Jump to content
The Education Forum

Sen. Hugh Scott on the Bobby Baker case


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

_________________________________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
Guest Tom Scully

I am inspired by our several new members who are so enamored with the investigation and "findings" of that

distinguished and above all reproach presidential panel known as the Warren Commission, that they seem to

have pledged their reputations and much of their time to defending it and its findings. It seems to follow

that they would have to defend the integrity of the commission's senior assistant counsel tasked with finding\

that both Oswald and Ruby worked alone! Warren Olney III's name sure was hustled out of there in a hurry, wasn't it?

http://books.google.com/books?id=Hl8_AAAAIAAJ&q=%22admission+that+the+hearing+itself+was+an+impotent+exercise.*%22&dq=%22admission+that+the+hearing+itself+was+an+impotent+exercise.*%22&hl=en&ei=WaJaTPDMNsH48Abn9sDmAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA

Annenberg: a biography of power

Gaeton Fonzi

Weybright and Talley, 1970 - Page 201

...Annenberg was introduced to the Senate committee by Pennsylvania Senator Hugh Scott.

In his sixteen years as a United States representative and his eleven years as a senator,

Scott had never been without the editorial support of the Philadelphia Inquirer. He introduced

Annenberg to the committee as "a person of competence and a broad range of vision and intelligence, tact and diplomatic skill." Prior to the actual questioning of Annenberg, Chairman Fulbright (who would later probe the appointee more critically than Pearson predicted) made the rather unprecedented admission that the hearing itself was an impotent exercise....

I have to give credit to Fonzi. He figured some of it out with only this to go on.:

http://www.google.com/archivesearch?q=songbird+was+murdered

According To His .Needs ..Songbird Was Murdered .

Palm Beach Post - Google News Archive - Oct 26, 1963

CHICAGO The recent singing of Joe Valachi regarding underworld overlordship re called the death of a man for which indirectly I was responsible I dropped in

http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/bitstream/2041/...026zdisplay.pdf

...I took the story back to Washington and Attorney General Clark authorized a dozen or so FBI men to check on

Ragen's facts. A couple of weeks later they reported that they were true. They also reported that control of the underworld reached into very high places. Some of the rulers of the underworld had become supposedly respected businessmen and politicians whose names were household words in Chicago. Some of them, it was stated, had reformed. Yet they still controlled the mob....

Drew Pearson was cautious enough or intimidated enough not to elaborate any further until after he died. Fonzi

wrote about Hugh Scott four years before Pearson's stepson, Tyler Abell published "Drew Pearson Diaries, 1949-1958"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9csaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PkwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6086,4587874&dq=pearson+racing+annenberg&hl=en

The Washington Merry Go-round .

Pittsburgh Press - Google News Archive - Aug 8, 1939

By DREW PEARSON and ROBERT ALLEN CHICAGO For more than two months now a ... of Moses Annenberg, Philadelphia publisher and biggest distributor of racing ..

http://www.archive.org/stream/enforcementjudi00olnerich/enforcementjudi00olnerich_djvu.txt

Regional Oral History Office University of California

The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California

Earl Warren Oral History Project

Warren Olney III

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE EARL WARREN ERA

With an Introduction by

Herbert Browne 11

Interviews Conducted by Miriam F. Stein and Amelia R. Fry

1970 through 1977

...Prosecuting the Wire Services

Stein: You told me at some point the story about how you and Warren went

to Chicago to testify at the federal trial of the Annenbergs, and

how the U.S. Attorney, whose name was Bill Campbell, was very

impressed with that. I wondered if you could just tell that story

briefly because I don t think we have that on tape.

Olney: Well, this happened about November of 39, right after the gambling

ship litigation came to an end. I remember it very vividly because

I had been worked to a frazzle and my wife and I took a little trip

up to the Calaveras Grove of Big Trees. It was cold as can be,

beautiful though.

