Larry Hancock

Bill Simpich and I have pointed out that given the way certain of the taps on the Cuban consulate were set up, it was perfectly possible to impersonate a call from the embassy on a tap line at a CIA safe house. That means that anyone with sanctioned (or unsanctioned) access to the safe house could have made the call in question - and most probably did it that given that the Cuban facility itself was closed that day. Now which actors were involved, almost impossible to say but my guess is that it would have had to be facilitated by the AMOTS who did training for the safe house and surveillance personnel and who actually operated independently of Mexico City station in Mexico....tasked strictly by Sforsa out of JMWAVE in Miami.

If you take a careful look at some of the designations in the document (Special Agent in Charge, etc) I think you are seeing the FBI station chief in LA signing off on a background check on Emilio ordered out of FBI HQ in DC pursuant to a standard CIA request at the time Emilio was being cleared for a new set of responsibilities on his return to the US - which included foreign intelligence work against Cubans domestically and in Mexico. Standard practice for agencies to use the FBI investigations group in background checks for clearances. As to why LA, I suspect Jean Paul is right right in that the LA office handled surveillance on the Cuban consulate in LA, as well as some matters related to Mexico including international travel.

Rodger, I'll leave it to Larry S to pursue but for myself....and being an ongoing nudge in such things....unless or until he provides some level of detail about the source (not the identity per se) but did the source see a document, have a personal conversation with someone who did, or with someone who could describe a primary source who would know about such things - in other words give us some reason to believe he is not just repeating gossip, opinion, belief (which we have plenty of already) then I'm not sure it does us much good. That wold be true even if he elaborates on "what type of involvement" - we have pretty much any type of involvement one could imagine on the table already and have had for years. What we don't really need as a source is just one more person hanging out in Washington who belies in their gut that the CIA was somehow "involved" . We've had that for decades now. Regardless of politics or other issues I'll applaud if he brings something to the table (especially if its to Justice, Congress, anyone who could use it in an actual investigation) that really could advance investigation of the CIA as an agency, its personnel or even its surrogates.

Thanks Matthew, yes I encouraged Larry S to do that since he now had some meaningful contacts at the show...we hope. And Larry and others on board with he concept can provide Tucker with concrete advice on exactly how to move forward with agencies and Congress. Beyond simply being the right thing to do it would no doubt expand his image so it seems like it would be a double win for him to move forward with his story.

The think is I see no reason why his supporters should not be pressuring him for action and that includes a good number of those who are going to be in the new Republican led House. He has garnered a good bit of support on this forum for speaking out and I assume everyone praising his action would also chime in to encourage that he treat his own story seriously. If he does not act it raises serious questions about his own credibility.

Well I'll just be repetitive and say this one more time.....assuming that Tucker does have a source and if Tucker is ethical and committed then he should be making Congressional contacts to gain an offer of immunity for his source to go on record with his information. The same with an outreach to Congress to involve appropriate committees including oversight committees. Given that his source may now be at risk, and that he is morally complicit for not revealing this information himself, he should be willing to cooperate and provide directions on where to find the document he saw including details to vet his story as to date, time, location, source etc. There are legal channels which exist to actually introduce and leverage this sensational claim......will they work, maybe, maybe not but sensational evidence demands a meaningful response. Bottom line, he reported it, he has a responsibility legally, ethically and morally to try and do something with it to move matters forward....its a claim which if supportable could well lead to a new Congressional inquiry at a minimum and for that matter his Congressional and political supporters claim to want truth in the matter so they need to step up too. This is no game, the assassination was a murder, it was sedition, it was treason and he needs to treat it in that light.

Matt, we are working on a list of items that were identified by the ARRB and not collected as well as items we now know about that NARA has every right to designate as JFK records and move to collect. New collections are a major element of the MFF legal action.....the alternative is to bring enough pressure on Congress and the oversight committee to get action from that direction.

Matt actually there were numerous JFK records, many identified by the ARRB, that were never actually collected by NARA. In addition NARA was supposed to assume the role of prospecting for new, relevant documents as the ARRB was doing. NARA's failure to do both is part of the MFF legal action. Beyond that there may be a special collection outside CIA HQ files or station files...very much like Angleton special file. We know that when that was revealed the CIA assigned a special master to sort his large segemented file and move parts into the regular HQ file. What we don't know is what happened to items that might be too hot to move...do they still exist somewhere or were they destroyed? While I find it hard to believe any plot against the President was put on paper, it is not inconceivable that a document containing at least strong suspicions of CIA operational involvement existed at some point in time - as an example Sforza's investigation of the exiles has been confirmed once again in the re-release...so where is the report that resulted from that work?

