Edwin Walker

[Thomas Graves]

Paul - do you not think that there is enough evidence to suggest that Oswald was a part of the CIA, or FBI (both were doing this) operation to discredit the FPCC? I think Banister et al were part of that, and not part of a separate operation to frame Oswald.

Paul "As Pedantic As A Professor" Trejo wrote:

"As for Guy Banister, he was a hot-head with a terrible temper. He was also an outspoken racist, and when he ran for public office in Lousiana, he openly ran on a racist ticket -- 'keep our schools lily white.' As such, Guy Banister had broken with the FBI."

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

What? Guy Banister had broken with the FBI? Let me guess-- Was it because the FBI was such a bastion of progressive thinking and positive action on civil rights?

LOL

Paul (As-Pedantic-As-A-Professor) Trejo also wrote:

"Guy Banister was working directly with Mafia leader Carlos Marcello during the summer of 1963. I cannot find any connection linking Carlos Marcello to the FBI during the summer of 1963. I know enemies of Hoover claim that there were -- but those are politically motivated accusations. Therefore, I conclude that Guy Banister was acting ON HIS OWN when he set up his fake FPCC in New Orleans, with Lee Harvey Oswald at the helm. It was Guy's own work."

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

From the Spartacus webpage on Irving Davidson:

[isaac Irving] Davidson was a close associate of Carlos Marcello and played an important role in the legal attempt to prevent Jimmy Hoffa from being sent to prison. According to Peter Dale Scott (Deep Politics), in September, 1960, Davidson was at a meeting where a suitcase containing $500,000 was passed from Marcello to Hoffa for Richard Nixon. After the fall of Fulgencio Batista, Davidson developed a close relationship with those Cubans attempting to overthrow Fidel Castro. In 1963 Davidson met Roland Masferrer. Davidson also represented Clint Murchison and his oil company in Dallas. It is also alleged by John H. Davis (Mafia Kingfish) that Davidson was a specialist in "putting people together". This included Rafael Trujillo, J. Edgar Hoover, Jimmy Hoffa, Carlos Marcello, Bobby Baker, and Santos Trafficante.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKdavidsonI.htm

Irving Davidson and Clint Murchison were both associated with Carlos Marcello and J. Edgar Hoover.

Many of the people who were "put together" by Davidson are mentioned in this youtube video featuring Clint Murchison and his Hotel Del Charro in my hometown of La Jolla, CA. Note that the speaker says that not only did J. Edgar Hoover and boyfriend Clyde Tolson stay there during summers for free, but also that "key lieutenants of Carlos Marcello used to vacation there" :

Also see the lower part of page 4 of this article:

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2011/jan/05/cover-oil-politics-la-jolla/?page=4&

--Tommy

(No, the above post was not made by Steven Gaal. It just looks like it. LOL)

Edited September 15, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Tommy - good and interesting post.

[Paul Brancato]

Tommy - I tried to send you a message but you are not receiving.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - do you not think that there is enough evidence to suggest that Oswald was a part of the CIA, or FBI (both were doing this) operation to discredit the FPCC? I think Banister et al were part of that, and not part of a separate operation to frame Oswald.

...As for Guy Banister, he was a hot-head with a terrible temper. He was also an outspoken racist, and when he ran for public office in Lousiana, he openly ran on a racist ticket -- 'keep our schools lily white.' As such, Guy Banister had broken with the FBI..."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

What? Guy Banister had broken with the FBI? Let me guess-- Was it because the FBI was such a bastion of progressive thinking and positive action on civil rights?

LOL ...

--Tommy

Well, Tommy, you've missed some important nuances.

While it is true that J. Edgar Hoover wasn't personally a supporter of Civil Rights leaders, as FBI Director, Hoover was part of the Executive Branch of the US Government, and so his job was to enforce the Laws of the Land.

Now, starting in 1954, a key Law of the Land was established by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and his Brown Decision, mandating racial integration of all US Public Schools.

Therefore -- even though J. Edgar Hoover might have personally opposed that Law, he was duty-bound to enforce that Law with of his all FBI personnel, if necessary. That was the Law -- whether Hoover liked it or not, and Hoover was proud to enforce the Law.

Now -- private citizens like Guy Banister and resigned General Edwin Walker no longer worked for Executive branch of the US Government. Guy Banister had quit the FBI to start his own Private Eye office. Edwin Walker had earlier enforced the Brown Decision in 1957 at Little Rock high school, when he was a US General, but he also resigned from the US Army partly because of that duty -- which he protested at the time. (His first, unsuccessful resignation was in 1959. His second, successful resignation was in 1961.)

