Latest batch of JFK assassination documents show Kennedy's distrust of the CIA
Known as the Schlesinger Memo, the 15-page document, dated June 10, 1961, was written by JFK's aide Arthur Schlesinger Jr. It warned Kennedy that the CIA was encroaching on his ability to direct foreign policy.
The memo's existence was not a secret, and it was made public earlier, but with large chunks of text blacked out for security reasons.
The entire unredacted memo was one of the thousands of now-declassified documents that the National Archives and Records Administration released Tuesday on orders from President Donald Trump. As of Wednesday afternoon, about 69,000 of the 80,000 documents that Trump promised to release have been posted online.
And if anybody was expecting to find proof in the memo that the CIA conspired with JFK's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, to kill Kennedy, they will not find it.
The information the government had blacked out had to do with CIA staffing, including the specific number of CIA operatives stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Paris and how they 'sought to monopolize contact with certain French political personalities," as well as the number of CIA sources in countries like Austria and Chile.
Jefferson Morley, a former Washington Post reporter who runs the ' JFK Facts' blog and has been pressing the government for decades to release the records, was undeterred.
'There's a sensational story here that people need to know," Morley said in an MSNBC interview. "This is not a nothing-burger, as people will tell you. There is an amazingly interesting and pregnant story in these JFK files.'
The memo and other documents are more evidence that Kennedy deeply mistrusted the CIA, which had Oswald under surveillance long before Kennedy was killed on Nov. 22, 1963, Morley said.
'We got a memo yesterday about Kennedy's plans to reorganize the CIA, and a lot of that memo had been redacted before,' Morley said. 'We now understand why Kennedy mistrusted the CIA and a mistrust, to be sure, that was returned by CIA officers who did not like his liberal policies.'
Under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, all the documents related to the assassination were supposed to have been released by 2017, when Trump was president the first time.
Trump released some documents then, but he also gave the intelligence agencies more time to assess the remaining files.
It was not until December 2022 that President Joe Biden released more than 13,000 records after the Mary Ferrell Foundation, the country's largest nonprofit repository of JFK assassination records, sued the administration to make all of them public.
Morley, who is affiliated with the foundation, said that in all the documents 'we see a new window into the CIA's pre-assassination surveillance of Lee Harvey Oswald.'
The late James Jesus Angleton, one of the founding members of the CIA, had put Oswald under surveillance starting in November 1959 and was 'monitoring his politics, his personal life, his foreign travels, his contacts,' Morley said.
Angleton had a 180-page file 'on Oswald on his desk a week before Kennedy went to Dallas' in November 1963, Morley said, citing government documents that had been released earlier.
'So what this story raises is the question: Was the CIA incredibly, atrociously, incompetent when it comes to Lee Harvey Oswald, or was Angleton actually running an operation involving Oswald?' Morley said. 'We don't have the answer to that question because there's still some relevant records to come out. For example, one file of another CIA officer who was involved in the pre-assassination surveillance of Oswald is still kept secret. This is a great first start.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Now we know why Nicola Sturgeon focused on non-binary and trans issues
Politics is among the poorest rewarded professions for those in senior leadership positions and few waste much time in cashing in while the public still remembers their name. Fewer have done it with quite the unalloyed sense of purpose as Nicola Sturgeon, who has dominated the news schedules and front pages over recent days in a way that Kim Jong Un would be proud. Read More: For a self-confessed 'painfully shy' introvert, uncomfortable in the public spotlight, the former First Minister appears to have subdued her demons, at least temporarily, in the cause of promoting her new memoir, Frankly. For anyone who has been in a coma this past week – well you haven't missed much. Selected passages published before the launch are, we have to assume, the most interesting bits, which hardly bodes well for the rest of the book. It's not that Ms Sturgeon doesn't have anything useful to say, it's that she imparts it in such a lacklustre way, as though she has a nosebleed whenever she feels what she's writing might be too engaging. The revelations, such as they are, will be familiar to anyone who follows Scottish politics closely. Alex Salmond's claim that he was a victim of a criminal conspiracy that saw him charged – and cleared – of 13 counts of sexual assault, was preposterous. 