When we came back, Earl said to me, "We ve got to do something

about the wire service and the bookmakers in our state. I think

the moment has come because the federal government is making very

extensive moves against Annenberg and his Nationwide News Service

in Chicago. If these people are really in earnest, now is the

time for us to strike a blow in our own state." He said that he

had received a request from the United States Attorney in Chicago

Stein: Was this Bill Campbell?

Olney: Yes, this was Bill Campbell, the Honorable William J. Campbell,

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

The request was for a statement from Earl Warren, as attorney

general of California, about the wire service and the bookmaking

racket as it existed in California. The statement was to be pre

sented to the court in connection with the sentencing of Moses

Annenberg. They had a number of indictments against Annenberg.

259

Olney: They had a lottery indictment, an antitrust indictment, and an

income tax indictment. He plead guilty to the income tax indictment

and the government was very anxious to get a jail sentence. To do

that they wanted to get before the judge the manner in which this

money involved in the tax evasion had been made. It was a true

racket, with all the violence and bloodshed and everything else that

goes along with it.

So, Campbell had sent requests to all the attorneys general and

district attorneys, I guess. The only two that I m sure about,

though, are Earl Warren and Tom Dewey of New York. But anyway,

Earl said that he had decided that he was going to go in person,

that he wasn t going to write any statement, because he wanted to

be sure this thing was really on the up and up. He took me with

him.

We left from the Oakland airport here in a DC3 that was a

sleeper plane. If you ve never been in a sleeper plane, it was

fixed up with berths, upper and lower berths, just like a railroad

car. When the berth was up, you d sit opposite each other like you

did on a railroad car. Then a berth would come down from above,

making an upper and lower berth. When you got into bed, they d put

a great big strap around you. You had to sleep under this strap.

Those DC3 s, you know when they land the tail goes way down, so

that you were practically half standing up in this bed. It was a

long, long flight. They stopped at Reno, Salt Lake, North Platt

and, I guess, other places. We had our dinner on the plane and it

was seven o clock the next morning before we got into Chicago. That

was my first night flight.

We went into the federal court without announcing ourselves to

see what was going on and to watch the proceedings when the

Annenberg case was called. We saw enough of it to convince Earl

that that this was a good-faith prosecution and was a genuine effort

to clean up this racket. So, he made himself known to Bill Campbell

and Campbell put him on the witness stand and had him testify about

the racket as it existed and he d encountered it in California.

Campbell had received a statement of only two or three lines from

Tom Dewey and no other response from anyone else. Earl Warren s

trouble to appear personally made a tremendous impression on Bill

Campbell.

A huge amount of work had been done by federal agents on the

wire service at that time. They had a man named Samuel Klaus who

was in charge of it, all around the country. He was a Treasury

agent a Treasury lawyer, I should say and an investigator. He

had worked out all the relationships in the organization of Nation

wide News Service and the identity of these people. He gave us

260

Olney: great encouragement about going ahead on our own against the racket

in California and offered every assistance if we would move against

the wire service here, which we did.

We didn t expect litigation because our relations with the tele

phone company were very, very different than they were between

federal and state law enforcement agencies and telephone companies

elsewhere. Our telephone company was never resistant about getting

rid of the wire service. They would say, "We don t want to be

giving service to a bunch of stinking racketeers, but we re obliged

to serve the public in general. If you can give us any excuse, any

valid legal protection so that we can deny service, you don t have

to sue us; we ll go ahead and do it," which they did. They took out

all lines without compulsion if we could provide them with adequate

evidence of their unlawful use. The litigation they got into was

litigation by the wire service and the bookies to try to get the

service back, reinstalled, and that was a long, long story. We

eventually filed that big injunction suit, and all the descriptions

in there of what the wire service was nationally we got from Sam

Klaus and from the work that the Treasury agents had done. Our

contribution was the details of what the wire service was in Cali

fornia.*

That case was reversed and thrown out by the California Supreme

Court, as the Chief [Earl Warren] remembered.** And, you know, I

thought he was mistaken about that. But he s right and I was wrong.

