Pompeo was Tucker Carlson's source

[W. Niederhut]

57 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tucker hates Pompeo and says he's a criminal. In return, Pompeo tells Tucker some CIA secrets?

Makes no sense to me.

Were Tucker and Pompeo pals in the past?

 

Sandy,

    According to a YouTube search, Pompeo became a featured Fox commentator in April of 2021.

     I vaguely remember Tucker Carlson mentioning, in December of 2022, that Pompeo had been a guest on his show, but had declined to be interviewed about the JFK records.

[Paul Brancato]

The main takeaway from this is that the source, Pompeo or not, convinced Tucker Carlson that Angleton was the guy. I have no problem with that. It appears that both Trump and Pompeo know this. 

[Gerry Down]

If Angleton was involved, how come he didn't destroy any files linking him to the JFK assassination?

Could these be NSA files etc which Angleton did not have access to to destroy?

[Gerry Down]

Or perhaps testimony from other CIA officials, hsca testimony for example, which accidentally linked Angleton to the assassination without those CIA officials realising what they were saying while testifying?

[James DiEugenio]

I am doing a substack on this right now.

Just remember, although Pompeo was not CIA Director when Carslon's Fox program went on the air, he was DIrector when Trump was going to declassify all the documents on the case in October of 2017.

Does anyone think that the CIA guys went over to the Oval Office and read Trump the riot act and Pompeo did not know about it?

I think he was probably right there.

This was all a coincidence?

[Greg Doudna]

The video does not say Angleton confessed he was involved in or complicit in the assassination. The video says a claim that Angleton in a document had knowledge that the CIA was involved.

At 1:40f, Carlson speaking of his source who he says saw the documents two years ago: "I got one fact out of him, which was, yes, the CIA was involved ... James Jesus Angleton ... had knowledge of this"

Doesn't claim Angleton had pre-Nov 22 knowledge, doesn't claim Angleton was complicit in it or was part of it. Only that he had knowledge that the CIA was involved in the assassination, which could be in one of the other rooms in the CIA mansion than Angleton's, could be after-the-fact knowledge ... and that's if the hearsay got transmitted accurately to Carlson as to what the document said. If the source of the hearsay was Trump (as until established otherwise, is the leading suspect), Trump does not have the best reputation for accuracy in exegeting and transmitting nuanced meanings of texts. Furthermore, if it was Trump, then it could be, notwithstanding Trump told Carlson he saw a document, he may really have been just briefed orally by Pompeo, told by Pompeo the documents say xyz and Trump told Carlson he saw "y" when he was actually told "y" (not sure how much Trump actually reads), the point being if so now there are two hearsays, not just one, between text and Carlson's report, one of whom should be assumed unless shown otherwise to be someone with a less than stellar track record for nuance and accuracy.

I do wish Congress would subpoena and attempt to compel testimony from Tucker Carlson on naming his source--so that that source could in turn be subpoenaed and attempted to compel testimony to what the source saw and knew of that specific claim in a document. Carlson would probably refuse to reveal his source citing precedents of journalists and sources, but I wish there was a way to turn up the heat on this in the interests of the utter importance to history and America's interest in knowing the truth, to attempt to run this thing down, rather than this circus of Tucker Carlson throwing that out into the air and people going bananas over something which is at present in the genre of unverified anonymous gossip.

Edited April 28 by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

My latest substack is on this subject.  It is still free, what a bargain.

"Tucker Carlson on the JFK Case: Pompeo was protecting James Angleton"

Here you go.

 

https://substack.com/home/post/p-144086075?source=queue

Edited April 28 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

Although reading DiEugenio's substack, there is a decent case there on Angleton having knowledge because he knew what was going on in his own room. My point was not to exculpate Angleton, only accuracy in being clear what was claimed and not claimed on the video. The below in the opening post is the inaccuracy. That's all.

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Carlson replied with, you mean me saying something like that is more important than finding out who killed Kennedy?

And if you listen closely, its Angleton who evidently Pompeo said was complicit.