In 1962 both Edwin Walker and Guy Banister were supporters of the White Citizens Councils of the Deep South -- they really thought they had a chance to reverse the Brown Decision -- at least in the Southern States, using the Constitutional argument of "States Rights."

Now, even if J. Edgar Hoover was personally sympathetic to these people, he would never dare to say so publicly.

Although Guy Banister could (and did) publicly boast about this demand for all white schools, the FBI could not and wouldn't even dare to take that position.

So -- yes, Tommy. Guy Banister broke with the FBI. That's a simple, historical fact. The foundation of Guy Banister's break with the FBI was simply the ideology of the John Birch Society.

Even if the FBI secretly opposed Earl Warren's decision, they publicly supported it. They might still harrass the NAACP, and they might even spy on MLK more than any other person in the USA at the time (as I've read). But they would never dare to contradict Earl Warren on the basic foundations of the Brown Decision.

So, you can LOL all you want, Tommy, but you're just mistaken about it because you overlooked these political nuances.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 15, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul (As-Pedantic-As-A-Professor) Trejo also wrote:

"Guy Banister was working directly with Mafia leader Carlos Marcello during the summer of 1963. I cannot find any connection linking Carlos Marcello to the FBI during the summer of 1963. I know enemies of Hoover claim that there were -- but those are politically motivated accusations. Therefore, I conclude that Guy Banister was acting ON HIS OWN when he set up his fake FPCC in New Orleans, with Lee Harvey Oswald at the helm. It was Guy's own work."

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

From the Spartacus webpage on Irving Davidson:

[isaac Irving] Davidson was a close associate of Carlos Marcello and played an important role in the legal attempt to prevent Jimmy Hoffa from being sent to prison. According to Peter Dale Scott (Deep Politics), in September, 1960, Davidson was at a meeting where a suitcase containing $500,000 was passed from Marcello to Hoffa for Richard Nixon. After the fall of Fulgencio Batista, Davidson developed a close relationship with those Cubans attempting to overthrow Fidel Castro. In 1963 Davidson met Roland Masferrer. Davidson also represented Clint Murchison and his oil company in Dallas. It is also alleged by John H. Davis (Mafia Kingfish) that Davidson was a specialist in "putting people together". This included Rafael Trujillo, J. Edgar Hoover, Jimmy Hoffa, Carlos Marcello, Bobby Baker, and Santos Trafficante.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKdavidsonI.htm

Irving Davidson and Clint Murchison were both associated with Carlos Marcello and J. Edgar Hoover.

Many of the people who were "put together" by Davidson are mentioned in this youtube video featuring Clint Murchison and his Hotel Del Charro in my hometown of La Jolla, CA. Note that the speaker says that not only did J. Edgar Hoover and boyfriend Clyde Tolson stay there during summers for free, but also that "key lieutenants of Carlos Marcello used to vacation there" :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fqMA9YV3ks

Also see the lower part of page 4 of this article:

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2011/jan/05/cover-oil-politics-la-jolla/?page=4&

--Tommy

Well, again Tommy, you're missing many political nuances.

Let's start with that video that you cited from YouTube. The narrator begins with the following words:

"Clint Murchison was an oil millionaire with 500 companies and was primarily an oil millionaire. He also controlled Texas and controlled [President] Johnson."

LOL

This is what I mean when I say that all these accusations about J. Edgar Hoover being in league with the Mafia are politically slanted. The nonsense that Clint Murchison "controlled Texas" is exaggeration enough, but to say he "controlled LBJ" is unforgivable exaggeration.

Clint Murchison was very rich -- but he was nowhere nearly rich enough to control Texas, much less to control LBJ, or even to control J. Edgar Hoover.

While it is true that J. Edgar Hoover liked living high on the hog, and he took advantage of his wealthy companions, that is utterly zero proof that Hoover was making deals with them. Those are all rumors. It is just as easy to argue that Hoover was chummy with these rich people because he was gathering information about them.

Further -- this sappy video tries to make horse racing seem suspicious!. There's nothing at all scandalous about betting on horses. In our day and age, there's no longer any scandal about homosexuality, either.

But this video you shared tries to insinuate illegal activities, merely based on the high-prices of Hotel Del Charro, and the fact that Hoover's hosts paid his bill for him. Wealthy people do things like that, Tommy. A few hundred dollars here or there is practically nothing to a millionaire. In fact, it's just good manners in some circles.

