Ruth Paine

[Paul Trejo]

Garrison himself got Ruth to backtrack on her "only met George Once" deception.

You can read can you not Paul?

She was insisting on it at that time with JG.

"At that time, they talked about a copy of the famous backyard photograph which was found in DeMohrenschildt's possessions after the assassination. As author Steven Jones noted: Why would Geroge invite a couple to dinner in 1966, if he had only briefly met them once three years earlier? Further, in his manuscript I'm a patsy, I'm a Patsy, George wrote that he only discussed this backyard photograph with close friends. The question then seems to be: Why did it appear that Ruth was trying to conceal the true nature of her relation ship with George DeMohrneschildt?" (pgs. 194-95 of DB 2)

That is the complete or fuller quote.

I've already answered that James. You're talking about a 1966 meeting with George DeM. Ruth's WC testimony was given in 1964.

I can read -- can you?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Uh, Paul, I spent several pages on the Walker shooting in Destiny Betrayed, second edition (see pages 200-04) And I spent more in Reclaiming Parkland (pgs. 76-85)

How Oswald could have shot at Walker with a rifle he never ordered, with a bullet that did not fit that rifle he never ordered,all this is beyond me.

Anyone who can buy that story has an agenda. And its not based on the evidence.

With that, I will sign off on this thread.

After fifty three years,I have had enough of that kind of zealotry. Whether it comes from the Oswald did it crowd, or the conspiracy crowd.

You're welcome to sign off this thread, James, because actually the kitchen is about to get very hot in here.

But I just paid good American money for a copy of the second edition of your book, "Destiny Betrayed" in which you completely trash Ruth Paine -- and I'm going to parse every sentence you wrote about her -- you can take that to the bank, sir.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 28, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

You need to clarify your accusation, Chris. When people tell the truth, as Ruth Paine does, they don't need to coordinate stories.

I've heard that once the cat's out of the bag...

Morning, March 18th, 1964

Liebler: You never met the De Mohrenschildt?

M Paine: I have - Everett gave some parties to which WE went…

Afternoon, March 18th, 1964

Jenner: Had you known the De Mohrenschildts?

R Paine: I had NEVER met them. I have not met them since.

Jenner: You had no conversations, no contact whatsoever with them before or after this party?

R Paine: That is correct no contact whatsoever before or after. There was a roommate of Everett’s. Dirk, I think, I forgot his name.

April 18th, 1968

Alcock: You mentioned the de Mohrenschildts, did you have occasion to talk to them much at the first party?

R Paine: No.

Alcock: Did you see them subsequent to the party?

R Paine: I have seen them only once again, it was in Dallas, maybe a year ago, it was long after the assassination.

Alcock: What was the occasion?

R Paine: They called and asked Michael and me to come have dinner with them.

Alcock: Did you discuss the assassination or Lee or anything?

R Paine: Yes.

Alcock: Sure. About this discovery of the picture?

R Paine: Yes, Understand that this was the first time Michael met them, he was invited to dinner also, but Michael had not been at this party in February of

’63, and I think they came back to this country after having been away for quite a while, how long they were away I don’t know, …

The dinner party in 1967 with the De M's raises all kinds of suspicions. I'm sure though, that if we flip the Trejo magic eight ball we'll get a response that we've already seen. Oh, and lest I forget, I loved RP's not-so-subtle let's-change the subject to "Dirk" back in '64

[Paul Trejo]

You need to clarify your accusation, Chris. When people tell the truth, as Ruth Paine does, they don't need to coordinate stories.

I've heard that once the cat's out of the bag...

Morning, March 18th, 1964

Liebler: You never met the De Mohrenschildt?

M Paine: I have - Everett gave some parties to which WE went…

Afternoon, March 18th, 1964

Jenner: Had you known the De Mohrenschildts?

R Paine: I had NEVER met them. I have not met them since.

Jenner: You had no conversations, no contact whatsoever with them before or after this party?

R Paine: That is correct no contact whatsoever before or after. There was a roommate of Everett’s. Dirk, I think, I forgot his name.

April 18th, 1968

Alcock: You mentioned the de Mohrenschildts, did you have occasion to talk to them much at the first party?

R Paine: No.

Alcock: Did you see them subsequent to the party?