The thing that threw me off was because I remember we didn t have

any more wire service or bookie operations for some years. But the

reason for it was that supreme court decision was in November of

1941, but the Japanese attack and the outbreak of war were just a

few weeks later. With hostilities, horse racing was closed down

for the duration of the war all over the United States, or nearly

everywhere. There was such a demand for communication services,

there simply wasn t anything available for anything as stupid as a

bunch of bookmakers. That s the reason bookmaking dried up. It

wasn t because we won our case, which, as the Chief remembered, we

didn t.

*A copy of the attorney general s petition for injunction and the

court s preliminary injunction are on deposit in The Bancroft

Library .

**Reference to conferences with Earl Warren. Transcripts are

currently in production and will be deposited in The Bancroft

Library.

261

Olney:

Stein:

Olney :

Bookmaking revived during the 1950s and the time of the crime com

mission. It was once more a pretty full operation. When Earl

Warren was governor, we had more trouble with it, but did succeed

in rooting out, once again, all the larger trunk lines. It s

destroyed; it doesn t work any more and never will again. The

reason for it is that to make that wire service work you have to

have a huge nationwide organization of specialized people to do

their jobs. You have to have the people at the track capable of

smuggling the racing information out in such forms to make it

usable. What they used to use were old-time telegraph operators,

but they re all dead. They don t have anybody like that. Then you

have to have an organization where the information from race tracks

all over the country is pooled. And then you have to have a dis

seminating network to distribute it back to the bookies. You can t

organize that way any more.

Now, just refresh my memory again about the supreme court case.

Why did

Well, what happened was that we filed this big injunction suit, got

an injunction from Judge Wilson in the superior court in Los

Angeles, prohibiting Russell Brophy, who was running the wire

service there, and Kreling and Cohn, who were running it in San

Francisco, from doing certain things, disseminating information

and whatnot. They went ahead, in violation of the injunction, and

continued to provide service in the manner in which it was prohib

ited. We could prove sixty or more days of operation.

We charged them with contempt, criminal contempt, for each day

of operation that we could prove. They were found guilty and the

judge imposed fines and sentences which were cumulative, because

they were separate violations, one on top of the other. The

results were that the sentences were very substantial, and so were

the fines.

They took an appeal to the California Supreme Court and the

basic question was, was the original injunction a valid one? The

supreme court held that it was not . They conceded that a gambling

house was a public nuisance and was both a criminal offense and a

civil tort. But they said that it did not follow from that that

you could enjoin people who were aiding and abetting the maintenance

of the nuisance. That was their theory of our case. So, they threw

it out on that ground. It would have done us an awful amount of

harm if the war hadn t come along at that very time, but it did.

And the Chief is still upset about it; he still thinks that it was

a very poor and very unwise decision.

Stein:

It sounds very strange to me.

way.

I wonder why they decided it that

262

Olney: Well, you d have to ask them; they put it all in their opinion.

No, they didn t put it in their opinion; that s another thing that

irks the Chief. They put their major reasoning in an opinion about

a gambling house in Monterey, which was just a little Chinese

gambling place, in a case which was decided the same day.

Stein: Oh, I remember that. Then they used that

Olney: But the wire service case, which involved the biggest racket that

we had in California, the court disposed of almost summarily and

without much of an opinion. I ve never known how they got that

way; I just don t know. I m not among those who attribute evil

motives to judges that put out decisions I don t agree with. I

don t think there s anything crooked about this decision at all.

And I have a hunch they may have had second thoughts about it.

Stein: Do you have the injunction that you filed?* It would be useful to

include that in the Warren papers in The Bancroft Library.

Olney: Well, perhaps it would, and of course its yours, because you got it.