Well I happen to be ill this morning and its impaired my judgement enough to jump into this and try to focus on a couple of things - and not discuss media wars or personalities. First off having Tucker tell his huge audience that the CIA killed JFK, with at least the implication that the MIG and the Deep State were behind it was likely well received in his overall viewer demographic. I have a hard time seeing it as a shock to most of his listeners - perhaps only because he did say it so forcefully and sincerely (which he always does, he is obviously a powerful speaker). Fine. So OK, good, he focused attention on the CIA as the prime suspect in the crime and actually had Larry S on to go though the issues and potential remedies for investigating the CIA as a prime suspect. To me that was actually more important than the pronouncement since its going to take a Court order or a Congressional committee or both to move the ball in that respect. The problem however is that he substantiated his assertion with reference to an anonymous source - which in itself gets us nowhere. Will he go to the Justice Dept or the FBI with that source and push to get him on record so as to force a legal investigation? That would indicate to me he is sincere and its not just another doing another series of shows. Actually I would think his supporters would push him to take concrete action with his source and his information - in fact one or more of his Congressional advocates should be on the phone with offers of immunity in order to take testimony which would trigger a formal inquiry. On a side note, I have no respect for anonymous sources sixty years into this...why have they not already done the above without Tucker (yeah, its a risk but is that any more of a risk than having the CIA go full out trying to investigate his source not to protect itself - sharing that with Tucker alone gives the source no protection at all). And on a side note, Tucker said, implied or however you want to phrase it that his source saw a document which proved the CIA murdered JFK - personally I have a hard time buying that sort of thing was written down at any point in time but the real question is why did not the source identify the document, tell Tucker where to find it, basically do anything that would make his story actionable. As usual my metric is simple, talk is cheap, show me you are sincere - and reliable and credible - by moving on to the action plan to do something with what you know and talked about. So, fine for a first step but he made a specific claim that could actually get us somewhere, if its real and if he and his source step up to the plane.

Of course RFK knew what the real story was....the first person he called on to ask if they had done it was the CIA Director. Its just too bad nobody ever asked RFK to respond in detail as to why the CIA was his very first suspect.

Unfortunately still not new other than the redactions, I was working off Cain documents fifteen years ago from NARA. They showed him as a source on Cubans in Chicago and offering numerous times to work for the CIA in Mexico City, to collect information either in person or electronically. The CIA turned him down every time over issues with the possibility he would be shopping information to multiple "clients" and for background issues related to Chicago and likely criminal connections there. I suspect that at least was a good call by the CIA, Cain was shopping himself pretty widely and in doing so made lots of claims that were hard even for agencies to check.

Actually that has been out even longer, I had it direct from NARA back in 2005 when I was writing an update for SWHT. And as far as can see there is no change......the CIA is really pulling a con to the extent they are positioning this as a major dump of new documents which fulfills their obligations.

As if we didn't have enough "Hernandez's" to deal with...

Oh absolutely, Harvey and the CIA clandestine ops guys (the PM and maritime ops types or "cowboys"" ) were never fans of Harvey - they considered mamy of his ideas wildly impractical and his plans to be so detailed as to be laughable. That has been written about by several of those who were involved at the time The really ironic thing is that JFK continually wanted to run an anti-Castro effort as an inter-agency effort and Harvey, Shackley, Morales et al always objected to that...and to being controlled. The cancellation of Mongoose ended the first attempt at control but in reality JFK did the same thing again starting in spring of 63, establishing a new inter-agency effort with State supposedly in charge and with Fitzgerald essentially replacing Harvey to lead the CIA element. But the guys in Miami, the cowboys as you say, were not more excited by the new high level programs coming down to them in 63 than Harvey had generally been in 62. So yes, it was always a fundamental policy dispute between the Administration and the field guys down in Miami, especially the cowboys setting up and running the actual missions.

Matt, given that Barker was a general political action liaison to several of the exile groups and basically a collections point for all the various iterations of their relationships and networks this looks to be fairly routine...not sure it reflects a special relationship but David may have other ideas.

This appears to be Harvey's effort to move operations against Cuba out from under interdepartmental control ie. Mongoose and back under Western Hemisphere - strictly within the CIA. A proposal to move himself and clandestine operations back inside CIA and away from administration/special group approvals and micromanagement. It didn't fly and Harvey found himself odd man out but as I said in another thread, you could always count on him expressing himself and not holding back all that much.... We have heard about this anecdotally but I don't know that we have seen these sort of specifics or this particular document before....then again I may just have missed it up to now.

I think we would expect that since Harvey was running the CIA segment of the overall inter-agency anti-Castro effort that Lansdale was in charge of during 1962. However Harvey had notably little enthusiasm for Lansdale or most of his ideas - which Harvey considered largely wishful thinking or fundamental unworkable. And Harvey was never one not to express himself ...