R Paine: I have seen them only once again, it was in Dallas, maybe a year ago, it was long after the assassination.

Alcock: What was the occasion?

R Paine: They called and asked Michael and me to come have dinner with them.

Alcock: Did you discuss the assassination or Lee or anything?

R Paine: Yes.

Alcock: Sure. About this discovery of the picture?

R Paine: Yes, Understand that this was the first time Michael met them, he was invited to dinner also, but Michael had not been at this party in February of

’63, and I think they came back to this country after having been away for quite a while, how long they were away I don’t know, …

The dinner party in 1967 with the De M's raises all kinds of suspicions. I'm sure though, that if we flip the Trejo magic eight ball we'll get a response that we've already seen. Oh, and lest I forget, I loved RP's not-so-subtle let's-change the subject to "Dirk" back in '64

Well, Chris, you've demonstrated nicely that Michael Paine *possibly* met George DeM more than once -- but you failed to demonstrate that Ruth Paine met him more than once.

You keep trying to reference that Michael and Ruth attended *multiple* parties at Everett Glover's house from 1959-1963 -- but that doesn't prove your case -- not by a long shot.

No smoking gun there, Chris -- just more innuendo.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 28, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Martin Blank]

incredible

[Paul Trejo]

Starting with page 193 of the second edition of Destiny Betrayed (2012) and continuing to page 208, James DiEugenio presents a section he titles, The Baron, the Paines, and Dulles.

On page 193, James sets up the scenario by quoting from Jim Garrison about the mismatch of the wealthy, sophisticated George DeMohrenschildt (DeM) and the impoverished, high-school dropout, Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO). Fair enough. But then DiEugenio follows Jim Garrison down the rabbit hole of assuming that George DeM made a CIA hand-off of LHO to Michael and Ruth Paine. Moving to page 194, James writes:

...One of the most interesting things that the Baron did was to introduce the Oswalds to Ruth and Michael Paine. This occurred as George was preparing to leave the country for Haiti. It was arranged for the Paines to meet the Oswalds at a gathering at the home of Everett Glover on February 22, 1963.

By using the words, "it was arranged," we are supposed to imagine a CIA plot here -- not simply a dinner party arranged by Dallas engineer, Everett Glover. James continues:

...The official story has it that Ruth never met George until then, and she never had contact with him afterwards. When Garrison questioned her on this point before a New Orleans Grand Jury, this previous tenet of hers was shown to be in error. Garrison managed to get her to admit that she and Michael were dinner guests at George’s house in 1966.

Here is one of the first charges that James has pressed in this thread -- that Ruth lied about how many times she saw George DeM in her life up to the time she testified to the WC in 1964. She said, only once. But James accuses her of falsehood, because Jim Garrison got her to admit that she met with George DM in 1966. Hmm. Let's give James the benefit of the doubt, and just presume he thinks the reader isn't paying attention.

At that meeting between the DeM's and the Paines in 1966, they talked about the infamous Backyard Photograph that George DeM had shared with LIFE magazine in February of 1964 -- perhaps the most famous photograph in the world at that time. Since another copy of that photograph was also found in Ruth Paine's garage -- they clearly had something in common to talk about. But James wants us to think this was a CIA plot. James writes:

As author Steven Jones notes: Why would George invite a couple to dinner in 1966, if he had only briefly met them once three years earlier? Further, in his manuscript, I’m a Patsy, I’m a Patsy, George wrote that he only discussed this backyard photograph with close friends. The question then seems to be: Why did it appear that Ruth was trying to conceal the true nature of her relationship with George DeMohrenschildt?

Yes, there is James' clear attack on Ruth, calling her a L-I-A-R, using the authority of amateur writer like Steven Jones, his own protégé. The silliness in James' argument is that he begins by calling Ruth's 1964 testimony a lie based on a 1966 meeting. How he expected to get away with such shoddy logic escapes me -- except that several people fell for it, evidently.

As for their meeting at all, well, wealthy people like to have dinner together. Big deal. The truth is that in 1966, all four of these wealthy people were being scrutinized by a very suspicious Jim Garrison. Why not have dinner, why they're at it?

In any case, this accusation is now answered. Shall we proceed with page 195?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 31, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

No smoking gun there, Chris -- just more innuendo.

