Sen. Hugh Scott on the Bobby Baker case, Sat. Evening Post Article Options

[Pat Speer]

I came across an article the other day that I found most interesting. It was an article by Senator Hugh Scott in the May 9 1964 Saturday Evening Post. This was at the height of the WC investigation. Scott pretty much called the Baker investigation a cover-up, claiming that the "majority of Democrats on the committee would not allow it" (the uncovering of facts). He says as well that the "watchdogs spurned the scent at every chance." He concludes: "The Rules Committee is armed with staff investigators, subpoena powers and the vast authority of the Senate itself, but it lacks the simple determination to use them fully. The result is an appalling travesty of democratic government." Scott also reports that "thinly veiled threats were transmitted through friends and associates" along with suggestions that he "let the matter sleep."

While the neo-Warren Commission supporters blame the distrust of the Warren Commission's conclusions on people like Mark Lane and Oliver Stone, I wonder how much of this distrust was in fact stirred up by men like Scott. After all, if Johnson would use his influence over 6 Democratic Senators in order to enact a cover-up of one set of crimes, why would he not use his influence over a panel of men he'd picked himself, to cover up another set of crimes?

[William Kelly]

I came across an article the other day that I found most interesting. It was an article by Senator Hugh Scott in the May 9 1964 Saturday Evening Post. This was at the height of the WC investigation. Scott pretty much called the Baker investigation a cover-up, claiming that the "majority of Democrats on the committee would not allow it" (the uncovering of facts). He says as well that the "watchdogs spurned the scent at every chance." He concludes: "The Rules Committee is armed with staff investigators, subpoena powers and the vast authority of the Senate itself, but it lacks the simple determination to use them fully. The result is an appalling travesty of democratic government." Scott also reports that "thinly veiled threats were transmitted through friends and associates" along with suggestions that he "let the matter sleep."

While the neo-Warren Commission supporters blame the distrust of the Warren Commission's conclusions on people like Mark Lane and Oliver Stone, I wonder how much of this distrust was in fact stirred up by men like Scott. After all, if Johnson would use his influence over 6 Democratic Senators in order to enact a cover-up of one set of crimes, why would he not use his influence over a panel of men he'd picked himself, to cover up another set of crimes?

Pat,

The Congressional non-investigation of the Bobby Baker scandal is typical, and not an aberation.

As the first HSCA chief counsel said, Congress is not the place to investigate a homicide. Nor is it apparently the place to investigate the mover and shaker for the Speaker, VP and suddenly President.

If you look at the Cox and Reese Committees, set to investigate Non-Profit Foundations, they got some headlines, made a little fuss, and then were shut down by one very powerful Congressman, Wilber Mills, who was later involved in the notorious Tital Basin Bombshell incident.

One Senator is holding up the Emmett Till bill from becoming law, simply by procedural powers.

I recently heard that Barbara Pelosi, who calls the shots on Committee hearings, gave the Conyers Judiciary Committee the go ahead green light to begin impeachment hearings, but Conyers still hasn't done it. And maybe never will, because there are bigger forces at work than we will ever know.

Getting the Waxman Committee to conduct their mandated Oversight hearings on the JFK Act is just as tedious, and will only happen if the right strings are pulled and those who can stop it are distracted.

Scott was a very powerful person in his day, and if he couldn't get the Bobby Baker Hearings going, somebody more powerful was stopping him. I wonder who that was?

BK

[John Simkin]

I came across an article the other day that I found most interesting. It was an article by Senator Hugh Scott in the May 9 1964 Saturday Evening Post. This was at the height of the WC investigation. Scott pretty much called the Baker investigation a cover-up, claiming that the "majority of Democrats on the committee would not allow it" (the uncovering of facts). He says as well that the "watchdogs spurned the scent at every chance." He concludes: "The Rules Committee is armed with staff investigators, subpoena powers and the vast authority of the Senate itself, but it lacks the simple determination to use them fully. The result is an appalling travesty of democratic government." Scott also reports that "thinly veiled threats were transmitted through friends and associates" along with suggestions that he "let the matter sleep."

