JFK Assassination Forum

TG-

AFAIK, Bagley, who I never met but who writes well and who is well-regarded, and who has street cred (a real world veteran CIA officer, not a JFKA hobbyist) said--

1. LHO was likely a witting asset of someone at the CIA.

2.Bruce Solie was a possible KGB mole. (In my layman's view, this may even be likely.)

Victor Marchetti way back in the 1970s said the CIA was so infiltrated with KGB assets he was unsure who was running the joint.

Former intel officer and researcher John Newman has groused in a similar fashion, and says LHO was a Solie-KGB asset.

So, LHO as a KGB asset, then meets KGB'ers in MC, and then takes part in the JFKA assassination.

That is not a tale the WC wanted to tell.

We'll probably never know whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK (all by himself, imho) for the KGB, for Castro, for [fill in the blank], or if he did it of his own volition to "Advance the Dialectic" and "Hasten the End of Late-Stage Capitalism."

What those of us who have read Tennent H. Bagley's Spy Wars, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," and Spymaster, and John M. Newman's Oswald and the CIA and Uncovering Popov's Mole do know for sure is that the CIA was penetrated by a mole or two or three or four in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, that putative KGB staff officer Yuri Nosenko was a false defector-in-place in Geneva in June 1962 and a false (or perhaps rogue) physical defector to the U.S. in February 1964, and that Anatoly Golitsyn-hating J. Edgar Hoover protected Kremlin-loyal triple-agent FEDORA from the CIA for several years.

In other words, the KGB's 1959-on Sun Tzu-based "Master Plan" (which James JESUS Angleton's critics like to call "The Monster Plot") that Golitsyn tried to warn the Agency and the Bureau about was real.

Oh yeah, and those of us who have read Angleton's Church Committee testimony and done some digging around at the Mary Ferrell Foundation website have figured out that the "Byetkov?" he mentioned was KGB security officer Ivan Obyedkov, and that it was he who spoke with forgetful Oswald or "Oswald" over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phone line on 10/1/63 and volunteered to him the Department 13-radioactive name "Kostikov."

Those of us who been able to understand what Angleton was saying in his unique way in the poorly transcribed transcript know that Obyedkov was a Kremlin-loyal triple agent, i.e., the CIA mistakenly believed that it had successfully recruited him.

We also know that the only reason the CIA and the FBI believed on 11/23/63 that Kostikov was Department 13* was because the aforementioned FEDORA (KGB Major Aleksey Kulak) told Hoover in 1962 that Kostikov's charge at the U.N., Igor Brykin, was Department 13.

*The Assassination and Sabotage department of the KGB's First Chief Directorate (today's SVR)

[...]

You seem to think it was fine for a KGB agent [Nosenko] to know the names and faces of the people he was lecturing in the CIA and the FBI.

"Usually, suspected KGB assets are watched."

LOL!

In this case, your boy Nosenko would have been watched by people from probable mole Solie's Office of Security -- IF they suspected that he was fake.

When Malcolm Blunt showed Tennent H. Bagley that someone had arranged with the Records Integration Division and the Office of Mail Logistics for the incoming non-CIA cables on Oswald's "defection" to be routed to a part of the CIA other than where they should have gone -- the Soviet Russia Division -- Bagley realized that someone had sent Oswald to Moscow to "defect." Bagley didn't realize that that person was probably Bruce Leonard Solie -- the same guy who ended up "clearing" false-defector-in-place-in-Geneva-in-June-1962 / false (or perhaps rogue) physical defector to the U.S. in February 1964, Yuri Nosenko, until Blunt showed him that in April of 1964, Solie had tried to talk W. David Slawson into letting Nosenko testify to the Warren Commission, even though CIA Counterintelligence and the aforementioned Soviet Russia Division had serious doubts about his bona fides. At that point, Bagley said, "Let's put Solie on the list [of possible moles]."

Until 2020, the radical agenda wasn't in the Democrat mainstream. That all changed when AOC shocked the Democrat establishment in 2018 by beating 10 term congressman Joe Crowley in the Democrat primary. Suddenly all the once sensible Democrats got scared and embraced the far left because most congressman and senators realized they were more likely to lose in the primaries than in the general elections. They lacked the guts to oppose policies that would have seemed unthinkable 10 years earlier. They embraced the goofiest policies such as open borders, cashless bail, and men in women's sports. Only fools would think those were good ideas but that's your modern Democrat Party.

ME: Is this statement correct?

"Until 2020, the radical agenda wasn't in the Democrat mainstream. That all changed when AOC shocked the Democrat establishment in 2018 by beating 10 term congressman Joe Crowley in the Democrat primary. Suddenly all the once sensible Democrats got scared and embraced the far left because most congressman and senators realized they were more likely to lose in the primaries than in the general elections. They lacked the guts to oppose policies that would have seemed unthinkable 10 years earlier. They embraced the goofiest policies such as open borders, cashless bail, and men in women's sports."