But at least my innuendo is based on testimony and not simply a belief system and a crystal ball.

[Paul Trejo]

No smoking gun there, Chris -- just more innuendo.

But at least my innuendo is based on testimony and not simply a belief system and a crystal ball.

Very weak logic, sir. You've evidently been influenced by James DiEugenio's brand of logic.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Continuing with page 195 of the second edition of Destiny Betrayed (2012) by James DiEugenio, we note he often cites Carol Hewett, Steven Jones and Barbara LaMonica as his sources -- and doesn't really clarify that they are his protégés who published in PROBE magazine in the 1990's. James also hides the fact that they found no solid evidence, just a lot of suspicion and innuendo. But what James, Carol, Steven and Barbara uncovered, they claim, were "the hidden associations of the Paines."

But, James DiEugenio is looking for spooks, and this is all he has to start with. Let's drill down to the specific evidence that these "skeptics" of the Paines discovered:

(1) That Michael Paine was wealthy. He was part of the "Eastern Establishment" (which were fighting words to Southern Senators like the WC's Richard Russell).

(2) That Michael was related to the wealthy Forbes family.

(3) That the wealthy, well-connected Frederick and Nancy Osborne wrote a letter of good character to the US Government to vouch for the Paines' “religiosity, good character, and innocence in having anything to do with the assassination of President Kennedy."

(4) That Frederick Osborne had gone to college with Allen Dulles, and had served in World War II with Allen Dulles, and had started an organization with Allen Dulles, named, "Crusade for Freedom," which eventually merged with "Radio Free Europe" in 1962.

This was enough to start James DiEugenio railing about the CIA involvement in the role of the Paines in the JFK murder. James wrote:

But this is not the only connection to Allen Dulles and his circle that the Paine family had...As an OSS officer operating out of Switzerland during World War II, Dulles got to know a woman named Mary Bancroft...He ran her as an agent, and he had a continuing sexual affair with her...Bancroft’s best and longest lasing female friend was Ruth Forbes. Or as she said, she “knew the mother of Michael Paine where Oswald stayed. She was Ruth Forbes, a very good friend of mine.”

Evidently, this bit of gossip -- that the 1940's girlfriend of Michael Paines' mother was a lover of Allen Dulles during World War II -- is all that James and his protoges need to accuse Michael Paine of being a CIA Agent. The lack of logic in linking Mary Bancroft with the JFK murder evades James -- the suspicion is what counts. But wait, there's more.

(5) When Michael's mother remarried, her new husband was also very wealthy, namely, Arthur Young, the very inventor of Bell Helicopter.

(6) As often happens in wealthy families, the elders find good jobs for their children in the companies with which they have influence. So, Arthur Young got his step-son Michael, a job at Bell Helicopter -- including a high-level security clearance, which the job required.

For James DiEugenio, this just *had* to be a CIA plot. Turning to page 196, James continues:

When asked by the Commission about his security clearance, Michael said he did not know what the classification was. This is another statement made by the Paines that lacks credibility.

Actually, many jobs in many companies require various levels of security clearance -- and for those of us in technical jobs, we mainly care if we ourselves can get into our office and work spaces as required. If not, we tell our managers to fix the problems. Otherwise, how could we focus on the technical work? So, it's not really uncommon for an Engineer to be unclear about all the details of his security clearance. But for James DiEugenio -- this is blatant falsehood. James continues:

...One of the greatest failures of the American media was its showing in the Kennedy assassination...its acceptance of Ruth and Michael Paine at face value. The “Good Samaritan” Quakers were in fact extensions of the Eastern Establishment in Dallas. Michael Paine’s ancestors are Boston Brahmins of the Forbes and Cabot first families of America.

Clearly, for James DiEugenio, being wealthy is all by itself suspicious. Next James reaches out further in this wealthy family tree to REALLY drag in the dirt. James continues:

...Michael’s grand uncle, Cameron Forbes, was both governor and later ambassador to the Philippines. Prior to his death in 1959, he joined his Cabot relatives on the board of United Fruit. Thomas’ brother, John M. Cabot, was also in the State Department around this time, and was exchanging information with Maurice Gatlin about the preparations of the CIA-United Fruit overthrow of Jacobo Arbenez.