While the neo-Warren Commission supporters blame the distrust of the Warren Commission's conclusions on people like Mark Lane and Oliver Stone, I wonder how much of this distrust was in fact stirred up by men like Scott. After all, if Johnson would use his influence over 6 Democratic Senators in order to enact a cover-up of one set of crimes, why would he not use his influence over a panel of men he'd picked himself, to cover up another set of crimes?

Hugh Scott is an interesting character. In 1963 Scott joined John Williams in calling for a a full-scale Senate investigation into the Bobby Baker scandal. LBJ attempted to stop Scott by threatening disclosures about his relationship with lobbyist, Claude Wilde. Johnson also told Scott that he would use his influence to "close down the Philadelphia Navy Yard unless Senator Scott closed his critical mouth". Scott refused to back down and and on 7th October, 1963, Baker was forced to resign as Johnson's political secretary.

Scott became minority leader in 1969 and as a senior figure in the party played a vital role in the investigation of Richard Nixon during Watergate. In December, 1973, Scott told Nixon he could not get out of the Watergate "mess" unless he fulfilled a promise to disclose all records and tape recordings related to the scandal. On 7th August, 1974, Scott and Barry Goldwater went to the White House and told him his position was hopeless. Two days later Nixon resigned.

Scott announced he would not run for re-election in 1976 after a Senate investigation into allegations that he had received illegal cash contributions from Gulf Oil Company. I suspect he was set-up by corrupt figures in the Democrat Party.

John Williams was elected to the Senate in 1946. Soon after arriving in Washington he began investigating political corruption. He became known as the "Sherlock Holmes of Capitol Hill". During a 15 year period his investigations resulted in over 200 indictments and 125 convictions. His investigations upset a lot of people. In his taped telephone conversations LBJ vows to get Williams and in December 1970 he was blackmailed into resigning.

[John Simkin]

A member of the Senate Rules Committee, Carl Curtis, later wrote a detailed account of the investigation of Bobby Baker in his autobiography, Forty Years Against the Tide (1986). It includes the following:

When Bobby Baker began as a page in 1943, his salary was $1,460 a year. Yet he soon became a wealthy man. The minority report of the committee that investigated his activities (filed on July 8, 1964) had this to say about Baker's amassing of wealth:

"According to financial statements submitted by Baker, he had a net worth of $11,025 as of May 3, 1954. As of February 1, 1963, Baker claimed a net worth of $2,166,886. It is agreed, however, that this latter figure carried errors and exaggerations. After the known errors are taken into account, Baker's claimed net worth would be $1,664, 287. However, it may well be contended that Baker over-valued his Serv-U Corporation stock, with its very lucrative contracts in plants having huge government defense contracts, as well as his stock in the Mecklenburg enterprises and his land near Silver Springs, Maryland. If these assets are carried at their actual cost, Baker still would have a net worth of $447,849. It is obvious that these three assets were very valuable and their value had increased considerably over Baker's initial investment."

The Committee's records show that between January, 1959, and November, 1963, Baker and his associates had borrowed $2,784,338 from lending institutions. These loans had come from twenty-four banks and other lending institutions. The Committee's investigator also reported that Baker's share in approximately six different loans was $1,704,538.

All the time that Baker was making himself a man of wealth, he continued to serve as a most important and influential employee of the United States Senate.

Fred B. Black, Jr., a management consultant whose clients included North American Aviation and Melpar, Inc., and who was associated with Baker in several business ventures, said that the late Senator Robert S. Kerr, of Oklahoma, had told him that outside of his sons and his wife, he never knew and loved a person so much as he did Bobby Baker; that there was nothing Kerr would not do for Baker if he would ask him. Later Black said that he and Baker and the Serv-U Corporation had borrowed over half a million dollars from Kerr's Oklahoma City Bank.