Very interesting Robin...could you give a source or link for a reference on that email quote...thanks, Larry

As far as the "camp" is concerned its important to keep in mind that it was a very small, very ill equipped place, basically a house...set up for the MDC and largely a scam (with talk of big donors but no money ever surfacing) so with very little money actually around it. Some of the local Cubans did take food out there but it only lasted a few weeks until the raid on the abortive bombing mission from the McClaney property scared them off and the volunteers were returned to Miami on a bus. That camp was never raided, the McClaney place was but that was from a tip out of Miami. Its also important to remember that several of the AC Cubans were already sources for the FBI, CIA or both so who said what for what purpose is murky at best. My view is that Oswald was a Cuban revolution supporter and would have possibly reported to the FBI on any gossip he heard about their military activities to the FBI, do obstruct their military activities. Why Pena or Arnesto Rodriquez - who also mentioned Oswald knowing about a "camp" - would have thought that is unclear to me but we have to remember Oswald was also reported associating with Cubans from outside Miami who the locals did not know. If David and I are right, that might well have included either Carlos or Victor Hernandez, who were both in the area in conjunction with the McClaney mission. What they might have passed in an approach to Oswald would be pure speculation.

I do think its significant but I also think Oswald may well have been running his own game, positioning himself to pass on information on the anti-Castro Cubans and their local supporters. Of course since several of them were also sources for the FBI and even CIA that could only last so long. Still, if you accept the Clinton incident, which would occurred relatively late in his time in NO then Oswald was really walking a tightrope, playing multiple roles.

Tom, some great points there and one thing jumped out at me: "One of the reports was written on 8/7/63, two days before Oswald’s arrest. The only difference in this report is that instead of “no information” they wrote “no corroborative information” had been received on the FPCC in New Orleans" If Oswald did ask for someone specific at the FBI following his arrest, it would imply he had already had some contact with the NO Office...it that were the case Oswald might have given them some info about the FPCC - which as of the 8th they might still be trying to corroborate. It would not be at all unusual not to mention a source name in a summary report, especially if it was a new source for them. There may be a simpler explanation for the use of the word but it certainly is interesting. Given the restrictions on DeBureys testimony its pretty evident they were shielding something about Oswald and what would have been really embarrassing is not just his being on file but the actual destruction of file documents on him - I tend to see the FBI destroying documents rather than faking them, especially if other agencies had not been copied (not unusual since they tended to poach each ours sources).

I would have expected Cuban G2 to have had a file on Oswald due to his highly visible pro-Cuba support. Open source intelligence is always easy, which means reading the newspapers for key cities like Miami, Tampa, or New Orleans where there were well established Cuban communities. Of course that is just a guess but it would have been reasonable for them to have done some checking on him as to whether he was a dangle or provocateur and I would not have been surprised to have found an advisory on him a place like their Mexico City embassy. Then again it seems like Cuban G2 was a lot more interested in undermining CIA efforts and penetrating anti-Castro groups so maybe Oswald was not on their radar....seems a bit strange though that they would not have a file on him prior to his appearance at their MC embassy. As to the letter, I would tend to go along with Escalante's take on it....which of course brings up what "conspirator" would have still had access to really deep assets inside Cuba...sort of makes me think of Sforza.

I would follow you on that Gerry, probably the right thing to do would be to look back at the documents on Oswald's sessions with the FBI in New Orleans - he might well have offered information on the FPCC, on the anti-Castro Cubans (important since it was a top priority for FBI to obstruct military action or weapons buys by anti-Castro groups) and potentially even on ultra right figures in the area who might have helped get weapons for the Cubans..... I suspect we have not seen the full record - or a true record - of the info. Oswald provided to the FBI in New Orleans and given what Hosty destroyed in Dallas any formal records probably did not exist for all that long. And yes I suspect Walther saw a potential informant file - given Oswald's approach to the FBI it seems to me it would have been a violation of practice not to have a file on him as a potential informant. You just don't ignore "walk ins"...

This is interesting in that we know from the AMSANTA project that FPCC members traveling to Cuba were well received, given a warm welcome, tours, even introductions to senior Cuban officials. The problem for Oswald of course was how the FPCC office might have responded to queries from Cuba. But if he had been granted a Visa based on material appearing to show his support for the FPCC and Cubas - from New Orleans - he might not have faced that much scrutiny. Of course if the whole thing was a propaganda ploy....possibly not even involving Oswald himself....it might never have been intended to get a person into Cuba, but rather to create a rather radical story about Cuban subversion of naive Americans to add on to the propaganda initiative that had been started by DRE/INCA/CIA in New Orleans.