 

[Ron Bulman]

5 hours ago, Robert Reeves said:

I brought this up a few months back: Rob Reiner's podcast re the assassination, fifth episode - titled  “Wilderness of Mirrors,” dealt with James Angleton allegedly sheep dipping Oswald. when you google Rob Reiner + James Angleton you get some tv show Rob co-wrote about Skull & Bones. ‘The Tap’ Drama From Rob Reiner & Andrew Lenchewski About Yale’s Skull & Bones Society Gets USA Pilot Order' https://deadline.com/2016/08/the-tap-drama-rob-reiner-andrew-lenchewski-yale-skull-bones-usa-pilot-order-1201800199/

Oddly, every article online mentions just two famous Skull & Bones alleged members in the PR for the show 'The Tap'. GW Bush and James Angleton. When there are numerous famous members of the club. Why mention James Angleton, who to many, would be an obscure mention?

Hi Robert.  First, I think GW Bush in this context should be GHWB, never heard of W being in Skull and Bones.  Which doesn't mean he wasn't, but he was very young at the time of the assassination. 

Regarding Angleton and Skull and Bones I don't know who's right here, Alan Kent is I think a respected researcher by some.  I posted this in a related thread a couple of days ago.  I looked in the notes, no reference on the source.  Also check Ghost and Devil's Chessboard, nothing about fraternal affiliations.

"Barnes and Angleton were both Yale men . . . both men were members of Yale's secret society "Scroll and Key", the major rival of the more famous "Skull and Bones" for the souls of young Yale men.  Pg. 500, Coup In Dallas.

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The video does not say Angleton confessed he was involved in or complicit in the assassination. The video says a claim that Angleton in a document had knowledge that the CIA was involved.

At 1:40f, Carlson speaking of his source who he says saw the documents two years ago: "I got one fact out of him, which was, yes, the CIA was involved ... James Jesus Angleton ... had knowledge of this"

Doesn't claim Angleton had pre-Nov 22 knowledge, doesn't claim Angleton was complicit in it or was part of it. Only that he had knowledge that the CIA was involved in the assassination, which could be in one of the other rooms in the CIA mansion than Angleton's, could be after-the-fact knowledge ... and that's if the hearsay got transmitted accurately to Carlson as to what the document said. If the source of the hearsay was Trump (as until established otherwise, is the leading suspect), Trump does not have the best reputation for accuracy in exegeting and transmitting nuanced meanings of texts. Furthermore, if it was Trump, then it could be, notwithstanding Trump told Carlson he saw a document, he may really have been just briefed orally by Pompeo, told by Pompeo the documents say xyz and Trump told Carlson he saw "y" when he was actually told "y" (not sure how much Trump actually reads), the point being if so now there are two hearsays, not just one, between text and Carlson's report, one of whom should be assumed unless shown otherwise to be someone with a less than stellar track record for nuance and accuracy.

I do wish Congress would subpoena and attempt to compel testimony from Tucker Carlson on naming his source--so that that source could in turn be subpoenaed and attempted to compel testimony to what the source saw and knew of that specific claim in a document. Carlson would probably refuse to reveal his source citing precedents of journalists and sources, but I wish there was a way to turn up the heat on this in the interests of the utter importance to history and America's interest in knowing the truth, to attempt to run this thing down, rather than this circus of Tucker Carlson throwing that out into the air and people going bananas over something which is at present in the genre of unverified anonymous gossip.

I think GD raises a good point. 

The language is murky but it could be what is being said is actually that Angleton knows what happened in the JFKA, not that he perped it. 

"The CIA is involved in the JFKA" could mean that CIA asset LHO hooked up with CIA-asset Cuban exiles and mercs in Dallas, with the resulting JFKA. 

"Three CIA Assets Did the JFKA"---well, the agency had to do a snuff job on that story. And keep doing it. 

Also, John Newman has his whole Bruce Solis deal going on, and James McCord. 

As usual, I wonder what to think. 

[Robert Reeves]

5 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Hi Robert.  First, I think GW Bush in this context should be GHWB, never heard of W being in Skull and Bones.  Which doesn't mean he wasn't, but he was very young at the time of the assassination. 