Baker's operations became a subject of some discussion, raising questions in the minds of several senators and Senate employees. Eventually, on September 9, 1963, a law-suit was filed by Ralph L. Hill, president of the Capitol Vending Company, which alleged wrongdoing and the use of governmental influence in Baker's business dealings.

In his suit, Hill alleged that Baker had employed political influence to obtain contracts in defense plants for his own vending-machine firm, called Serv-U Corporation. Hill also charged that Baker had accepted $5,600 for securing a vending-machine franchise for Capitol Vending with Melpar, Inc., a defense plant in Virginia. Hill stated that after Capitol had secured the contract with Melpar, Baker had tried to persuade Capitol Vending to sell out to the Serv-U Corporation; and that when Capitol refused to sell its stock to Serv-U, Baker had conspired maliciously to interfere with Capitol's contract with Melpar. The suit contended that Baker had told Fred B. Black, Jr., that he, Baker, was in a position to help obtain contracts with the government. Hill said that in return, North American (to which Black was a consultant) entered into an agreement to permit Serv-U to install vending machines in its Californian plants.

The filing of this suit brought to light many unpleasant facts, reflecting not only on Bobby Baker but on those men about him and on the Senate generally.

At this point, Senator John Williams, of Delaware, began to take an active part. Williams was a man beyond reproach, sincere and intelligent and dedicated. During his service in the Senate he was rightly referred to as "the conscience of the Senate." He was an expert investigator, tenacious and courageous. Senator Williams became the prime mover in bringing about the investigation of Baker.

On October 3, 1963, Williams went to Senator Mike Mansfield, the majority leader, and to Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, the minority leader, and arranged for them to call Baker before the leadership at a closed meeting on October 8. It was Senator Williams' plan to confront Baker with questions about his activities. Bobby Baker never appeared before the Senate's leadership: the day before his scheduled appearance he resigned his post with its salary of $19,600.

Senator Mansfield, announcing Bobby Baker's resignation, said that "Baker has discharged his official duties for eight years with great intelligence and understanding. His great ability and his dedication to the Majority and to the Senate will be missed." Developments during recent weeks, however, Senator Mansfield continued, had made it apparent that it would be best if Baker withdrew from office. "I deeply regret the necessity for his resignation and the necessity for its acceptance."

Senator Williams introduced a resolution calling upon the Committee on Rules and Administration to conduct an investigation of the financial and business interests and possible improprieties of any Senate employee or former employee. On October 10, 1963, the Senate adopted this resolution by voice vote.

The Committee on Rules and Administration was made up of nine members, six Democrats and three Republicans. The Committee's chairman was B. Everett Jordan, Democrat, of North Carolina. The other Democratic members were Carl Hayden, of Arizona; Claiborne Pell, of Rhode Island; Joseph Clark, of Pennsylvania; Howard W. Cannon, of Nevada; and Robert C. Byrd, of West Virginia. The Republican members were John Sherman Cooper, of Kentucky; Hugh Scott, of Pennsylvania; and Carl T. Curtis.

This Committee held its first meeting for the Baker investigation on October 29. Senator Williams, testifying in closed session, recommended that the Committee investigate the FBI files of a deported East German woman, a Mrs. Ellen Rometsch (otherwise known as Elli Rometsch), who had been identified in news stories as a "party girl" associating with lobbyists and members of Congress. He urged also that the Committee look into Baker's transactions with the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation; into the large sums of cash given by Bobby Baker to Mrs. Gertrude Novak, wife of a business partner of Baker; into the vending contract referred to in Hill's suit against Baker.

Additionally, Williams recommended that the Committee investigate circumstances surrounding the rapid growth of the Serv-U Corporation, Baker's company; charges against Baker with reference to irregularities connected with the Senate payroll of pages and other employees working under Baker; Baker's brokerage-fee from the Haitian-American Meat Provision Company. The Committee should look into the transactions between Baker and Don Reynolds connected with Reynolds' selling of insurance to Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, Williams continued. The Committee should check the performance-bond for the building of the stadium at Washington.