But this video you shared uses loaded words along with eerie music playing on diminished and augmented chords to manipulate emotions -- just in case their loaded words weren't enough.

These are biased political sources you quoted for us, Tommy, and the historical facts implied by them are weak.

It's true that J. Edgar Hoover claimed there was no Mafia in 1963 -- but one can easily explain that by saying that this was an FBI strategy to calm the public mood while the FBI worked under-cover more effectively.

Your "evidence" didn't really prove what you think it proved, Tommy. My point still stands. Hoover is alleged to be in cahoots with the Mafia, but the evidence is weak at best.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 15, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Paul - do you not think that there is enough evidence to suggest that Oswald was a part of the CIA, or FBI (both were doing this) operation to discredit the FPCC? I think Banister et al were part of that, and not part of a separate operation to frame Oswald.

...As for Guy Banister, he was a hot-head with a terrible temper. He was also an outspoken racist, and when he ran for public office in Lousiana, he openly ran on a racist ticket -- 'keep our schools lily white.' As such, Guy Banister had broken with the FBI..."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

What? Guy Banister had broken with the FBI? Let me guess-- Was it because the FBI was such a bastion of progressive thinking and positive action on civil rights?

LOL ...

--Tommy

Paul "As-Pedantic-As-A-Professor" Trejo wrote:

"Now, even if J. Edgar Hoover was personally sympathetic to these people [Edwin Walker, Guy Banister, and the White Citizens' Council], he would never dare to say so publicly."

I never said that Hoover publicly supported them. You're trying to put words in my mouth. Again.

"Although Guy Banister could (and did) publicly boast about this demand for all white schools, the FBI could not and wouldn't even dare to take that position."

I never said that the FBI publicly took that position.

"So -- yes, Tommy. Guy Banister broke with the FBI. That's a simple, historical fact."

Fine, so Banister appeared to break from the FBI by formally "resigning" from it and going to work for an anti-organized crime section of the New Orleans Police Department and then later starting his own detective agency. But that doesn't mean that he didn't continue to collaborate with Hoover (or the CIA's Angleton for that matter) on mutual projects like the anti-FPCC one that Oswald became embroiled in, thanks to Banister and / or Angleton and Hoover, in New Orleans and Mexico City.

"The foundation of Guy Banister's break with the FBI was simply the ideology of the John Birch Society."

Would you care to rephrase that? You seem to be saying that Banister "quit" the FBI because it simply wasn't reactionary (e.g., racist) enough for him. Is that it? (BTW, someday you really should look up the difference in meanings between "reactionary" and "radical".)

"Even if the FBI secretly opposed Earl Warren's decision, they publicly supported it. They might still harass the NAACP, and they might even spy on MLK more than any other person in the USA at the time (as I've read). But they would never dare to contradict Earl Warren on the basic foundations of the Brown Decision."

How about Hoover's giving "ex"-agents like Banister some juicy information from time to time so that they could do some of The Bureau's dirty work?

"So, you can LOL all you want, Tommy, but you're just mistaken about it because you overlooked these political nuances."

LOL!

--Tommy

PS Here's an interesting blurb from the Wikipedia article on Banister:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Banister

"[Only four years after Banister had joined the FBI in 1934,] FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was impressed by Banister's work and, in 1938, he was promoted to run the FBI unit in Butte, Montana. He also served in Oklahoma City, Minneapolis and Chicago. In Chicago, he was the Special Agent in Charge for the FBI.^[5] He retired from the FBI in 1954. Banister moved to Louisiana and, in January 1955, became Assistant Superintendent of the New Orleans Police Department, where he was given the task of investigating organized crime and corruption within the police force. It later emerged that he was also involved in looking at the role that left-wing political activists were playing in the struggle for civil rights in New Orleans.^[6] On the campuses of Tulane University and Louisiana State University, he ran a network of informants collecting information on "communist" activities. He submitted reports on his findings to the FBI through contacts.^[7] In March 1957, Banister was suspended after pulling a gun in public in a bar and threatening a waiter.^[8] His suspension ended in June of that year. However, when he refused to be transferred to the N.O.P.D.'s Planning Department, he was dismissed from the force."

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

So, "Professor" Trejo, Banister didn't completely break from the FBI when he "resigned" from it, did he?

Here's footnote [7] from above , but unfortunately it's not a live "link" as formatted here:

"Appendix to Hearings before the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives, Volume X & 1979 page 127."