Regarding Angleton and Skull and Bones I don't know who's right here, Alan Kent is I think a respected researcher by some.  I posted this in a related thread a couple of days ago.  I looked in the notes, no reference on the source.  Also check Ghost and Devil's Chessboard, nothing about fraternal affiliations.

"Barnes and Angleton were both Yale men . . . both men were members of Yale's secret society "Scroll and Key", the major rival of the more famous "Skull and Bones" for the souls of young Yale men.  Pg. 500, Coup In Dallas.

Hello Ron, I was pointing out the contrast of the two names mentioned used in promoting the pilot tv show about Skull & Bones Rob Reiner Co-created. GW Bush = the most infamous Skull & Bonesman? I think every mother and her daughter around the world know of this little tit. And James Angleton, who I'd say is an obscure mention for this topic: when you are trying to sell a tv show pilot. hence why they added Dubya. This tv show pilot came out around 2016. So Rob Reiner has had James Angleton & the CIA in his sights since around 2014, according to the promotion, that was when this tv show was written.

"Yale’s Skull and Bones society has produced a slew of top U.S. political and military leaders, including President George W. Bush, who was at Yale and a Skull & Bones member in the 1960s, and James Jesus Angleton, a top CIA official during the 1960s. The society has been the subject of a numerous conspiracy theories, including one that the society it controls the CIA."

^^ from the shows promotion https://deadline.com/2016/08/the-tap-drama-rob-reiner-andrew-lenchewski-yale-skull-bones-usa-pilot-order-1201800199/

Jumping to nowadays: Rob Reiner's “Who Killed JFK?” podcast has inserted him knee deep into the world of JFK assassination. Lots of really big claims like “We’ll tell you what we think happened. We’ll name the shooters.” the podcast has over 7 million downloads/listens.

Selective copy and pasting below from Jefferson Morley's substack https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/the-cia-vs-rob-reiners-who-killed

Last week, I asked the CIA about the popular “Who Killed JFK?” podcast, cohosted by Rob Reiner and Soledad O’Brien. The 10-part show, which has been downloaded 7 million times since November, asserts that President John F. Kennedy was killed by enemies in the CIA and Pentagon.

I asked the CIA 1) if the podcast was factually accurate in its depiction of senior CIA officers James Angleton, William Harvey and David Phillips; and 2) did Angleton, Harvey or Phillips surveil Lee Harvey Oswald?

On Monday, March 18, a CIA spokesperson called me, and an off-the-record conversation ensued. Ethically speaking, I cannot share the substance of what was said, but the Agency did give me this statement:

“The notion that CIA was involved in the death of John F. Kennedy is absolutely false.”

More importantly, a whole state’s worth of people heard what Reiner and O’Brien are saying about the contemporary importance of a pivotal moment in American history. Reiner is a prolific producer of popular movies such “A Few Good Men,” “The Princess Bride” and “When Harry Met Sally.” O’Brien, a former network TV anchor, is a winner of three Emmys for her news reporting.

If nothing else, the podcast shows that the persistent but dubious theory that Oswald killed JFK for no reason has never been more frail.

The new JFK record also shows the lone gunman narrative was developed by government officials to obscure the fact that senior CIA officers were concealing their deep and abiding interest in Oswald for four years [my emphasis] before the leftist ex-Marine supposedly shot JFK from the sixth floor of a Dallas office building.

The key figures in the CIA in late 1963 included Angleton, the chief of counterintelligence; Phillips, the chief of Cuba operations in Mexico City; and Harvey, the ousted chief of the CIA’s assassination program who, according to one State Department official, paid a visit to Dallas in November 1963.

Hence my two questions for the CIA.

— Is the podcast factually accurate in its depiction of senior CIA officers, James Angleton, William Harvey and David Phillips?

— Did Angleton, Harvey or Phillips surveil Lee Harvey Oswald?

In the course of the podcast, Reiner unspools his findings, with O’Brien asking the skeptical questions of Everywoman in the Street. Assisted by research chief Dick Russell, Reiner weaves together an array of evidence, new and old, that Angleton, Harvey, Phillips and former U.S. Army Gen. Charles Willoughby orchestrated a false flag operation that surveilled Oswald, ambushed JFK in Dealey Plaza and blamed the deed on the leftist ex-Marine. They make what I find to be a convincing case that Oswald was what he said he was: “a patsy” for others who committed the crime.