Having heard Senator Williams, the three Republicans on the Committee requested that the Committee hire outside counsel to conduct the investigation. This move was opposed by the six Democrats on the Committee. Chairman Jordan, presently yielding to public pressure, announced on November 13 that L. F. McLendon, a lawyer from Jordan's home state of North Carolina, was appointed outside counsel.

The Committee on Rules and Administration needed to agree on some procedures. In this the Committee received considerable help from the Subcommittee on Investigations of the Government Operations Committee, headed by Senator John McClellan, of Arkansas. McClellan had followed a procedure of first calling a witness-particularly a controversial witnessin a closed session of the Committee, to inform the Committee what to expect and how to frame their questions. Later the witness would be called in public session. In the investigation of Baker, this rule was not followed, as we shall see later in this account of the great cover-up.

Bobby Baker was a highly successful contact-man. During and after the Second World War, on either side of the Atlantic, the contact-man loomed large. Contact-men existed primarily to obtain for their clients and themselves some share of the vast pool of riches in the possession of swollen centralized political bureaucracies. The more impressive a contact-man's political connections, the better he and his clients would fare. Professor W. L. Burn, in England, well described this international phenomenon:

"One may imagine the stage festooned with forms, applications for licenses, refusals of licenses, checks that failed to command confidence and agreements that failed to produce the desired result. Music is supplied by the ringing of the telephone, the prelude to ambiguous and improbable conversations; and through the half-lit jungle, from public dinner to government department, from government department to sherry party, glides the contact-man, at once the product and the safety-valve of this grotesque civilization."

In Washington, Bobby Baker had become a principal actor in such tragi-comic dramas.

Baker was called as a witness early in the investigation, appearing both in a closed session and in a public session. He had received a subpoena directing him to appear and to produce certain documents. Senator Curtis requested him to submit the required records. Baker refused. The following extracts from the Committee's hearings may suffice to suggest Baker's response. (It should be remembered in this connection that a witness's refusal to answer on the ground that he might incriminate himself raises a legitimate presumption that indeed the witness has committed some act which might subject him to a criminal prosecution.)

Replying to Senator Curtis, Baker refused to produce the desired records. He declared that he had so informed the committee earlier, and therefore should not have been called back to repeat his position.

"Today's proceedings are an unconstitutional invasion by the legislative branch into the proper function of the judiciary," Baker argued. "I do not intend to participate as a defendant witness in a legislative trial of myself, when my counsel has no right to cross-examine my accusers, or summon witnesses in my defense, and when the testimony has been taken both in secret and in the open."

Baker continued that the records were not "pertinent to any bona fide legislative purpose." A case pending in the U. S. District Court of the District of Columbia, he mentioned, in volved some of the documents called for. "I am presently being investigated by two agencies of the executive branch, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service. To force production of these records against this background would be to do indirectly for these agencies what they cannot lawfully do direct. " Moreover, his "privacy of communication" had been invaded by government personnel, so he was refusing to provide any additional information to government agents. Baker concluded by invoking "the protection of the first, the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth amendments of the Constitution, and I specifically invoke the privilege against selfincrimination."

So it went through the questioning of Bobby Baker. Altogether, he "took the Fifth" in response to a hundred and twenty questions.

Senator Curtis asked him, "Will you advise the committee whether or not you acquired the cash referred to by Mrs. Novak in the course of your duties as secretary to the Majority of the U. S. Senate?" Baker "stood on his previous answer" that is, refused to answer the question.

Later, Curtis inquired, "Mr. Baker, a previous witness, Mr. Hill, testified under oath that he paid to you the sum of $250 for a number of months for the purpose of securing and keeping a contract which his company, the Capitol Vending Company, had with a government-contracting defense plant. Will you advise us whether or not Mr. Hill's testimony is true?"