This includes the preliminary injunction on which these contempt

proceedings were later based. But it also includes the original

complaint. It lists all the defendants and, incidentally, the first

defendant was Moses L. Annenberg, who was the president of the

Nationwide News Service, the head of this racket. The second one

is his son, Walter H. Annenberg, who was the acting head at that

time, while Moses was pretty old. In fact, he died before he served

out his sentence, and Walter H. Annenberg is now the Ambassador of

the United States to Great Britain. Nixon named him as an ambassa

dor.

Stein: Well, that s a success story for you.

Olney: The rest of these are just the darndest bunch of hoodlums you ever

saw. Well, here s James M. Ragen, Sr. A little later when he was

riding from his office to his home in Chicago, a car came alongside

his limousine and up went a curtain and they blasted him with a

sawed-off shotgun. Ragen did not die, so they took him to the

hospital in a critical condition. When he was reported as getting

well, someone got into his room and killed him. Many of these

other defendants are gangsters that were killed at a later period. ..

...Stein: Why? What had Chotiner done?

Olney: Well, Chotiner was nothing but a two-bit crook. He was a very close

associate of Fred Howser and those racketeers in Southern California,

and had been right along. He was all mixed up in politics. He d

gotten on the vice-president s train. Bill Rogers had some very

unpleasant experience with him. I don t remember what.

It was shortly after we took office that we heard that Murray

Chotiner was running around making representations that he could

square cases. Bill Rogers put out a memorandum to every assistant

in the department that Murray Chotiner was not to be allowed in the

place, not to let him come into your office, or talk to him. That s

the way he was regarded

[tape recorder off while Mr. Olney reads relevant portions of Drew

Pearson s Diaries.]

Olney: Well, our accounts of this thing are reasonably similar.

Where are we now?

The Investigation of Tom Clark

Stein: You mentioned in your outline the Tom Clark investigation.

Olney: Oh, yes. To my surprise, I discovered that in the general crimes

section they had a very extensive investigation of Tom Clark under

way. This goes back to the days when he was attorney general and

there had been a number of ringleaders of what was known as the

Capone mob who had been convicted and then paroled. There was a

great scandal about the parole of some of those Capone mobsters.

As a matter of fact, that incident was mentioned in one of our

California crime commission reports. I don t remember now exactly

what it was, but I know that we had mentioned it and it was a

notorious affair.

Well, I found out that when McGranery had become attorney general

in August of 53, he had instituted this investigation of Tom Clark

on the circumstances of this parole. The parole board was in the

341

Olney: Department of Justice and they had two lawyers working on that case.

I went into the room and talked with them about the case. There

were stacks of FBI reports . I would have thought that they were

about four feet high. They said that the investigation wasn t con

cluded, so I said, "Without going any further, would you write me a

summary of what you have to date: what the allegations are, and

what, roughly, you think is shown by the reports, and the general

direction that you think further investigation might go....

On deposit in The Bancroft Library.

4412628867_dfa8d28d3e_o.jpg

By 1956, Tom Clark had completely forgotten what, according to Pearson's reporting spanning 25 years, James Ragen

had revealed to the FBI before he was killed. J. Edgar Hoover forgot too, by December, 1953, when Gerald Ford

gave Albert Jenner's name to DeLoach, for background "investigation".

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=jud...391724319249464

Ex-farmer, judge Crown remembered as 'wise, fair'

- Daily Herald - NewsBank - Mar 8, 1997

Crown clerked for US Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark from 1956 to 1959 and ... law at the Chicago firm of Jenner and Block, where he became a partner. ...

John J. Crown, judge, philanthropist

- Chicago Sun-Times - NewsBank - Mar 6, 1997

John J. Crown, 67, a former Cook County Circuit Court judge and youngest son of ... In 1959, he joined the law firm of Jenner & Block. ...

