) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) pages 324-325

(124) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) pages 328

(125) George T. Kalaris, memo to the executive assistant to the deputy director of Operations of the CIA (18th September, 1975)

(126) John Newman, Oswald and the CIA (2008) page 415

(127) Leonard McCoy, interviewed by Tom Mangold (5th October, 1989)

(128) National Enquirer ( 23rd February, 1976)

(129) Nina Burleigh, A Very Private Woman (1998) page 286

(130) Howard Bray, The Pillars of the Post (1980) page 138

(131) Nina Burleigh, A Very Private Woman (1998) page 287

(132) Time Magazine (8th March, 1976)

(133) Nina Burleigh, A Very Private Woman (1998) page 288

(134) Ron Rosenbaum and Phillip Nobile, New Times (9th July, 1976)

(135) Peter Janney, Mary’s Mosaic (2012) page 75

(136) David Wise, Molehunt (1992) page 256

(137) Cleveland Cram, Of Moles and Molehunters: A Review of Counterintelligence Literature declassified (2003) pages 6-7

(138) Cleveland Cram, Of Moles and Molehunters: A Review of Counterintelligence Literature declassified (2003) page 59

(139) David Wise, Molehunt (1992) page 257

(140) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) pages 350

(141) David Wise, The American Police State (1976) pages 206-207

(142) Chruch Committee, Volume II, pages 72-73

(143) Walter Elder, interviewed by Jeff Goldberg (11th August, 1988)

(144) John M. Whitten, testimony before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (16th May, 1978)

(145) Jefferson Morley, Washington Monthly (December, 2003)

(146) Nina Burleigh, A Very Private Woman: The Life and Unsolved Murder of Presidential Mistress Mary Meyer (1998) page 296

(147) Jefferson Morley, Our Man in Mexico (2008) pages 233-4

(148) John Newman, Oswald and the CIA (2008)

(149) Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: The CIA’s Master Spy Hunter (1991) pages 352

(150) Cicely Angleton, interviewed by Tom Mangold (30th May, 1988)

Long Hidden Footage Of The JFK Assassination Reports To Show A 2nd Shooter Hiding In The Bushes

Long-Hidden Video Reports To Show A Second Shooter Of John F. Kennedy

Screen Shot 2013-11-25 at 8.58.34 PM

November 25, 2013

Source: Daily Mail

A Texas real-estate developer is in possession of footage of John F. Kennedy’s motorcade from that fateful day in Dallas that he believes supports the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone.

Whether or not the footage is genuine isn’t yet known, but if it is, it would represent a dramatic development in a story 50 years in the making.

Following the 50th anniversary of the death of JFK, Stephen Bowen, who is also a principal in small film production company, decided the time was right to sell the footage, which reportedly depicts a second shooter, to the highest bidder.

According to The Wrap, Bowen acquired the film from a Houston television news producer, who had held onto it secretly for more than 40 years.

While no one has yet viewed the footage, it’s said to show a second shooter hiding in the bushes along the route the presidential motorcade took on 22 November, 1963.

‘You can see a guy in the bushes with a gun,’ the source told The Wrap.

It also reportedly contains lost and damaged frames from the famous footage made by Abraham Zapruder and sold to Time in 1963.

Video: JFK Assassination Dealey Plaza Acoustic Evidence 2nd shooter

The 50th anniversary of John F Kennedy’s death has reignited the debate about the assassination, with many speculating recently that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone, including Oswald’s wife Marina Oswald, and John F Kennedy’s nephew, Robert F Kennedy Jr.

Read More…

    • More On The JFK Assassination Below

Tags: JFK Assassination, Dealey Plaza, Dallas, tourists, conspiracy theorist, murder, LBJ, JFK, John F Kennedy,  John F. Kennedy, JFK Assassination, Conspiracy, Abraham Zapruder, Lee Harvey Oswald

Dallas, Tx Sheriff’s Deputies Under DHS Rear Their Ugly Head at JFK 50th Anniversary

Dallas Co., Texas sheriff’s deputies, under federal control during special events, violently charged a peaceful crowd who were waiting to be let into the Dealey Plaza when it was promised to be open to the public at 2:30pm on Nov. 22, the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination.

When the attack began, the official ceremony was already over and Dealey Plaza was practically empty.

One deputy at the scene admitted he was “just following orders from the sheriff’s department.”

The sheriff’s department, on the other hand, was following orders from the Department of Homeland Security, who controlled the entire event.


Infowars is seeking additional footage of the attack. If you recorded video while on the scene at the time, please upload it to YouTube or another video upload site and send us the link to the uploaded film to showtips@infowars.com

Tags: police, Police State, Big Brother, JFK Protesters, JFK Assassination, JFK, Dallas

Cover-up: Are People Buying The Government Fairy Tale Of The JFK Assassination?

Very Graphic Detailed Film Of The JFK Assassination As It Happened
Very Graphic Detailed Film Of The JFK Assassination As It Happened

Tags: JFK Assassination, Dealey Plaza, Dallas, tourists, conspiracy theorist, murder, LBJ, JFK, John F Kennedy, 1st Amendment, Alex Jones

The Man Who Released The Zapruder Film Of The JFK Assassination Talks About The Cover-up

The Man Who Released The JFK Assassination – Zapruder Film Speaks Out About The Gov Cover-up

Tags: JFK Assassination, Dealey Plaza, Dallas, tourists, conspiracy theorist, murder, LBJ, JFK, John F Kennedy

1963 Eyewitness Of JFK Assassination Says No Way On The Magic Bullet Theory, Say LBJ Guilty

Alex Jones welcomes James Tague, a famous witness who was also shot in Dallas, Texas on the morning of November 22, 1963 during the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Tags: JFK Assassination, Dealey Plaza, Dallas, tourists, conspiracy theorist, murder, LBJ, JFK, John F Kennedy

Even More People Not Buying The JFK Lone Nut Gunman Story

Kennedy Assassination Lone Nut Gunman Story Is Falling Apart, Even John Kerry Says So

Skull & Bones John Kerry On JFK Assassination: ‘I Have Doubts Oswald Acted Alone’

I Have Doubts Oswald Acted Alone, Says Skull & Bones John Kerry

Herald Sun.com.au

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-1963. Portrait distributed by the White House. Please credit "John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, Boston" for the image.

JOHN Kerry has added credibility to a conspiracy theory that John F. Kennedy’s assassin may not have worked alone.

The US Secretary of State has become one of the highest-ranking politicians to publicly doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone conspirator in Kennedy’s murder, admitting to a journalist that he was suspicious of the government’s official finding.

“To this day, I have serious doubts that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone,” Mr Kerry said in an interview broadcast onNBC, timed with the 50th anniversary of Kennedy’s death.

“I certainly have doubts that he was motivated by himself, I mean I’m not sure if anybody else is involved… but I have serious questions about whether they got to the bottom of Lee Harvey Oswald’s time and influence from Cuba and Russia.”

Oswald, who was charged with Kennedy’s November 22, 1963, assassination, is known to have lived in the Soviet Union ahead of the attack, moving back to the US in 1962.

Read more

Tags: Skull & Bones, John Kerry, JFK Assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald, John F. Kennedy, Assassination