Edited September 15, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - we know that both FBI and CIA, possibly together but possibly separate, were officially running antiFPCC operations right at the same time that Oswald was sojourning in NO and MC doing everything he could to discredit the FPCC. We know that the FBI 'lost' LHO from his arrival in NO until after the street scene with Bringuier. Its logical to assume that Oswald, and possibly Banister and Ferrie, were part of that operation. But you will not find documents to prove it.

As for the CIA taking aback seat to the FBI because it was a domestic situation, I don't buy it. We know that when the first CIA investigator got too nosy about MC Angleton replaced him and took over himself.

Once again I will point out that when FBI doesn't release documents that really prove Dean's statements you think its because they are simply hiding the good stuff, or have destroyed it. I distinctly remember you pointing out that FBI docs about Dean's past were most likely deliberate attempts to discredit Dean, rather than simply truthful. Yet when the CIA doesn't come forward with documents you assert that its because there aren't any. You do this by referring to the lack of CIA documentation as being some kind of proof in itself. But as you well know, whether its the FBI or the CIA, deniability is built into the system. It has taken a lot of work for decades by dedicated researchers to sift through and parse together real history, as opposed to the false history we have been fed.

The CIA is hiding much more than their own mistakes. Even Blakey was upset when he discovered that the CIA agent assigned to liase with the HSCA, Joannides, would have been deposed if HSCA had known who he actually was and what he was up to in 1963, working with Cuban exiles like Bringuier and operating out of the Miami station under Shackley. That fact is incredibly damning to the CIA. No use calling Morales a rogue - he was the best operational CIA officer of his day, and was hands on, part of a chain of command.

How many times have you said that Dulles, and Hoover, were much too patriotic not to accept being fired. Nonsense in my opinion. The two were at the very center of power in the National security state, and had been so for decades by 1963. How can you doubt that they seethed with hatred for this upstart president? Its well known that they, and many others including LBJ, hated the Kennedys.

OK, Paul B., let's look at your latest argument.

(1) You're right -- both FBI and CIA were officially investigating the FPCC at the same time that Guy Banister was running them. Our disagreement is over my claim that only Guy Banister's operation was exploiting Lee Harvey Oswald there in NOLA.

(2) The difference as I see it is that Guy Banister wasn't merely trying to "discredit" the FPCC, nor was Guy Banister trying to "infiltrate" the FPCC. The weird and unique thing about Guy Banister's operation is that he used Lee Harvey Oswald to create a fake FPCC, which had only one member -- Lee Harvey Oswald. Then, Guy Banister used the assistance of David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringiuer (and various other low-level quislings) to carefully and deliberately FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald to look like a genuine member of the FPCC -- knowing full well that he was nothing of the sort.

(3) Now, how could this hurt the FPCC? It couldn't! That's why I see no linkage of the FBI or the CIA in Guy Banister's plot using Lee Harvey Oswald.

(4) Guy Banister's activity was strictly set up to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald. It had no other purpose in the world. And we know that Guy Banister was the leader of the New Orleans team, because we have his address posted on Lee Oswald's FPCC handbills. (This fact has long been established by Jim Garrison.)

(5) But Lee Harvey Oswald was too naive to realize this was happening to him. Guy Banister (and Clay Shaw and David Ferrie) therefore had to be telling Lee Harvey Oswald a big, fat, juicy lie in order for Lee Harvey Oswald to willingly cooperate in every step of this sheep-dipping, FRAMING procedure.

(6) The same is true of the Mexico City operation. We know this was linked with the New Orleans FRAMING operation led by Guy Banister, because Marina Oswald said that Lee took all these newspaper clippings about himself as a fake FPCC officer to Mexico City with him. Also, the clerks at the Mexico City compound all testified that Lee Harvey Oswald showed them these newspaper clippings along with other fake documents (like a fake Communist Party card) which was supposed to impress them, but totally didn't.

(7) Therefore, when the ROGUE members of the CIA chose to *impersonate* Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City, it was only to further Guy Banister's FRAMING operation -- to make Lee Harvey Oswald appear to be even closer to the Communist Party than Guy Banister did in New Orleans.

(8) Now, how could the *impersonation* of Lee Oswald in Mexico City hurt the FPCC? It couldn't! Actually, the CIA had no clue who the *impersonators* were, and they started a mole-hunt to identify them (as proved recently by Bill Simpich). So, this was no CIA or FBI plot. It was Guy Banister's plot.

(9) Which is to say, it was a civilian plot -- which, according to my theory, boils down to a John Birch Society plot.

(10) It is important, Paul B., that you pointed out that the FBI "lost" Oswald from his arrive in NOLA until the screet scene with Carlos Bringuier, when Oswald himself called the FBI to ensure that the FBI (which was tracking Oswald) wouldn't get the wrong idea that he was really a supporter of the FPCC.