There's the connection, finally, to show that Michael Paine was a CIA Agent -- he had a grand-uncle who was powerful in politics, and he had cousins who worked for United Fruit! Now, anybody who knows the history of Fidel Castro knows the struggle Castro had with United Fruit. So, James is willing to go out on a limb and imply that the CIA *must have* been involved with Michael Paine's family on that account. A rich cousin who was linked with United Fruit! Isn't that enough proof that Michael Paine was a CIA agent? But wait, there's even MORE! James writes:

In the early sixties, Thomas was President of the Gibraltar Steamship Corporation... which leased...Swan Island....a CIA front...But it was on that island, through the Gibraltar front, that David Phillips established Radio Swan, the CIA radio station broadcasting into Cuba, Mexico, and Central America.

And there we have it. We have linked the cousin of Michael Paine to a real, live CIA Agent we all know as David Atlee Phillips. Case closed. Right?

Well, if there was anything more to James' case than blaming Michael's family for being wealthy, or for anything other than one of Michael's cousins with some sort of a relationship with a CIA Agent during the Bay of Pigs, then, maybe. But as I've already stressed, it doesn't matter how many relatives I have in my family tree that work for the Government -- that just doesn't PROVE that I work for the Government.

These are the "hidden associations of the Paines." Relatives. What James DiEugenio still lacks in his account is SOLID EVIDENCE. Innuendo doesn't make it.

Next, let's look at how James and his protoges trash Ruth Paine's family.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited October 31, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

Very weak logic, sir.

Your first 12 posts:

IMHO, Ruth Paine was an innocent bystander in the JFK murder.

Ruth Paine was a devoted Quaker and Charity worker. That's it.

Ruth Paine is a Quaker woman, and active in Charity. That's Ruth Paine. That sums her up.

To make something sinister out of Ruth Paine's Christian Charity is truly *unspeakable*.

Again -- it is UNSPEAKABLE to accuse a Quaker involved in Charity of fomenting Evil. UNSPEAKABLE.

It boggles my mind why anybody would want to impute Evil Intentions to this Christian heart.

Actually, Ruth Paine didn't know any of the White Russian Community in Dallas. Why should she -- she was a Quaker!

Ruth Paine is a dear, sweet, Christian woman, who takes a lot of heat for NOTHING.

First, I truly appreciate your sympathetic approach to Ruth Paine. I agree with you fully on that. <Reply to DVP>

Ruth wasn't a well-known "leftist," she was a Quaker, for God's sake

I'm confident that Ruth Paine was concerned about her Christian Charity…

By the way, Ruth Paine never heard LHO mention Cuba or Castro even one time.

Put a sock in it.

[Paul Trejo]

Put a sock in it.

And there's your logic.

--Paul

[Paul Trejo]

Still on page 196 of the second edition of Destiny Betrayed (2012) by James DiEugenio, we will proceed to the trashing of Ruth Paine and her family by James, Carol, Steven and Barbara (i.e. James & Co.). James writes this about Ruth herself:

Because Ruth was still interested in the Russian language, the Paines became part of the local Russian expatriate community. Which was quite conservative, anti-Soviet, and with a parish church, which, as noted, was reportedly CIA affiliated. As George Michael Evica notes, this was a curious fit. For Quakers are usually liberal and have their own special church customs, which are not at all like Russian Orthodox.

Well, stop right there, because James is here calling Ruth Paine a L-I-A-R. Ruth Paine testified to the WC that she was *not* part of the Russian Expatriate community in Dallas, and she could not recognize the names of their members as read from a long list by WC attorneys. Besides that, Ruth spoke Russian like a beginner, and further, Ruth didn't belong to the Russian Orthodox Church. How would she fit in?

James & Co. want us to believe that the Russian Orthodox Church was a CIA front. That's how they made the connection -- Ruth Paine is CIA, and the Orthodox Church is CIA, and there you have it. Case closed. The folly of the ancient Orthodox Church being bought and sold by the CIA is nothing less than insulting to the Orthodox Church -- but hey, what do you expect from agnostics? But wait, there's MORE. James writes:

Her father, William Avery Hyde, was a high executive for Nationwide Insurance. He had worked for the OSS in World War II. He ended up becoming the Agency for International Development’s (AID) regional director for all of Latin America. John Gilligan, a former AID director later said that AID was infiltrated from top to bottom by CIA agents; so that the CIA could plant operatives in all types of agencies abroad. And, in fact, as Steve Jones discovered, one of Hyde’s reports went from the State Department to the CIA.