Baker refused. Still later, Curtis told him: "Now, Mr. Baker, I hope that you will consider this question carefully, and the rights of all people involved. The witness, Mr. Don Reynolds, has testified that he gave to one Lyndon Johnson a hi-fi set costing something over five hundred dollars. Statements have been made elsewhere that you were the giver of the gift. Will you tell this committee whether or not you made that gift?"

Baker refused. Then came a related key question from Senator Curtis:

"Mr. Baker - Mr. Reynolds, while under oath, testified before this committee concerning this hi-fi gift. He produced certain canceled checks and invoices. He also testified that he purchased $1,200 worth of television time on a TV station in A-astin, Texas. My question is: did you have any part in that transaction?"

Baker refused to answer that question, too, and many more.

It became clear in the course of the investigation that Baker's secretary, Nancy Carole Tyler, had assisted Baker in business transactions handled in his office and during his travels; and that she had handled funds involved in these transactions.

Subpoenaed, Tyler was asked by McLendon, the Committee's counsel, certain important questions. Counsel inquired about trips made by Baker to Los Angeles in connection with the business of the Serv-U Corporation; and when Tyler had resigned her position with Baker, secretary to the majority. Tyler refused to answer on the ground that she might incriminate herself.

The Committee learned no more from Carole Tyler; before the investigation ended, Tyler died suddenly and somewhat mysteriously in an airplane crash on the beach near the Carousel Motel, owned by Bobby Baker.

The key witness in the investigation was Don Reynolds, an insurance agent in the Washington area. He and Baker had been friends, and Baker was an officer in Don Reynolds, Inc., although Baker had not supplied any money for the forming ot that company. Reynolds had been associated in, or was familiar with, many of Bobby Baker's transactions that were under investigation. After consulting with his wife and with Senator Williams, Reynolds decided to testify in full, under oath, whenever called upon by the Committee.

Reynolds said that he had sold insurance on the life of Lyndon Baines Johnson in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars; and that he had to make a "kickback" on the premium he received. The transaction with Johnson had been conducted through Walter Jenkins, a close aide to Johnson. (Jenkins later was disgraced by his arrest for soliciting homosexual acts in the men's room at the YMCA, late in 1964.) Baker had arranged Reynolds' appointment with Jenkins. Facing competition, Reynolds had bought $1,208 in advertising on Johnson's television station in Austin; Reynolds had re-sold this advertising contract, losing $1,100 on the deal. (This "kickback" arrangement had occurred while Lyndon Johnson still was senator from Texas.)

"Why did you purchase the television time?" Senator Curtis asked.

Mr. Reynolds: "Mr. Jenkins, in his discussion with me, showed me a letter from Mr. Huff Baines, indicating that if he had the privilege of writing. . .that he would purchase so much advertising time on the local- station, KTBC."

Under more questioning from Curtis, it turned out that Station KTBC, in Austin, was owned by the LBJ Company. Reynolds went on: "And I told him that although I might not be able to do the same as far as dollar volume, that I would do the best I could, consistent with the fact that the contract I had offered him was the most favorable, if you exclude any question of advertising, sir."

Curtis proceeded to obtain from Reynolds the testimony that Walter Jenkins had informed him he was expected to buy advertising from Lyndon Johnson's television station if he wanted the insurance contract. He had sold the contracted advertising time to Albert G. Young, president of Mid-Atlantic Stainless Steel, "because I saw no use whatsoever for Don Reynolds, who was unknown in Texas, sir, to get people to listen to something they had no interest in, nor could they." Walter Jenkins had confirmed this deal by telephone to Young, whose firm sold pots and pans. After Jenkins had called him, Young went to Austin and utilized the advertising facilities of KTBC; this was corroborated by Young's canceled checks, invoices, and correspondence, shown to the Committee.

This testimony obviously alarmed the majority members of the Committee and the Committee's counsel. At the time of this investigation, Lyndon Baines Johnson was President of the United States; Walter Jenkins was one of the President's aides in the White House, handling much of Johnson's private business. Lyndon Baines Johnson had entered Congress a man of very modest means; but by the time he assumed the presidency, he was a very rich man.