'He impugned the integrity of the institutions at the heart of Scottish democracy.' Ms Sturgeon suffered a panic attack during the 2014 independence referendum campaign due to media bias and because Salmond left her to do most of the heavy lifting. He flew to China without having read the white paper setting out the case for independence, she claims. Being arrested – and later cleared – during Operation Branchform was the worst day of her life when she felt like she had 'fallen into the plot of a dystopian novel'. While giving evidence to the Covid inquiry last year, she 'came perilously close to a breakdown' and later had to seek professional help. What is missing is the contemporaneous, insider detail that makes reading political memoirs worthwhile – snatches of candid conversation with colleagues, disagreements, colourful observations that give the reader a sense that they're getting a privileged glimpse behind the scenes. The problem with Ms Sturgeon's writing is that she remains, by her nature, a politician, which makes everything sound like a prepared statement. In media interviews about her book, she has come across as cautious, obstructive even, as though she's still defending government policy rather than her own words, offered voluntarily. None more so than over the issue which has got the redtops in a tizzy – her sexuality. Many of us had heard the rumours of supposed lesbian trysts with the former French ambassador to the UK, and the alleged purchase of a 'love nest' from Judy Murray to facilitate said trysts. All denied and laughed off by the parties themselves as well as by anyone who has more worthwhile things to think about. Rather than leave it at that, Ms Sturgeon has chosen to address the issue of her sexuality head-on, albeit in a single sentence that she has since, stubbornly refused to elaborate on. "Long-term relationships with men have accounted for more than thirty years of my life, but I have never considered sexuality, my own included, to be binary,' she wrote. 'Moreover, sexual relationships should be private matters." We can probably all agree on the latter sentence, which begs the question, why include the former? I would guess that there are vanishingly few people who give two hoots about who Ms Sturgeon goes to bed with, but there is a bigger and more profound issue at the heart of her admission. It is that she appears perfectly content to discuss her sexual orientation when she has a book to sell, but not when she was First Minister, ushering in one of the most contentious and divisive programmes around sexual identity and sexual politics in the history of this country. Did she not think that, if she is to make her own sexuality public property, it might have been more germane – to her colleagues and politicians from other parties, as well as to the voting public – to have known about it during the passage of the Gender Recognition Reform Act? Does she not regard it at all significant that she now reveals her sexuality to be 'non-binary', given the centrality of the non-binary community to the purpose of her government's gender equality programme. A working group on non-binary equality was established in 2019 and, two years later, it published a draft non-binary equality action plan that included 35 recommendations, 24 of which have since been accepted by the Scottish Government. Among the recommendations was an assurance that 'non-binary people have equal access to transition-related healthcare, regardless of gender identity, gender presentation, race, disability, neurodiversity, financial resources, postcode, or other characteristics'. The working group document stated: 'All trans and non-binary people should have equal access to treatment pathways. A large proportion of trans people identify as non-binary, but medical practitioners still often consider non-binary patients to be inherently more complex, meaning that they experience greater difficulties and delays in accessing treatment.' Irrespective of what you think about the Scottish Government's gender recognition programme, we can all accept that it is a complex and highly charged policy area that should require full transparency from all of those involved. The cases of Isla Bryson – a rapist who, after transitioning was remanded in a women's prison – and Sandie Peggie, a nurse who complained about sharing a changing room with a transgender doctor, demonstrate how the lived experience of people can quickly undermine the most well intentioned policy. I'm not suggesting that every politician should be obliged to declare their sexuality before working or voting on sensitive sexual rights policies but I come back to the question around Ms Sturgeon: why now and not then? Carlos Alba is a journalist, author, and PR consultant at Carlos Alba Media. His latest novel, There's a Problem with Dad, explores the issue of undiagnosed autism among older people
Times
9 hours ago
- Times
Sandy Grimes obituary: CIA analyst who helped to catch traitor
In 1991, after three decades with the CIA, Sandy Grimes was winding down in anticipation of her retirement. Then a request came for her to take on one last assignment. It involved Dmitri Polyakov, a Soviet general who had been the CIA's highest-ranking double agent during the Cold War. Grimes had been one of the analysts working on the intelligence he had provided. Then he had gone 'silent' in 1986 along with at least eight other CIA 'assets'. It later emerged that they had been tried for treason by the Soviets and executed. At the time Grimes had been chief of the CIA's Africa branch, and in response to the disappearance of the assets she had been tasked with a large-scale (though secret) overhaul of security procedures. Would she stay on to investigate who in the CIA had betrayed Polyakov? ' 'Without hesitation,' I replied. They had made me the only offer I could have never refused,' she said. 