Well, first of all, any large company operating abroad will come into contact with the CIA, whose job it is to monitor international crime. The CIA is always looking for outposts, and American companies abroad are their best bet. So, please don't jump to conclusions. Also, a random comment by some executive here or there proves almost nothing. You need more solid evidence. Anyway -- the suggestion by James & Co. is that AID=CIA, and since Ruth's father was a founder of the AID, then he *must have been* in the CIA. Moving on to page 197. James continues:

It is important to establish this familial background for the Paines and to always keep it in mind. Because this intermingling of wealth, diplomacy, and intelligence work helps explain the remarkable occurrence of espionage employment in the family.

Here James DiEugenio wishes to conclude that Ruth Paine worked for the CIA because her father was one of the founders of AID, and because her elder sister, Sylvia, really did work as a psychologist for the CIA. Ruth Paine, however, said she didn't know any details about her sister's work as a psychologist -- but James & Co. simply refuse to believer her. Instead, they hope we will suspect even Ruth's summer vacation as a CIA plot. James writes:

In that summer of 1963, Ruth made a cross country trip visiting certain friends and relatives. Before Ruth came down to pick up Marina – and finally achieve her goal of separating Marina from her husband - she had been visiting her sister in Falls Church, Virginia. Falls Church adjoins Langley, which then housed the new headquarters of the CIA.

So, let's pick up where we left off, with Marina's confession to Ruth Paine in March that she was pregnant, and that Lee Harvey Oswald had been pressuring her to return to the USSR alone, with the babies, so that he could live in the USA alone (without the burden of raising a family).

As we noted, Ruth Paine was very disturbed by this news, and she testifies that she promptly sought out ways that she could keep Marina Oswald inside the USA -- if that's what Marina really wanted -- because Marina was a very capable person; hardworking and educated, and could make a decent living in the USA as a single parent, if she wanted. Of course, the pregnancy was an immediate problem, but that could be dealt with if she had friends. Ruth testified that that she wanted to be a friend to Marina Oswald in her hour of need. In late April when LHO moved to New Orleans, Marina moved in with Ruth for 15 days.

After Lee Harvey Oswald called Marina Oswald at Ruth Paine's home on May 9th 1963 after 15 days of job-seeking, Ruth Paine packed her station wagon to drive Marina and June to New Orleans to live with Lee. When she was there, Lee and Marina bickered, so Ruth and her own two babies spent one night and then quickly drove back home. That was in May.

Then, in June, it was time for summer vacation. Remember that Ruth Paine's family is wealthy, and they are used to long summer vacations. Most of Ruth's family lived around the East Coast, and so Ruth Paine loaded up her station wagon again, and traveled East with her two babies to visit her family and friends. She stayed for about two months, first with parents, then with brothers, then sisters, then old friends, then college friends, and had a good old time.

They caught up on a lot. Most of them didn't know that Michael and Ruth had separated, so this news was uppermost in their minds. But for Ruth, the most exciting thing in her life at the time was this interesting and exciting person named Marina Oswald.

Ruth told *everybody* she knew everything about Marina. She really liked Marina, and here was Marina, pregnant, with this husband who not only could not hold down a job, but who was continually muttering something against captalist employers, and worse, he was now threatening to send Marina Oswald and their babies back to the USSR alone, so that he could stay in the USA alone.

Ruth testified that she told all her family and friends that her heart went out to Marina Oswald's plight, and that she was seriously thinking of asking Marina to move in with her again -- if that's what Marina really wanted -- at least until a few months after her new baby was born. Ruth testified that she thought about jobs that Marina could get in New York, for example, where the Russian Community was so large that people could find work there without ever having to learn English. These were some of the options that Ruth would write to Marina about -- as she still wrote to Marina on a regular basis, as the record shows.