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=...%27s+references

The Kennedy assassination cover-up‎ - Page 96

Donald Gibson - History - 2000 - 306 pages+

4287502320_fa33791e8c_o.jpg

A can of worms, IMO.:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKjennerA.htm

...As Russ Baker, the author of Family of Secrets (2009), has pointed out: "Albert Jenner was truly a curious choice for the commission staff. He was fundamentally a creature of the anti-Kennedy milieu - a corporate lawyer whose principal work was defending large companies against government trust-busting... Jenner's most important client was Chicago financier Henry Crown, who was the principal shareholder in General Dynamics, then the nation's largest defense contractor and a major employer in the Fort Worth area."

http://books.google.com/books?cd=2&q=darling%2C+m+frank+ae+jenner+dorfman%2C+stanford+clinton&btnG=Search+Books

Hearings‎ - Page 83

United States. Congress. House. Committee on Education - 1953

... 122 Darling, M. Frank, Chicago, 111., accompanied by counsel, AE Jenner and

... 111., accompanied by counsel, Stanford Clinton, Chicago, 111 71 Dorfman, ...

TESTIMONY OF M. FRANK DARLING, PRESIDENT AND BUSINESS MANAGER, LOCAL 1031,

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD 01 ELECTRICAL WORKERS, CHICAGO, ILL., ACCOMPANIED

BY HIS COUNSEL, ALBERT E. JENNER AND JAMES A. SPRAWL, CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. SMITH. I want to make it clear that you are the witness and that you have a right to

consult with your counsel before you answer any questions, but the lawyers,

your attorneys, are not going to make any answers.

Mr. JENNER. I never have.

Mr. McKENNA. Mr. Darling, what is your occupation ? Mr. DARLING. I am president and business

manager of local 1031 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in Chicago.

Mr. McKENNA. Where is that located ?

Mr. DARLING. Chicago.

Mr. McKENNA. That is your home?

Mr. DARLING. Yes, sir. ...

...Mr. Darling. Joe Jacobs — said that there was a comparatively new company in New York who he was sure could write a package that we would want, and that the premium would be lower than any other company. I told him I would be very much interested. He introduced me to the Dorf mans.

Mr. McKenna. When was that now ?

Mr. DARLING. Paul, I had already known for some time. I had seen him at federation meetings, Chicago Federation of Labor meetings, from time to time; Allen I had never met to that time. I believe it was in '49.

Mr. MCKENNA. Approximately when in 1949?

Mr. DARLING. That must have been in the early part of '49.

Mr. MCKENNA. The early part of '49?

Mr. DARLING. Yes, in the spring or before spring even.

Mr. MCKENNA. That was before, then, the Dorfmans were licensed as an insurance agency?

Mr. DARLING. I think it is. I'm trying to remember just how long we have had insurance. I think Zy2 years. Would that make it the early part of '49 ?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. DARLING. The first company covered by the Union Casualty was in May.

Mr. MCKENNA. May of 1949? (There was no response.)

Mr. MCKENNA. I believe if I can refresh your recollection at all your policy is renewable in May, isn't it ?

Mr. DARLING. That is correct.

Mr. McKENNA. And so it is for annual periods ? ...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1457&view=findpost&p=187543

In The Matter of The Application for Playboy-Elsinore Associates

For a Casino License

Decided: April 7, 1982

.....Page 7

B. Areas of Concern Identified By The Division

....2. The 1963 Loan

On March 15,1960, another Hyatt financing proposal was sent to the PENSION FUND and was directed to the attention of it Executive

Page 7

Secretary, Francis J. Murtha. In this proposal, Hyatt offered to sell to the FUND subordinated debentures in the principal amount of $4,000,000 bearing interest at the rate of 6 1/4 percent per annum and maturing on March 31, 1979. This financing was to be used by Hyatt for the expansion of its hotel chaing and for the acquisition, development, and construction of real estate projects.

Stanford Clinton again withdrew as counsel for the (Teamsters) PENSION FUND and the firm of Thompson, Raymond, Mayer, Jenner and Bloomstein was retained in order to render legal advice to the Trustees of the Fund and to execute the appropriate legal documents. ....

