Angleton and Mark Lane experts, your thoughts?

[Ray Mitcham]

Great post, Rob. Unfortunately the hawks in Russia soon got rid of Kruschev.

[Thomas Graves]

If one were to read "The Sword and the Shield" by Christopher Andrew and KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin, one would realize that Mark Lane was, perhaps unwittingly, subsidized by The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA).

--  Tommy 

4/11/18  EDIT ALERT: I NOW REALIZE THAT THIS (PROBABLE) SLANDERING OF LANE WAS PROBABLY JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A CLEVER RUSKIE "ACTIVE MEASURES" COUNTERINTELLIGENCE OP AND/OR A RUSKIE "STRATEGIC DECEPTION" OP.

--  TG

Edited April 11, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Douglas Caddy]

These articles have no direct link to the topic under discussion other than to point out that the CIA today, like in the past, has problems with spies.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/17/former-cia-agent-arrested-after-fears-that-china-spy-network-was-betrayed

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/cia-china-mole-arrest-jerry-chun-shing-lee.html

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/cia-china-turncoat-lee-may-have-compromised-u-s-spies-n839316

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Douglas Caddy

[Pamela Brown]

On 1/15/2018 at 8:00 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Man, is that true Pamela.

One of the extraordinary things about the new files is how many of them refer to Lane.  Especially the FBI.

But further, the WC really feared Lane and they asked that the FBI actually step up their coverage of him.  Incredible.

Absolutely.

It is not easy nowadays to orient ourselves to what it was like in NYC in 1964 when the WCR came out.  The WC apologists had everything tied up -- if you dared to question the WCR you were, by default, a "Communist" just like LHO supposedly was.  So, when Mark Lane was holding meetings in NYC he was. by default, a
"Communist" for daring to challenge the WC's 'findings'.  I knew that if I went to Lane's meetings or offerred to help him I could probably count on being lumped into that group of 'dangerous Commie loonies' who dared to question the WCR, be tracked, etc, as he was.

It was a difficult situation for me, as it was obvious at first reading that the entire WCR was a whitewash.  I had heard the police reports live on 11.22.63, listening intently to a transistor radio.  The WCR simply did not make sense.  But if I reached out and spoke up, as Mark Lane dared to do, I would risk a great deal.  I was not mature enough to do that at that time.  Lane was, and paid a terrible price for doing so. For as much as he has been lauded, in other circles he was and still is slandered.  I bided my time until there was more acceptance of the CT position, but have paid a price in doing that as well.  Quite a conundrum, imo.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Pamela Brown

[James DiEugenio]

That is correct Pamela and he also could not get his book published in America because of the FBI.

That is why he had to go to England.

[James DiEugenio]

Does Tommy G ever read anything on this case that is new and enlightening?

This Mitrokhin stuff is right out of Dave Reitzes and Max Holland:

 

Holland’s source for this? The controversial Mitrokhin archives. Vasili Mitrokhin was a former archivist for the KGB. In 1992 he defected to the United Kingdom. As Russian scholar Amy Knight has noted, the story behind Mitrokhin and his defection strains credulity. But it began a whole new genre of academic studies and books. With a skeptical eye, she surveyed the books in all of their questionable aspects, i.e., the sales and marketing of former Russian intelligence employees who spirit out their notes on KGB files. (See this article in the Wilson Quarterly)

This new area of trade and barter reached its apogee in the instance of Alexander Vassiliev, still another former Russian intelligence officer who defected to England. In that case, it was shown that Vassiliev’s “notes” at times actually distorted the original memorandum beyond recognition.

Once in England, Mitrokhin was furnished with an official in-house British MI5 author. In turn, Christopher Andrew set up a syndication deal with Rupert Murdoch. The subsequent volume was called The Sword and the Shield. In 1995, the political angle behind the barter was accentuated. Based on the word of still another Russian intelligence defector, Murdoch and his subordinates accused former Labor Party leader Michael Foot of accepting funds from KGB agents. Foot promptly sued for libel. Understandably, Murdoch did not want to appear in court, so he settled the case in Foot’s favor.