GROK: Partially correct on the timeline and AOC's win but overstated as a sudden "shock" that radicalized the entire mainstream party— the leftward shift on these issues was more gradual, driven by multiple factors including voter trends, activism, and reactions to Trump-era politics.

nytimes.com

AOC's 2018 Primary Win

This part is accurate. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), a 28-year-old Democratic Socialist and former Bernie Sanders organizer, defeated 10-term incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley (a powerful House Democratic Caucus chair) in New York's 14th district primary on June 26, 2018, by about 57%-43%. It was a major upset that symbolized progressive energy against the establishment.

nytimes.com

It did energize progressives and highlighted primary threats from the left. Some moderate Democrats expressed concern about moving too far left post-2018, while others saw it as a signal to adapt.

cnn.com

Broader "Radical Agenda" and Mainstream Shift

The claim that the "radical agenda" was absent from the Democratic mainstream until ~2018-2020 is an oversimplification. The party had been shifting left on cultural and economic issues for years:

Pre-2016/2018 trends: Democratic voters and platforms moved progressively on issues like immigration, criminal justice, and identity. Pew data showed Democrats viewing immigrants more positively over decades (e.g., from ~32% in 1994 seeing them as strengthening the country to much higher later). Bernie Sanders' 2016 run already pulled the party left on economics and inequality.

npr.org

The 2016 platform and Obama-era policies were more centrist on some fronts (e.g., border enforcement rhetoric from earlier Democrats like Schumer or Clinton), but activism on criminal justice and social issues grew steadily.

trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov

AOC's win amplified visibility (e.g., via the Squad and Justice Democrats), and the 2020 primaries/campaign saw more progressive rhetoric. However, establishment figures like Biden won the nomination, and many "radical" policies didn't become universal party law. The House flipped in 2018 with many moderates in swing districts.

nytimes.com

Specific Policies

Open borders: Democrats have long supported legal immigration, asylum, and pathways to citizenship, but "open borders" is a rhetorical charge—not official policy. Pre-2018, leaders like Schumer criticized illegal immigration. Post-2016/Trump, the party unified more around humanitarian framing and opposed strict enforcement, with further shifts under Biden. This was evolutionary, accelerated by polarization, not solely AOC.

npr.org

Cashless bail / criminal justice reform: Bail reform (reducing cash bail for low-level offenses) predates 2018. Efforts date to the 1960s-80s, with modern pushes in the 2010s over racial disparities (e.g., Kalief Browder case). New York passed major reform in 2019 (effective 2020); similar in other blue areas. 2020 George Floyd protests and "defund the police" (mostly activist-driven, not universal Democratic policy) intensified it, but many Democrats later walked back amid crime concerns.

nytimes.com

Men in women's sports (transgender athletes): This became a flashpoint later. Significant Democratic support for inclusion aligned with gender identity grew in the mid-late 2010s with broader LGBTQ+ advocacy. Pre-2018, it was niche; it gained traction post-2018/2020. Many Democrats (and earlier polls) showed internal division or opposition to blanket policies, with recent post-2024 election pushback from some moderates.

npr.org

Primary vs. General Election Fear

There's truth here: Safe blue districts face more primary pressure from energized progressives (low-turnout primaries favor activists). This dynamic exists on the right too (e.g., Tea Party, Trump). Post-2018, more progressive challengers ran, but establishment candidates still dominated many races. The party's 2020 platform and Biden's win reflected a balance, not full capture.

theatlantic.com

Bottom line: AOC's win was a notable moment that boosted the left's profile and contributed to caution among incumbents. However, Democratic shifts on these issues were underway due to changing voter bases (more college-educated, urban, diverse), cultural trends, and reactions to national events—not a single 2018 "shock" turning "sensible" Democrats into radicals overnight. The party remains factional, with moderates often prevailing in national/general election contexts. Claims of sudden embrace of "goofiest" policies reflect partisan framing more than a clean pre/post-2018 break.

8 web pages

I don't think it is remotely plausible that happened. For one, Oswald would have to shoot through the tree at Z190. Why would he do that when he'd have a clear shot a little more than 1 second later. It would also mean Oswald fired a precise head shot in the bare minimum of 2.3 seconds after firing his second shot. I don't see any way the bullet that exited JFK's throat could have missed JBC on either side of him. Most of all, the Z-film shows us JFK and JBC both reacting simultaneously at Z226 when the both flipped their arms upward. That is the clincher for the SBT and shoots down all alternative scenarios.

You must be right because if that was the first shot that JFK is reacting to then JBC would not be reacting to being hit by it as he "clearly" is doing by z228.  If it was the first shot JBC would be reacting to it by turning around to try to see JFK and then shouting "oh, no, no" (as Nellie said he did before the second shot and, as Jackie said, this drew her attention to the Governor). And we can see that there is nothing like that occurring after z226.

When did you start fighting "the Democrats' radical agenda"?

1980?

Until 2020, the radical agenda wasn't in the Democrat mainstream. That all changed when AOC shocked the Democrat establishment in 2018 by beating 10 term congressman Joe Crowley in the Democrat primary. Suddenly all the once sensible Democrats got scared and embraced the far left because most congressman and senators realized they were more likely to lose in the primaries than in the general elections. They lacked the guts to oppose policies that would have seemed unthinkable 10 years earlier. They embraced the goofiest policies such as open borders, cashless bail, and men in women's sports. Only fools would think those were good ideas but that's your modern Democrat Party.