....After difficult negotiations, and Trustees of the PENSION FUND approved a revised proposal....The loan was executed on June 24, 1960.

The Division in its summation noted some compliamentary language used by James R. Hoffa in referring to the Pritzker family at a Board of Trustees meeting of the PENSION FUND. This reference was to the fiscal responsibility of the Pritzkers....

...3. 1966-1970 Loans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, did the investigation of Tom Clark by the California A.G.'s office under Olney ever reach fruition? Do its working papers exit? I'm particularly curious if they were able to confirm the LBJ/Clark/Marcello relationship claimed by Jack Halphen. If they could, then that solidifies the evidence for that relationship beyond the mere say-so of a crook.

There's also the question of what happened to this investigation. Was Warren "persuaded" to kill it? If so, then LBJ, along with Warren's fellow Supreme Court Justice Clark, would know that Warren could be similarly "persuaded" to muffle the WC investigation.

Interesting stuff. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Pat, I found Fonzi's observation about Hugh Scott this morning and it struck me that this is all a related series of events. Before November 23, 1963, Drew Pearson was urging Bobby on in his offensive against the mob. Don B. Reynolds was being interviewed by the republican senate committtee counsel about Baker and the TFX contract bribe in the suitcase.

...And, if Annenberg owned Hugh Scott, was Arlen Specter already beholden to Annenberg by 1963, or what?

Who had the most to lose, and who had the most "juice"?

LBJ, Henry Crown, Walter Annenberg

Who were the biggest problem people?

JFK, RFK

The way I read Olney's comments in the Earl Warren Oral HIstory Project archive segment is that he was surprised to learn sometime after the fact how serious and in depth the investigation of Tom Clark was.

My main point is to attempt to show that Drew Pearson was on "this"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1RcQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=U4oDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4028,1610618&dq=drew+pearson+ragen+series&hl=en

Drew Pearson .Costello's Political Influence And Gifts Prevent...

Free-Lance Star - Google News Archive - Oct 17, 1950

editors Note: Here U another of Drew Pearson's penetrating columns on the rulers of the Uni ted States crime world ... He threatened James Ragen before Raff ...

..from the late 1930's until 1974, five years after his death. The columns written while he was alive, especially the one in late October, 1963,

......I took the story back to Washington and Attorney General Clark authorized a dozen or so FBI men to check on

Ragen's facts. A couple of weeks later they reported that they were true. They also reported that control of the underworld reached into very high places. Some of the rulers of the underworld had become supposedly respected businessmen and politicians whose names were household words in Chicago. Some of them, it was stated, had reformed. Yet they still controlled the mob....

Jack Anderson set the stage for the late October, '63 column, with this one, earlier in the month. The relevant

information is near the end of the piece.:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8MoqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gc0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=898,574751&dq=drew+pearson+ragen+series&hl=en

Drew Pearson .Bobby Unleashes Attack .

Palm Beach Post - Google News Archive - Oct 4, 1963

It began with a call from underworld tipster Jack Ragen to Drew Pearson, ... Angered, Drew began writing a series of exposes on the under world. ...

...and Pearson again at the end of October, '63:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6fYjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CQUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2409,6401988&dq=drew+pearson+ragen+series&hl=en

Merry-go-round .Policeman Loses His Job .Drew... - Ocala Star-Banner - Google News Archive

Some of the biggest distortion accepted since late 1963.:

Earl Warren was "bullied" by McCloy and others on the WC. An example is Warren attempted to appoint Warren Olney

as WC counsel.

I think it is the exact opposite...Olney was a smokescreen to sanitize Earl Warren; to make it seem like he had

good intentions from the first WC executive session, and forward. Warren never earnestly wanted Olney as counsel.

We've long suspected the WC and its commisioners and counsel and assistant counsel were "fixers." Even Russ Baker

buys into the smokescreen of Albert Jenner as staid, corporate counsel, doing his civic duty.