A principal source of Johnson's wealth appeared to be the television station he had acquired in Austin. KTCB was the only television station licensed in Austin; and every other city in the United States, the size of Austin, had at least two television stations. Such licenses were issued by the Federal Communications Commission, upon which political influence might be exercised by persons in power not overly scrupulous. How had Johnson and his family obtained a monopoly of Austin television? To what additional awkward testimony about KTCB might the statements of Reynolds and Young lead if this subject should be pursued?

Therefore, in an effort to prevent Walter Jenkins - former Senate employee, now a White House aide-from being called before the Committee to give sworn testimony, Counsel McLendon had Jenkins sign an affidavit: an affidavit unique in that Jenkins swore to the truth of a memorandum which was written by the Committee's chief counsel and chief investigator. This curious memorandum, referring to Jenkins, stated, "Nor does he have any knowledge of any arrangements by which Reynolds purchased advertising time on the TV station. "

Unimpressed by this remarkable document, Senator Curtis further questioned Reynolds. "Well, then," he asked the witness, "do you agree or disagree with this statement of Jenkins that Mr. McLendon, our counsel, has put in the record, as a statement, not of oral testimony but sworn to before a notary public: `Nor does he have any knowledge of any arrangements by which Reynolds purchased advertising time on the TV station.' You would disagree with that?"

Reynolds disagreed completely with the statement. In further testimony, it was learned that Huff Baines, of Austin, Reynolds' alleged competitor for the sale of insurance to Lyndon Baines Johnson, was a cousin of Johnson, and had sold a number of policies on the lives of people connected with the LBJ Company. Even though Reynolds had offered a better insurance contract than Baines had, it appeared, he had been required to provide advertising revenue to the Johnson station and the gift of a high-fidelity set as sweeteners, lest the contract be awarded to kinsman Baines. And Baker had made the deal.

Throughout these hearings, the Republican members of the Committee - Cooper, Scott, and Curtis - repeatedly endeavored to have Walter Jenkins called as a witness. Jenkins had been employed by Johnson for years. It was well established that he had handled many of Johnson's business concerns. The information given to the Committee by Reynolds clearly conflicted with the memorandum to which Jenkins had subscribed.

This could be resolved only by calling Jenkins as a witness. On March 23, 1964, occurred a roll call on the question of calling Jenkins; the vote went along party lines. Why did these six prominent Democratic senators, several of them leaders of their party, vote against hearing and cross-examining Jenkins? After all, this elusive Jenkins had been an employee of the Senate; he enjoyed no senatorial immunity, nor was he the beneficiary of the usual "senatorial courtesy" tradition. The determined and successful fight by the Committee's majority to prevent the receiving of Jenkins' testimony may have been waged not to protect Walter Jenkins or Bobby Baker, but rather Jenkins ' principal - Lyndon B. Johnson.

The purchase of time on the LBJ broadcasting station was not the only kickback required of Don Reynolds for selling insurance on Lyndon Johnson, for Reynolds was requested to provide a hi-fi set for Senator Johnson. Reynolds, questioned by McLendon, stated that he had bought a Magnavox stereo set, costing him $584.75, and installed it in Senator Johnson's Washington residence (also paying for the installation) in 1959. But Mrs. Johnson had found the set unsatisfactory: it did not fit the space for which she had intended it. In response to questioning from two Democratic senators, Reynolds made it clear that Bobby Baker had told him to give the set to Senator Johnson, and that Johnson knew Reynolds to be the donor.

At a news conference, Johnson had told a reporter that the set was a gift from Bobby Baker. There were two witnesses who might clear up the questions as to whether the set was given by Baker or whether it was an obligation put upon Reynolds for his opportunity to sell life insurance to Johnson. Those two witnesses were Baker and Jenkins. Baker took the Fifth Amendment, refusing to testify on the ground that he might be incriminated. Walter Jenkins, protected by the Committee's majority, was not called to testify.