Mitrokhin’s notes said that the late Mark Lane had been aided by two secret donations from the KGB: one for 1500 dollars and one for 500 dollars. As Lane later replied, the only donation he received even close to those amounts was from the extraordinarily wealthy Corliss Lamont, an heir to the JP Morgan fortune. Not a likely candidate for a KGB agent. Further, according to the Mitrokhin notes, the transfer occurred in New York City in 1966. As Lane has noted, he was living in London that year, finishing up and editing his book Rush to Judgment, which was being published by a British house. (Lane, Last Word, pp. 92-93) Third, the next largest donation Lane got for further research was from Woody Allen. It was for $50. Lane kept records of his donations. In other words, the Mitrokhin charges against him were quite dubious. Consequently, he challenged the veracity of the book in a letter to the author. Andrew never replied. (ibid, p. 96)

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Does Tommy G ever read anything on this case that is new and enlightening?

This Mitrokhin stuff is right out of Dave Reitzes and Max Holland:

 

Holland’s source for this? The controversial Mitrokhin archives. Vasili Mitrokhin was a former archivist for the KGB. In 1992 he defected to the United Kingdom. As Russian scholar Amy Knight has noted, the story behind Mitrokhin and his defection strains credulity. But it began a whole new genre of academic studies and books. With a skeptical eye, she surveyed the books in all of their questionable aspects, i.e., the sales and marketing of former Russian intelligence employees who spirit out their notes on KGB files. (See this article in the Wilson Quarterly)

This new area of trade and barter reached its apogee in the instance of Alexander Vassiliev, still another former Russian intelligence officer who defected to England. In that case, it was shown that Vassiliev’s “notes” at times actually distorted the original memorandum beyond recognition.

Once in England, Mitrokhin was furnished with an official in-house British MI5 author. In turn, Christopher Andrew set up a syndication deal with Rupert Murdoch. The subsequent volume was called The Sword and the Shield. In 1995, the political angle behind the barter was accentuated. Based on the word of still another Russian intelligence defector, Murdoch and his subordinates accused former Labor Party leader Michael Foot of accepting funds from KGB agents. Foot promptly sued for libel. Understandably, Murdoch did not want to appear in court, so he settled the case in Foot’s favor.

Mitrokhin’s notes said that the late Mark Lane had been aided by two secret donations from the KGB: one for 1500 dollars and one for 500 dollars. As Lane later replied, the only donation he received even close to those amounts was from the extraordinarily wealthy Corliss Lamont, an heir to the JP Morgan fortune. Not a likely candidate for a KGB agent. Further, according to the Mitrokhin notes, the transfer occurred in New York City in 1966. As Lane has noted, he was living in London that year, finishing up and editing his book Rush to Judgment, which was being published by a British house. (Lane, Last Word, pp. 92-93) Third, the next largest donation Lane got for further research was from Woody Allen. It was for $50. Lane kept records of his donations. In other words, the Mitrokhin charges against him were quite dubious. Consequently, he challenged the veracity of the book in a letter to the author. Andrew never replied. (ibid, p. 96)

Thanks for that, James.

Hmm.

If memory serves, Andrew and Mitrokhin in "The Sword and the Shield" say that Yuri Nosenko was a true defector.  So I guess he wasn't, after all, huh.

Or did Andrew and Mithrokhin only prevaricate about Lane?

I'm SO confused.

(LOL)

--  Tommy 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

Well Tommy anyone who would take Mitrokhin and his book seriously has reason to be confused.

And I wouldn't laugh at it.

 

[Thomas Graves]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Well Tommy anyone who would take Mitrokhin and his book seriously has reason to be confused.

And I wouldn't laugh at it.