(11) While you're right that we have no documents to rely on here, I think that Guy Banister yelled at Oswald for calling the FBI at that point, just like Guy Banister probably yelled at Oswald for stamping his office address on those FPCC handbills. Lee Oswald was young and still made lots of mistakes.

(12) As for the domestic/international division of cases between the FBI and CIA, you cited the Mexico City operation, and how J.J. Angleton fiercely took charge of it. But remember -- Mexico is part of the International division. So, my theory still stands as plausible.

(13) Yes, I do believe that Harry Dean's claims about his unsolicited reports to the FBI about the JFK murder probably do exist, and probably will be revealed in the year 2017, according to the JFK Freedom of Information Act. I still think the FBI is hiding the good stuff. On 11/22/1963 Hoover ordered the FBI to smash any evidence they saw that contradicted his Lone Nut theory. That's what the FBI faithfully did. They said that Silvia Odio was a "mental case." They also joked that Harry Dean was a "mental case." Both these important witnesses claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald had ACCOMPLICES.

(14) As for the CIA documents -- I know for example that Harry Dean never volunteered reports to the CIA. So naturally the CIA would not be hiding anything about Harry Dean.

(15) Also, regarding the CIA, Bill Simpich has spent years (thankfully) pouring over FOIA released CIA documents. That's how he discovered the Mexico-City "mole-hunt," which is a great discovery for JFK research.

(16) Although everybody knows that CIA plausible denial is built into the system -- this shouldn't be used as a sort of One-Size-Fits-All proof for any conspiracy one wants. We can't use the absence of documentation as a proof of anything.

(17) For Harry Dean, I don't start with an absence of documentation -- we have Harry Dean's 1965 claim that he reported the Edwin Walker connection to Lee Harvey Oswald, the John Birch Society and the JFK murder. Now -- that's a documented claim -- and one can either believe Harry Dean or disbelieve him. I choose to believe him. I believe that the FBI has records relating to the JFK murder with Harry Dean's name on them. I believe this because Harry Dean claims it -- AND HARRY DEAN WAS AN EYE-WITNESS.

(18) Now, regarding the CIA, it's one thing to sling accusations around like many people do -- but it's something else to begin with an EYE-WITNESS REPORT and start from there. I haven't seen anybody do that yet.

(19) The CIA was hiding things to the HSCA. I believe that. Joannides was clearly hiding things -- but we don't know exactly what at this time. It might be that there were more CIA Rogues involved in the JFK murder than I have named so far. That would have been truly be devastating to the CIA in 1977.

(20) I insist that David Morales was a ROGUE agent who left the reservation. This is practically PROVED, according to me, by Bill Simpich's worthy discovery of an internal "mole-hunt" inside the CIA for Oswald's *impersonator* who was almost certainly David Morales. Morales was a middle-level CIA Officer -- he had several dozen people reporting to him -- but he was stunned by the failure of the Bay of Pigs -- and he could not forget that the rest of his life.

(21) David Morales was a part of a chain of command -- that's true. Yet the CIA high-command was BLIND-SIGHTED by David Morales when he *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. That is ample evidence, according to me, that David Morales was also part of another chain of command -- a civilian chain of command led by mavericks from the John Birch Society. These were the Americans who believed firmly that JFK was a Communist.

(22) David Morales may have believed he was doing the right thing by supporting this Civilian plot to murder JFK -- but David Morales didn't tell his own CIA high-command -- and we KNOW this today because of the world-class work of Bill Simpich.

(23) Finally, Paul B., you want to make the political opposition of Dulles and Hoover into a "justification" for murdering JFK. But these are Americans, steeped in the tradition of Free Elections. If they really wanted to overthrow the US Government, like the John Birch Society, they had every opportunity to openly join the Birchers. Allen Dulles, for example, wasn't even employed when JFK was murdered. He had every opportunity to join the John Birch Society -- but he didn't.

(24) The people who OPENLY claimed that JFK was a Communist were called the John Birch Society.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 15, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Paul - do you not think that there is enough evidence to suggest that Oswald was a part of the CIA, or FBI (both were doing this) operation to discredit the FPCC? I think Banister et al were part of that, and not part of a separate operation to frame Oswald.

...As for Guy Banister, he was a hot-head with a terrible temper. He was also an outspoken racist, and when he ran for public office in Lousiana, he openly ran on a racist ticket -- 'keep our schools lily white.' As such, Guy Banister had broken with the FBI..."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

What? Guy Banister had broken with the FBI? Let me guess-- Was it because the FBI was such a bastion of progressive thinking and positive action on civil rights?