I can’t speak knowledgeably about Willoughby, but Angleton, Harvey and Phillips figure in all three of my CIA books. There’s no “smoking gun” proof that any one of them conspired to kill the president (just as there’s no “smoking gun” proof that Oswald shot JFK). But, if there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, all three are plausible suspects.

Harvey was exiled from Langley headquarters after a profane tirade against Robert Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Phillips knew of Oswald’s foreign travels and leftist politics when the itinerant ex-Marine contacted a known KGB officer in Mexico City six weeks before Kennedy’s assassination — and he took no action. Angleton, known for the ingenuity of his “black” operations, was informed that Oswald was in Dallas on Nov. 15, 1963, one week before Kennedy’s trip there.

All of this information came into public view after Oliver Stone’s 1992 movie “JFK.” None of it comes from “conspiracy theorists.” The story of Angleton, Harvey and Phillips is found in declassified CIA records and on-the-record interviews with credible witnesses. None of it is disputed by major news organizations or professional fact-checkers.

end of copy and pastes.

To me there is an interesting heavyweight fight going on between Rob Reiner and Tucker Carlson. Both men are idealogically far apart, one right, almost Maga, one left wing. But on several controversial subjects they have synchronicity.  I think both of them are positioning themselves to break the 'Who killed JFK'' angle to their opposed followers and talk openly about all the other recent failures/wrongs of Western policy. Eventually, it has to happen, the files are going to be released. I imagine there was a discussion years back as to how this all plays out at the end. Who is thrown under the bus? But how do we keep the agency from blame?

So I wonder if the Mockingbird is chirping! whispers in the ears of people who can punch harder than the agency can right now.

as I copy and pasted from Jefferson Morley's substack ...

"More importantly, a whole state’s worth of people heard what Reiner and O’Brien are saying about the contemporary importance of a pivotal moment in American history. Reiner is a prolific producer of popular movies such “A Few Good Men,” “The Princess Bride” and “When Harry Met Sally.” O’Brien, a former network TV anchor, is a winner of three Emmys for her news reporting.

If nothing else, the podcast shows that the persistent but dubious theory that Oswald killed JFK for no reason has never been more frail."

The inevitable is coming, so why wouldn't the CIA step in to handle the damage control? the sceptic in me wonders

Rob Reiner and Tucker Carlson have another topic of interest which they're both very vocal about recently. Rob Reiner directed the movie Shock and Awe, 

"A group of journalists of the Knight-Ridder news service covering President George W. Bush's planned invasion of Iraq in 2003 are skeptical of the President's claim that Saddam Hussein has "weapons of mass destruction."

But as with a lot of JFK assassination researcher personalities there is the inevitable bickering.

Tucker Carlson & Rob Reiner share similar point of view on several subjects. But they appear to dislike each other. Well Tucker seems to dislike Rob. I love boxing, so I recognize hype when I see it. 

A couple of days ago Tucker launched into Rob's documentary “God & Country,” 

From https://www.thewrap.com/tucker-carlson-god-and-country-christian-nationalism/

 

“Nobody hates Christians more than long time Hollywood actor and producer Rob Reiner,” Carlson claimed early in the segment. “Amazingly, he’s just produced a documentary about how faithful Christians are the enemy, if you can believe it.”

Carlson then played the documentary’s trailer, which argues against Christian nationalism and the connection of Christianity with politics. It opens with commentator David French, a former Republican, arguing that Christians should be “a countercultural example” but are instead “leading the charge of malice and division.”

Ahead of the clip, Tucker called French “a fake Christian.”

After the trailer played, Carlson bursts into laughter, exclaiming, “Rob Reiner, lecturing us on what Jesus really wanted!”