 

James,

So if "The Sword and the Shield" is chock-a-block full of disinformation, it's fair to assume that it's another example of Russian active measures / strategic deception against us and our allies, yes?

--  Tommy 

[Paul Brancato]

I’m glad that Tommy Graves has fully emerged from the closet. Or was I just blind? I began to suspect he was promoting a KGB did it conspiracy theory before he stopped posting many months ago. Now that he is back he is making clear his new theory. In essence he thinks Bagley, and by inference Angleton, were on the right track. Never mind that the CIA decided otherwise. In the face of so much evidence to the contrary he pushes this theory. I guess he doesn’t see the JFK I see, the progressive making enemies from day one of his presidency within his own security apparatus, his own mega corporations, his own military industrial complex.

He was seen by our deep state as a traitor, someone who wanted peace, third world neutrality, a lessening of east west tensions. It is so clear to anyone who thinks clearly that his enemies were domestic ones. In Tommy’s spy vs spy world it’s the KGB who were the bad guys, against whom our government waged righteous war then, and now. When I suggest he read Albarelli’s chapter he counters by asking if have I read Bagley. I suppose he would agree with Trejo that Dulles and his cronies were right to engage Nazis in their perpetual war with the real bad guys.

Tommy, I made up my mind a long time ago. I’ve read enough of Bagley and Angleton. 

[Thomas Graves]

On 1/18/2018 at 12:31 PM, Paul Brancato said:

I’m glad that Tommy Graves has fully emerged from the closet. Or was I just blind? I began to suspect he was promoting a KGB did it conspiracy theory before he stopped posting many months ago. Now that he is back he is making clear his new theory. In essence he thinks Bagley, and by inference Angleton, were on the right track. Never mind that the CIA decided otherwise. In the face of so much evidence to the contrary he pushes this theory. I guess he doesn’t see the JFK I see, the progressive making enemies from day one of his presidency within his own security apparatus, his own mega corporations, his own military industrial complex.

He was seen by our deep state as a traitor, someone who wanted peace, third world neutrality, a lessening of east west tensions. It is so clear to anyone who thinks clearly that his enemies were domestic ones. In Tommy’s spy vs spy world it’s the KGB who were the bad guys, against whom our government waged righteous war then, and now. When I suggest he read Albarelli’s chapter he counters by asking if have I read Bagley. I suppose he would agree with Trejo that Dulles and his cronies were right to engage Nazis in their perpetual war with the real bad guys.

Tommy, I made up my mind a long time ago. I’ve read enough of Bagley and Angleton. 

Paul,

[EDIT ALERT: Removal of a very offending and sarcastic phrase] Xxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxx, did it cause you a severe case of cognitive dissonance?

How many pages did you read, anyway?

Did you read Bagley's explanation of how CIA went about "deciding otherwise" on Nosenko?  (It's near the beginning of his 2015 PDF "Ghosts of the Spy Wars.")

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362

--  Tommy 

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Glenn Nall]

On 1/15/2018 at 11:20 PM, Joe Bauer said:

 

So in essence this whole post is about Tommy Graves' inadequacies and opinions contrary to yours, and very little more...?

EDIT This was meant to in response to Paul's post, not Joe's.

Tommy, none. Just emphasising Paul's neg. response...

Edited January 18, 2018 by Glenn Nall

[Thomas Graves]

5 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

So in essence this whole post is about Tommy Graves' inadequacies and opinions contrary to yours, and very little more...?

Glenn,

With all due respect, which of my many inadequacies are you referring to?

--  Tommy 

[Glenn Nall]

9 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Glenn,

With all due respect, which of my many inadequacies are you referring to?

--  Tommy 

Pls reread... my bad...

[Thomas Graves]

23 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

  26 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

"So in essence this whole post is about Tommy Graves' inadequacies and opinions contrary to yours, and very little more.."

-- Glenn Nall on 1/18/18

Glenn,

Is this the post you wanted me to reread?

--  Tommy 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Thomas Graves