My research supports that Jenner was a mob, "fixer" in the decade before 1963. He was the lawyer for Frank Darling,

the Dorfman's first major "health insurance" customer, long before he was WC assistant counsel or Allen Dorfman's lawyer. The Pritzkers and the Teamster Central State pension fund owned Stanford Clinton. He represented the Dorfman's in that 1953 hearing. He and Jenner subbed for each other in representing the Dorfmans and the Teamster fund.

None of the above is part of the common narrative.

The TFX investigation was hottest while Don B. Reynolds was being questioned at the same moment JFK was shot.

After that, everything got "fixed" as required. I won't speculate on operational events leading up to Oswald showing up in custody at the Dallas PD. I am not saying that these people started what happened in Dallas, but all signs are that they benefited tremendously from what happened and that they put a lid on the chain of events afterward.

Observe what needed to happen, TFX inquiry needed to be shut down, LBJ needed to avoid being dumped from the coming 1964 ticket. Kennedy is suddenly dead. Oswald needs to be put in state where

he isn't able to answer any questions.

Chicago dispatches Ruby, LBJ puts the WC sham together, led by a guy who is almost the best friend of Conrad Hilton.

The head of the FBI is best friends with Hilton and Crown partner, Del Webb. Chicago dispatches Albert Jenner.

Hugh Scott and some of his republican senate colleagues are still making noise about Don B. Reynolds and TFX, Annenberg

reminds Hugh Scott that he owns him.

Olney did not mince words in the oral interview when he talked about "Walter H. Annenberg". Earl Warren and his daughter Virgina, had to know that Conrad Hilton was not just another very lucky, very fiendly guy.

So, Warren was either too meek and clueless to have risen to the office of California governor, and chief justice of the US Supreme Court, or...he knew exactly what was going on, and what he was doing. Tom Clark was serving Crown in 1956 by appointing his son as law clerk, and when he permitted his name to be used by Warren to vouch for Albert Jenner. The rest of the WC received their marching orders and played their parts. It was in the nature of all of them to serve great wealth and power.

Drew Pearson watched it all unfold and it put a muzzle on him, he died less than six years later. Five years after that, his step-son, Tyler Abell had the courage and resolve to bury this in the posthumous Pearson Diaries he edited and had published. He and his wife worked for LBJ and Lady bird, and he did not publish until the year after LBJ died.

Olney is described in the archive transcript, reading excerpts from those Pearson Diaries as he

is giving his oral history. The press is owned by these people or by their friends, they never covered this. Tyler Abell is still alive, and he should be interviewed and asked for copies of the supporting material from Pearson's files. It Pearson's reports are parts of the longest, most carefully laid out ruses in modern history, or we can take Pearson and Abell at their word. Annenberg and Crown both died multi-billionaires, and as long as they lived, any serious investigation of Crown would have been a concern of Annenberg, and vice versa.:

4863227969_c20f953bc1_b.jpg

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22led+to+very+high+places.%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets - Page 331

Curt Gentry - 2001 - 846 pages - Preview

Tom Clark told me afterward that it led to very high places. J. Edgar Hoover intimated the same thing. He said the people Ragen pointed to had now reformed. I learned •Four witnesses identified the gunmen as Lenny Patrick, Dave Yaras, ...

books.google.com - Book overview

Deep Politics and the Death of JFK - Page 155

Peter Dale Scott - 1996 - 424 pages - Preview

Tom Clark told me afterward that it led to very high places. J. Edgar Hoover intimated the same thing. He said the people Ragen pointed to had now reformed. I learned later that it pointed to the Hilton Hotel chain, Henry Crown, ...

books.google.com - Book overview

Official and confidential: the secret life of J. Edgar Hoover

Anthony Summers - 1993 - 528 pages - Snippet view

According to the then Attorney General, Ragen's revelations led to "very high places," including Henry Crown, the Chicago financier, and the Annenberg family, which had originally owned the racing- wire service. ...

books.google.com - Book overview

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...