Now -- that's the scenario. But James & Co. want us to believe that Ruth's summer vacation was really a CIA plot. James writes:

When Ruth appeared before the New Orleans grand jury, Jim Garrison observed that her sister’s occupation was being withheld by the government. The DA asked why that was so. Ruth replied she was not even aware it was classified. So Garrison ask her what agency of government her sister worked for. Ruth replied she did not know.

Well, to me that's reasonable -- the CIA instructs its employees to keep the CIA a secret. The employees are not supposed to tell friends and family that they work for the CIA. But James DiEugenio refuses to accept that -- Ruth *must have known* that her sister worked for the CIA. Ruth must be a L-I-A-R. James writes:

This is the fourth sworn statement by the couple which begs credibility. But there is a reason for the evasiveness...In 1993, a CIA security file was declassified which revealed that Sylvia had been employed by the Agency for a number of years prior to 1963 as a psychologist. Ruth, who had just spent a couple of weeks with Sylvia, somehow never knew where her sister went to work in the morning and was not even curious enough to ask...And to top it off, Sylvia’s husband John Hoke, like Ruth’s father, worked for AID.

There is no solid evidence here -- just rank suspicion and innuendo. James & Co. simply CANNOT BELIEVE that Ruth Paine didn't know that her elder sister worked for the CIA. They have no proof at all that Ruth knew, but they doggedly insisted that she *must have* known. This is all we are going to get from James DiEugenio on this topic.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 3, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David G. Healy]

Continuing with page 195 of the second edition of Destiny Betrayed (2012) by James DiEugenio, we note he often cites Carol Hewett, Steven Jones and Barbara LaMonica as his sources -- and doesn't really clarify that they are his protégés who published in PROBE magazine in the 1990's. James also hides the fact that they found no solid evidence, just a lot of suspicion and innuendo. But what James, Carol, Steven and Barbara uncovered, they claim, were "the hidden associations of the Paines."

But, James DiEugenio is looking for spooks, and this is all he has to start with. Let's drill down to the specific evidence that these "skeptics" of the Paines discovered:

...

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

ahhhh, I hate to state the obvious, the Warren Commission was indeed led by this country's (next to Donovan of course) most publicized "premiere" OSS/CIA spook, Dulles (a guy JFK fired for chrissakes), I'm sure there are plenty more hiding in the corners.

The rest is academic my dear Watson.

Everything the WC did (and didn't do) was focused on nailing Oswald for the crime of the century.

As far as case evidence (newly discovered and old rehashes)? We know Oswald was setup, now it's general housekeeping, sweeping up WC support nonsense, undoing what the commission felt was best (and that's being overly generous to most of the commissioners)...

[Jon G. Tidd]

In my opinion, George DeM was not an agent handler; nor were the Paines.

To become an army agent handler c. 1970, my vintage, one got filtered and trained. One was determined by background investigation to be utterly reliable. I won't talk here about myself but rather about a long-ago friend and colleague.

"Joe", whom I met in the summer of 1970, was a graduate of an Ivy League university and a first-string player on its football team. Joe was a big guy with a good sense of humor. I played tennis doubles with him in the summer of 1970. He picked up tennis quickly. We were both 2LTs, army Military Intelligence. Assigned to Fort Meyer, Virginia, while attending DLIEC (language school), which for us began in September 1970. I studied a southeast Asian language; Joe studied a european language.

Joe and I reconnected, with some other army officer friends, at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, in the late spring-early summer of 1971. I was in the army counter-intelligence course. Joe had finished airborne training at Fort Benning and was just into the army agent handler's course. Joe was not my best friend, just an individual who was interesting; his dad had been a high-ranking naval officer; Joe was trained in classics.

Long story short. I wind up in Viet Nam. Joe winds up in Europe, fighting the cold war.

What's the point? It's this: to handle agents, which is what Joe and I did, and we were both well-educated individuals who passed background checks, one had to be reliable without question, able to learn anything, willing to do anything, face any enemy.

The Paines never ever went through this screening; never ever had such training. Neither did GeoDm. Neither did Marina's husband.

[David Andrews]

Jon: Yes, but in the case of the Paines, family relations trumped a lot else in the earlier days of US intelligence. And not every mission could be handled through approved channels.

Edited October 29, 2015 by David Andrews