LOL ...

--Tommy

Paul "As-Pedantic-As-A-Professor" Trejo wrote:

"Now, even if J. Edgar Hoover was personally sympathetic to these people [Edwin Walker, Guy Banister, and the White Citizens' Council], he would never dare to say so publicly."

I never said that Hoover publicly supported them. You're trying to put words in my mouth. Again.

"Although Guy Banister could (and did) publicly boast about this demand for all white schools, the FBI could not and wouldn't even dare to take that position."

I never said that the FBI publicly took that position.

"So -- yes, Tommy. Guy Banister broke with the FBI. That's a simple, historical fact."

Fine, so Banister appeared to break from the FBI by formally "resigning" from it and going to work for an anti-organized crime section of the New Orleans Police Department and then later starting his own detective agency. But that doesn't mean that he didn't collaborate with Hoover (or the CIA's Angleton for that matter) on mutual projects like the anti-FPCC one that Oswald became ensnared in, thanks to Banister and / or Angleton and Hoover.

"The foundation of Guy Banister's break with the FBI was simply the ideology of the John Birch Society."

You seem to be saying that Banister "quit" the FBI because it was too liberal for his taste; it simply wasn't reactionary (e.g., racist) enough for him. Is that it? (BTW, someday you really should look up the difference in meaning between "reactionary" and "radical".)

"Even if the FBI secretly opposed Earl Warren's decision, they publicly supported it. They might still harass the NAACP, and they might even spy on MLK more than any other person in the USA at the time (as I've read). But they would never dare to contradict Earl Warren on the basic foundations of the Brown Decision."

How about Hoover's giving "ex"-agents like Banister some juicy information from time to time so that they could do some of The Bureau's dirty work?

"So, you can LOL all you want, Tommy, but you're just mistaken about it because you overlooked these political nuances."

LOL!

--Tommy

PS Here's an interesting blurb from the Wikipedia article on Banister:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Banister

"[Only four years after Banister had joined the FBI in 1934,] FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was impressed by Banister's work and, in 1938, he was promoted to run the FBI unit in Butte, Montana. He also served in Oklahoma City, Minneapolis and Chicago. In Chicago, he was the Special Agent in Charge for the FBI.^[5] He retired from the FBI in 1954. Banister moved to Louisiana and, in January 1955, became Assistant Superintendent of the New Orleans Police Department, where he was given the task of investigating organized crime and corruption within the police force. It later emerged that he was also involved in looking at the role that left-wing political activists were playing in the struggle for civil rights in New Orleans.^[6] On the campuses of Tulane University and Louisiana State University, he ran a network of informants collecting information on "communist" activities. He submitted reports on his findings to the FBI through contacts.^[7] In March 1957, Banister was suspended after pulling a gun in public in a bar and threatening a waiter.^[8] His suspension ended in June of that year. However, when he refused to be transferred to the N.O.P.D.'s Planning Department, he was dismissed from the force."

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

So, your Guy Banister didn't completely break from the FBI when he "resigned" from it, did he?

Here's footnote [7] from above , but unfortunately it's not a live "link" as formatted here:

"Appendix to Hearings before the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives, Volume X & 1979 page 127."

edited and bumped

Edited September 15, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Paul "As-Pedantic-As-A-Professor" Trejo wrote:

"Now, even if J. Edgar Hoover was personally sympathetic to these people [Edwin Walker, Guy Banister, and the White Citizens' Council], he would never dare to say so publicly."

I never said that Hoover publicly supported them. You're trying to put words in my mouth. Again.

Tommy, there's no way I tried to put words into your mouth. You denied that Banister broke with the FBI on the topic of Civil Rights -- and I pointed out that OFFICIALLY they broke sharply. Banister called openly for racial segregation in the schools, and the FBI did NOT.

We sharply disagree -- I'm noting this openly -- and I'm not putting any words into your mouth.

"So -- yes, Tommy. Guy Banister broke with the FBI. That's a simple, historical fact."

Fine, so Banister appeared to break from the FBI by formally "resigning" from it and going to work for an anti-organized crime section of the New Orleans Police Department and then later starting his own detective agency. But that doesn't mean that he didn't collaborate with Hoover (or the CIA's Angleton for that matter) on mutual projects like the anti-FPCC one that Oswald became ensnared in, thanks to Banister and / or Angleton and Hoover.