'Our dead sources deserved advocates and so began my participation in what later became known as the Ames mole hunt.' Joining a team of four, Grimes investigated what had gone wrong — there had either been a mole in the CIA or their system had been hacked. It was exhausting work that eventually led them to Aldrich Ames, the CIA's counterintelligence chief for Soviet operations. Ames and Grimes had been friends since the early Seventies, when they were case officers together. 'We grew up together,' she recalled. 'We car-pooled. I had seen what I always called the old Rick. I liked him and if anybody had ever told me in the 1970s that Rick Ames would be one of the most famous spies of all time for the opposition, I never would have believed it, never in a million years.' Although she recalled how much he changed in the mid-Eighties — 'It wasn't the capped teeth, it wasn't the clean fingernails, it wasn't the Italian suits and the $600 shoes and the silk men's hose,' she said. 'His posture was different. He stood erect. He exuded arrogance' — she needed concrete evidence. This came through methodically and retrospectively documenting Ames's every move: where he went for lunch with his Soviet contacts, his cigarette breaks, his credit card charges. The final breakthrough came when they discovered that on May 17, 1985, Ames had reported a lunch with his contact, Sergey Dmitriyevich Chuvakhin, the first secretary of the Soviet embassy in Washington. The following day there was a deposit into his bank account for $9,000, one of three such payments. 'It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell what is going on here,' she said to colleagues. 'Rick is a goddamn Russian spy.' Ames was arrested in 1994 and handed a life sentence without parole. The mole hunt was a masterclass in data-collecting — it was the first time a spy had been discovered through sheer analysis — but there was congressional wrath over how long it had taken the CIA to catch him. And Grimes, for her part, had a hard time understanding his motivations beyond the money (he sold the CIA's secrets for a reported $2.7 million). 'I think Rick has always wanted to be special, to be important,' she proposed. 'I do know he felt himself intellectually superior to all of us. His career was not going anywhere. He was not being recognised for his abilities. And maybe this was revenge.' Sandra Joyce Venable was born in Poughkeepsie, New York, in 1945, 'a certified product of the Cold War', in her words. Her parents, Isaac and Mary (née Twitty), were Tennessee natives who met working on the Manhattan Project, the covert project during the Second World War to develop the world's first atomic bomb. Schooling began in Los Alamos, in the hills of New Mexico. From there Sandy moved to Denver, Colorado, where she attended a string of schools before leaving for college in 1963. Swapping physics for a Russian language course, she joined the Slavic languages department of the University of Washington, one of few women on the course. She was recruited to the CIA four years later — out of sheer luck, she noted, rather than any wish to travel or sense of patriotic duty to serve her country. She had run into an old boyfriend one afternoon who said that the CIA was recruiting on campus and that she would make a 'perfect spy'. Assigned to the Soviet Bloc division as a secretary, her first case was to cover Polyakov. 'I was what I described as the low man on the totem pole,' recalled Grimes, who ran the Xerox machine and filed 'personality information' that Polyakov reported on Soviets on a typewriter that she didn't know how to use. 'I used Scotch tape and scissors to extract his reporting on particular subjects,' she said, 'and I cut and pasted.' Gradually handed more responsibility, she was eventually made a senior intelligence analyst and converted to 'professional status' in 1970. During the interview she was asked if she planned on getting pregnant, for motherhood, the officer said, would probably end her career. 'Taken aback by the inappropriateness of such a question,' said Grimes, who sported an Anna Wintour bob and steely, measured gaze to match, 'I responded by inquiring as to his plans for additional children.' Shortly afterwards she gave birth to two daughters, neither of whom compromised her career. As an officer in the Soviet division for the next 11 years she was brought, one by one, into the cases of Soviet assets until in 1981 she transferred to career management staff: it was a relief to shift from a world of spies to 'secretarial-clerical personnel management', she said, though it was also, pointedly, the year that the CIA lost contact with Polyakov. A year earlier he had left a posting in Delhi on what they assumed would be a short trip to Moscow. 'He did not return,' she said. 'I waited for a year, hoping he would reappear in the West or re-establish contact with us in Moscow, but there was silence.' By 1983 Grimes was back on the front line of CIA activity against the Soviets as chief of operations in Africa, the division in which Ames worked. At the time the CIA's operations against the Soviets were successful — they knew more about the KGB, Grimes said, than most individuals within it — and they had no indication of the 'impending disaster'. By the end of 1985 four agents had been arrested and Grimes was tasked with overhauling the staff communications system within the division. Cable traffic between HQ and the field stations was scrapped: case officers would indirectly travel to meet a source in a safe house and transfer encrypted notes back to Washington from a laptop. Grimes led the operation, which became known as the 'back room', at the same time as heading the Africa division. By the late 1980s she had been made chief of the Soviet and east European branch. She is survived by her husband, Gary Grimes, and two daughters: Kelly and Tracy.+ In 2012 Grimes published an account of the mole hunt, Circle of Treason, with her colleague Jeanne Vertefeuille. The Ames case always felt personal for her. Polyakov had been her first 'teacher' and his execution in 1988 made her reflect on the nature of her work. 'I was devastated,' she said. 'He became a personal friend. I thought he would have survived. It was a terrible, terrible reminder of the seriousness of what we did for a living.' Sandy Grimes, CIA chief, was born on August 10, 1945. She died from complications of Alzheimer's disease on July 25, 2025, aged 79