Listening to Tucker Carlson's appearances on other people's podcasts and his own shows as much I can: especially since he spoke about the JFK subject -- he is on a mission. I don't think it should be underestimated the weight of what he is saying. I have spoken to a guy at work who knows I am interested in the subject of JFK's assassination. He listens to Joe Rogan's podcast. Never misses an episode. After Tucker's recent appearance on Rogan's podcast my work colleague was curious to know more about James Angleton, the name he heard Tucker mention. He wanted to know more about the CIA alleged involvement. I think when heavyweight media personalities, like Tucker, are now speaking openly about how they feel genuinely ashamed and confused for believing the narrative of Oswald killed JFK alone, 9/11 was done by Bin Laden, the Iraq invasion was for our security, even UFO's. A lot of people are listening and feeling enabled into diving deeper into these subjects and speaking openly when perhaps they've not felt able to in the past. 

I am not saying Tucker Carlson's views are more legit than anyone else, but right now he does seem very genuinely out to set the record straight on very controversial subjects he appears to believe he was conditioned to think towards the ''Washington'' group narrative. As I think he described it. For instance, during that Joe Rogan podcast (which has 8.5 million views on Youtube alone plus Spotify views also) Tucker spoke about his shock in learning what he describes as the real truth about Watergate, only in recent years has it dawned upon him he was following the script about what happened to Nixon. That he is now knee deep in researching subjects such as JFK/MLK/RFK, Watergate, he says he is reaching out to alternative media views on these subjects that he says he is ashamed he once pushed during his time on mainstream media.

It's a very interesting time to be alive! because mainstream media has lost control. Hopefully they don't eventually silence Tucker & Rob Reiner, like how Mike Pompeo's lawyer unsuccessfully tried to shut Tucker up.

 

 

Edited April 28 by Robert Reeves

[Denise Hazelwood]

I would not put too much stock in anything that Tucker Carlson promotes. His legal defense in a defamation lawsuit was that his show was “entertainment,” and that no one would actually take him seriously. Pompeo was certainly in a position to know something, but the CIA being “complicit” might have meant, complicit in the cover up rather than planning the murder. Or maybe that Oswald was a low level informant who went rogue. One wonders why he would have convinced Trump not to release the information but then go making hints to Tucker Carlson. Except that Carlson does love him some conspiracy theories.

Edited April 28 by Denise Hazelwood
Typo fix

[William Paris]

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tucker hates Pompeo and says he's a criminal. In return, Pompeo tells Tucker some CIA secrets?

Makes no sense to me.

Were Tucker and Pompeo pals in the past?

 

Possibly.  Another option is Pompeo discussed things with Tucker that he thought were off the record.  What I noticed was that when Tucker aired this on Fox Pompeo disappeared.  He was a guest all the time, then, poof, he was gone for months… then after Tucker left he came back

[Keven Hofeling]

5 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

I would not put too much stock in anything that Tucker Carlson promotes. His legal defense in a defamation lawsuit was that his show was “entertainment,” and that no one would actually take him seriously. Pompeo was certainly in a position to know something, but the CIA being “complicit” might have meant, complicit in the cover up rather than planning the murder. Or maybe that Oswald was a low level informant who went rogue. One wonders why he would have convinced Trump not to release the information but then go making hints to Tucker Carlson. Except that Carlson does love him some conspiracy theories.

Tucker Carlson's lawsuit defense is mentioned in this video about Rachel Maddow using the "we are entertainment not news" defense in a defamation suit against her...

 

Edited April 28 by Keven Hofeling

[Roger Odisio]

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

My latest substack is on this subject.  It is still free, what a bargain.

"Tucker Carlson on the JFK Case: Pompeo was protecting James Angleton"

Here you go.

 

https://substack.com/home/post/p-144086075?source=queue

It was a good idea to, in your substack article, soften a bit your claim made here that Pompeo was Carlson's source by saying "in all probability", Jim.

 

But the careful reader will notice you offered little or nothing real to support your claim.

 

In particular you avoided the question:  why would Pompeo, after having convinced Trump to not release JFK records (that was Pompeo' position, but I think you may be exaggerating his influence) then tell Carlson the CIA was involved in the murder?  He knew Carlson well enough to know Carlson would go with that story on his TV show with a big audience. He must have anticipated the outcry that followed, including renewed interest in the CIA as the villain.

 

In short, telling Carlson that would have undercut his position on the CIA and the records. Why would he do that?