Well, Tommy, neither does it mean that that Guy Banister *did* collaborate with Hoover. You have no proof of that. I on the other hand, have solid proof of my statement that on the central Civil Rights question of the Brown Decision, Banister and the FBI had no choice but to break.

"The foundation of Guy Banister's break with the FBI was simply the ideology of the John Birch Society."

You seem to be saying that Banister "quit" the FBI because it was too liberal for his taste; it simply wasn't reactionary (e.g., racist) enough for him. Is that it? (BTW, someday you really should look up the difference in meaning between "reactionary" and "radical".)

Well, Tommy, first, yes, I am saying that Guy Banister broke with the FBI because it wasn't reactionary enough for his taste.

Secondly, I know the difference between reactionary and radical, and I know that somebody can be a radical reactionary.

Anybody who chooses to use violence and to violate the Constitution to pursue reactionary political goals is a radical reactionary. This is how I characterize Guy Banister (based on the evidence we have from Jim Garrison).

This is also how I characterize the resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker, who fomented a deadly riot at Ole Miss University on 30 September 1962 to prevent one Black Student (James Meredith) from registering as a student there. Walker was also a radical reactionary.

How about Hoover's giving "ex"-agents like Banister some juicy information from time to time so that they could do some of The Bureau's dirty work?

If you have material proof of that, Tommy, I'd like to see it. In point of actual fact, however, Guy Banister broke with the FBI on the topic of the Brown Decision. It takes subtlety to see this -- there are nuances of rightist behavior -- they can't be well-understood with a sledge-hammer and one color of paint.

PS Here's an interesting blurb from the Wikipedia article on Banister:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Banister

<snip>

So, your Guy Banister didn't completely break from the FBI when he "resigned" from it, did he?

--Tommy

Now who's trying to put words into the other's mouth, Tommy? I never denied that J. Edgar Hoover persecuted Martin Luther King, or persecuted the NAACP, using the typical Southern rhetoric that Civil Rights was COMMUNIST. We have ample evidence of this.

My point was one of NUANCE. I have solid proof that Guy Banister sharply broke with the FBI on the topic of the Brown Decision. That's my point, and if you keep denying it, you're really only wasting my time.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 15, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - another way of looking at Banister's resignation from FBI is that it left him more room to pursue his racist agenda. Of course the FBI could not publicly take positions like that, but as you know Hoover's FBI worked tirelessly behind the scenes to thwart the aims of the Civil Rights movement. So the splitting of hairs here seems to me to be immaterial. Some were admitted racists, others secret racists. In my opinion, the fact that Banister, after leaving the FBI, became so openly racist, and that the FBI continued to pursue a racist agenda, suggests they had more in common, and that the division - that is Banister's official reason for leaving the FBI - was more one of convenience than disagreement. That in turn leaves the door wide open for cooperation in what was clearly in both of their interests. Proof? No, no proof. There would not be any proof of such collusion. It is still believable however, and in my opinion therefore more likely than not. Not so strange bedfellows.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - another way of looking at Banister's resignation from FBI is that it left him more room to pursue his racist agenda. Of course the FBI could not publicly take positions like that, but as you know Hoover's FBI worked tirelessly behind the scenes to thwart the aims of the Civil Rights movement. So the splitting of hairs here seems to me to be immaterial. Some were admitted racists, others secret racists. In my opinion, the fact that Banister, after leaving the FBI, became so openly racist, and that the FBI continued to pursue a racist agenda, suggests they had more in common, and that the division - that is Banister's official reason for leaving the FBI - was more one of convenience than disagreement. That in turn leaves the door wide open for cooperation in what was clearly in both of their interests. Proof? No, no proof. There would not be any proof of such collusion. It is still believable however, and in my opinion therefore more likely than not. Not so strange bedfellows.

Your objections are the correct ones, Paul B., and you state them properly.

Still, I can't agree that "splitting hairs" as you put it, is immaterial. I call it paying attention to the NUANCES. The problem with the term, "secret racists," is that it can be applied to ANYBODY -- racist or not. So a large margin of error is possible with that term.

For example, some people weren't racist in 1963, but literally PRETENDED to be racists in the South in order to get political support from the far-right wing. One can speak of George Wallace in this regard, by reference to a movie made about Wallace (George Wallace, 1997) starring Gary Sinise and Angelina Jolie.

In that movie we observe George Wallace losing in election after election because of his tolerant position toward Black Americans, until he realized in 1962 that in the South he could only win with KKK support. Then he came out as a rabid racist and made all those headlines -- but later came to regret it because it led to horrific violence in his State.