Powys County Times
9 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Starmer to co-chair Ukraine meeting after call with Trump and European leaders
Sir Keir Starmer will co-chair a meeting with pro-Ukraine allies on Wednesday after a call with US President Donald Trump and European leaders about ending the war. Sir Keir will join a virtual call at midday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. They will then be joined by Mr Trump and US vice president JD Vance. Later, the Prime Minister will co-chair a Coalition of the Willing meeting to update wider partners on the day's discussions. The Coalition of the Willing is an international effort to support Ukraine towards a lasting peace, led by the UK, France and Ukraine. I am grateful to the leaders of Europe for their clear support of our independence, territorial integrity, and precisely such an active approach to diplomacy that can help end this war with a dignified peace. Indeed, we all support President Trump's determination, and together… — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) August 12, 2025 It is made up of 31 countries that have pledged strengthened support for Kyiv, including 27 European countries, as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Ahead of Wednesday's call, a Downing Street spokesperson said: 'The Prime Minister remains absolutely focused on a solution to this conflict grounded in Ukraine's national interests. 'He is determined to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, backed by robust and credible security guarantees that will deter Russia from threatening Ukraine in future.' Meanwhile, Mr Vance is set to meet US troops stationed at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire on Wednesday. The US Vice President will receive a briefing on the base's capabilities and deliver remarks. According to The Times, he will also meet Reform UK leader Nigel Farage for breakfast in the Cotswolds. This comes after meeting with shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick and shadow home secretary Chris Philip on Tuesday. The call between European and US leaders comes ahead of the expected meeting between Mr Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. The two leaders are set to meet to discuss the future of the Kremlin's invasion, without the presence of Mr Zelensky. The Ukrainian President said at a news briefing on Tuesday that Mr Putin wants Ukraine to withdraw from the remaining 30% of the Donetsk region that Kyiv controls as part of a ceasefire deal. This was conveyed to him by US officials, Mr Zelensky explained. However, he reiterated that Ukraine would not withdraw from territories it controls because it is unconstitutional and would only serve as a springboard for a future Russian invasion. Mr Trump has also signalled he thinks Ukraine might need to cede territory in order to end the conflict, stating there is likely to be 'some land-swapping going on'. Speaking during a lengthy press conference on Monday, Mr Trump pledged to 'try to get back' some of Ukraine's 'oceanfront property' from Russia. He said: 'We're going to change the lines, the battle lines. Russia has occupied a big portion of Ukraine. They've occupied some very prime territory. We're going to try and get some of that territory back for Ukraine. 'They have taken largely – in real estate we call it oceanfront property. That's always the most valuable property.' A statement released by the European Union on Tuesday read: 'A just and lasting peace that brings stability and security must respect international law, including the principles of independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and that international borders must not be changed by force. 'The people of Ukraine must have the freedom to decide their future. 'The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. 'Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities.' In response, Mr Zelensky said on X (formerly Twitter): 'I am grateful to the leaders of Europe for their clear support for our independence, territorial integrity, and precisely such an active approach to diplomacy that can help end this war with a dignified peace. 'Indeed, We all support President Trump's determination, and together we must shape positions that will not allow Russia to deceive the world once again. 'We see that the Russian army is not preparing to end the war. On the contrary, they are making movements that indicate preparations for new offensive operations. 'In such circumstances, it is important that the unity of the world is not threatened. 'As long as they continue the war and the occupation, all of us together must maintain our pressure – the pressure of strength, the pressure of sanctions, the pressure of diplomacy.'
