Shortly before he was set to testify before Congress, Soviet defector Sergei Kourdakov’s “accidentally” committed suicide with a gun the Central Intelligence Agency allegedly told him to illegally get - and the Federal Bureau of Investigation refused to investigate.
Sergei Kourdakov’s story is controversial, unusual, and utterly unforgettable. From when the Soviet defector swam from a Russian trawler to Canada until his supposed accidental suicide with a gun a Central Intelligence Agency officer allegedly told him to illegally get shortly before he would testify before Congress, his tale is straight out of a pulp fiction spy thriller - with an evangelical twist complete with bible smugglers who may have had CIA ties of their own.
In 1963, the Central Intelligence Agency sent an undercover photographer to the Moscow Fair in the heart of the then Soviet Union. While the fact that some of the photos are still redacted 50 years later hints at the secrecy of his assignment, one detail has been made public: at some point he got bored and took photos of a stray cat.
In the 2008 epilogue to his book Oswald and the CIA, John Newman begins with a relatively simple fact and ends with a conclusion that not only reaches far beyond the evidence - it contradicts it. While it’s reasonable to point out the Central Intelligence Agency’s determination to avoid being dragged into World War III by the suspicion Lee Harvey Oswald was working for the Russians, it’s quite unreasonable to use this as evidence of a massive cover-up premeditated weeks in advance by none other than CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton.
James Angleton and the author of report that “debunked” his work agreed on one thing - the report was libel
The Hart Report, also known as the Monster Plot Report, sought to denounce the Central Intelligence Agency’s Counterintelligence Staff in general and its chief, James Angleton, in particular, and is frequently cited as evidence of Angleton’s paranoia and incompetence. While Angleton and others strongly disagreed with John Hart’s findings, they agreed him on one important point - the report was libel.