Later that year, in the closing days of the Johnson-Goldwater race for the presidency, television technicians in Los Angeles wore a large round button, on which was inscribed the legend, "Johnson, Baker, Jenkins. The family that plays together stays together. "

[John Simkin]

Hugh Scott is an interesting character. In 1963 Scott joined John Williams in calling for a a full-scale Senate investigation into the Bobby Baker scandal. LBJ attempted to stop Scott by threatening disclosures about his relationship with lobbyist, Claude Wilde. Johnson also told Scott that he would use his influence to "close down the Philadelphia Navy Yard unless Senator Scott closed his critical mouth". Scott refused to back down and and on 7th October, 1963, Baker was forced to resign as Johnson's political secretary...

Scott announced he would not run for re-election in 1976 after a Senate investigation into allegations that he had received illegal cash contributions from Gulf Oil Company. I suspect he was set-up by corrupt figures in the Democrat Party.

Claude Wilde worked for the Gulf Oil Company. It seems that it took 13 years for LBJ and the Democrats to get their revenge on Hugh Scott.

[Thomas Graves]

Hugh Scott is an interesting character. In 1963 Scott joined John Williams in calling for a a full-scale Senate investigation into the Bobby Baker scandal. LBJ attempted to stop Scott by threatening disclosures about his relationship with lobbyist, Claude Wilde. Johnson also told Scott that he would use his influence to "close down the Philadelphia Navy Yard unless Senator Scott closed his critical mouth". Scott refused to back down and and on 7th October, 1963, Baker was forced to resign as Johnson's political secretary.

Scott became minority leader in 1969 and as a senior figure in the party played a vital role in the investigation of Richard Nixon during Watergate. In December, 1973, Scott told Nixon he could not get out of the Watergate "mess" unless he fulfilled a promise to disclose all records and tape recordings related to the scandal. On 7th August, 1974, Scott and Barry Goldwater went to the White House and told him his position was hopeless. Two days later Nixon resigned.

Scott announced he would not run for re-election in 1976 after a Senate investigation into allegations that he had received illegal cash contributions from Gulf Oil Company. I suspect he was set-up by corrupt figures in the Democrat Party.

John Williams was elected to the Senate in 1946. Soon after arriving in Washington he began investigating political corruption. He became known as the "Sherlock Holmes of Capitol Hill". During a 15 year period his investigations resulted in over 200 indictments and 125 convictions. His investigations upset a lot of people. In his taped telephone conversations LBJ vows to get Williams and in December 1970 he was blackmailed into resigning.

_________________________________________________

John,

Just out of curiousity, was Scott a Republican or a Democrat?

--Thomas
_________________________________________________

[John Simkin]

Just out of curiousity, was Scott a Republican or a Democrat?

Scott, Curtis and Williams were all Republicans. There were obvious political reasons for their campaign. However, Williams had a fine reputation for investigating corruption in both parties. Eisenhower actually offered him the chance to be his running-mate. He refused and then exposed corruption in his administration.

[William Kelly]

Just out of curiousity, was Scott a Republican or a Democrat?

Scott, Curtis and Williams were all Republicans. There were obvious political reasons for their campaign. However, Williams had a fine reputation for investigating corruption in both parties. Eisenhower actually offered him the chance to be his running-mate. He refused and then exposed corruption in his administration.

Just goes to show that the conspiracy was bi-partison.

BK

[John Simkin]

The three Republican members of the Senate Rules Committee were John Sherman Cooper, Hugh Scott and Carl T. Curtis. Although they always voted the same way, Curtis only mentions in his autobiography the efforts of Scott and John Williams, who was not on the committee, in trying to expose LBJ over the Bobby Baker case. In the LBJ tapes he never mentions Cooper in his rants against Curtis, Scott and Williams. It is probably significant that he selects Cooper to be the Republican representative on the Warren Commission. LBJ obviously had some sort of hold over Cooper.