You responded: "As far as I know, no serious researchers have proposed this."
To which I responded: "If we define 'serious' as 'conventional' or 'mainstream', then yes, you are correct. ... On the other hand, quite a few unconventional researchers have raised questions about Angleton's loyalty."
To this, you countered (somewhat irrelevantly, I thought): "The 'conventional' wisdom is that Angleton was a paranoid flake."
To which I responded: "A paranoid flake, yes, but not a treasonous or disloyal one; in other words, not a mole. Your statement does not contradict my point."
Whereupon you stated: "I'm not sure what point you think I may or not be contradicting."
Very well. Let me explain.
You stated that no "serious" person had ever suggested that James Jesus Angleton was a mole. I suggested that your statement would be accurate only if we were to define "serious" as "conventional" or "mainstream". It is plainly evident that quite a few researchers have accused Angleton of being a mole, even though their opinions are not accepted by conventional historians.
Clare Edward Petty is one such researcher. He filed an official report with the Director of Central Intelligence concluding that there was an "80-85 percent probability" that Angleton was a Soviet mole.
You reject Petty's report. You say it was "discredited". That's fine. But it does not contradict my point. Petty -- and many others -- have accused Angleton of being a mole, either for the Soviet Union or for others. All such reports have been "discredited" in the eyes of mainstream historians. Nevertheless, the charges have been made from time to time, by Petty and others, which is all I ever said in the course of this exchange.
It seems we are talking past each other. Do we actually disagree on some point? Or are we just arguing over nothing?
True.