One can make a case that many others in 1955-1965 took this same position with the rise of the White Citizens Councils that became so powerful coast to coast in America *after* they changed their names to Citizens Councils. One can make the case, for example, that Congressman John Rousselot was only playing Southern politics when he called for the reversal of the Brown Decision and the impeachment of Earl Warren. He never used the "N" word himself, for example, because he was too meek and gentle for that. Yet he did like to play at Southern politics.

One of the reasons that the attacks on Civil Rights was so violent in the 1960's was because of the Southern doctrine that Civil Rights was COMMUNIST. Without that doctrine, perhaps most Americans who joined a Citizens Council would NEVER have done so.

J. Edgar Hoover never argued for the superiority of the White race -- instead, he argued for the COMMUNISM of the Civil Rights movement. (Some Tea Party folks still argue this.) This started in the South in 1954, and sixty years later still has traction in the South and in some communities in the North. (I might add here that former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen swears that J. Edgar Hoover himself was partly African-American!)

So, Paul B., I think we must "split hairs" on this topic. Allen Dulles said that the solution to the JFK murder can be found in the pages of the Warren Commission -- but we must first become experts at "hair splitting." I think he was telling the truth in that statement.

The FBI was only able to oppose Martin Luther King on the trumped up charge that he was a COMMUNIST. History is clear on that point. Now that the USSR has fallen and there is no more Cold War, only extremists raise that argument today.

But in 1963, perhaps a majority of Americans raised it.

Guy Banister, however, was different. He not only used racism to run for public office in Louisiana, but he was widely portrayed as a violent man with an insulting. racist mouth.

Your view, Paul B., seeks to minimize the distance between the FBI and Guy Banister. That's the wrong way, IMHO. You should instead sharpen the differences, so that we can more easily perceive the REAL KILLERS of JFK.

Because, despite the clear participation of the racist element in the ground-crew support of the Kill-Team (e.g. with Banister, Walker, Roscoe White, J.D. Tippit, and other KKK fellow-travelers) we must also recognize that JFK could not have been murdered without the help of COLORED AMERICANS.

By COLORED AMERICANS in this context I mean Hispanic Americans, and I'll name four suspects here: David Morales, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Guy Gabaldon.

I have argued against those who want to find the Aryan Christian Churches behind the JFK murder, that their theory fails to involve these key Hispanic Americans, because, by definition, Aryan Christian Church leaders would never deal with such "inferiors" as Hispanic Americans.

So -- it wasn't ultimately Racists that killed JFK (according to me). They were only on the sidelines. The professional assassination squad that did the heavy lifting -- these were Cuban Exiles, Cuban mercenaries, and their CIA comrades. I think Larry Hancock has demonstrated (if not proven) this quite voluminously.

The leaders of the JFK plot, however, were IMHO American Civilians of a very specific type, and not the CIA.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 22, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

In an upcoming book on the topic of resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker and the JFK assassination by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, to be published (as I understand it) sometime in 2015, new information will be published about the relationship between Edwin Walker and the notorious Joseph Milteer.

Joseph Milteer was the prime suspect of former FBI Agent Don Adams http://adamsjfk.com/, who began an investigation into Milteer in 1963, but was shut down by his superior officers in the FBI. In later years, Adams saw Milteer's face in a photograph of Dealey Plaza taken as JFK's limo was passing by. This inspired Adams to write his book, From an Office Building with a High-Powered Rifle (2012), which claims that “the FBI’s investigation was compromised from the top down, beginning with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.”

Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, in his forthcoming book, will show material evidence that Joseph Milteer was in frequent contact with Edwin Walker and his close associate, Robert Allen Surrey in Dallas, throughout the summer and fall of 1963.

Robert Allen Surrey, as shown by the Warren Commission, was responsible for the full-page, black-bordered ad in the Dallas Morning News, "Welcome to Dallas, Mr. Kennedy" on 11/22/1963.

Dr. Caufield's new research into Edwin Walker incidentally confirms the eye-witness and ear-witness claims of the aging Harry Dean, who claims to have attended a John Birch Society secret meeting in Southern California in September 1963, in which Ex-General Edwin Walker announced plans to frame a Communist, Lee Harvey Oswald, for the murder of another Communist -- JFK.

The research into Edwin Walker in relation to the JFK murder has taken a half-century to begin, but it is finally beginning, and IMHO will finally lead to material details to solve this case.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 28, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, you keep writing about this as if it were entirely new information. Several researchers have written about Milteer's contacts with virtually any and all right wing figures during this period of time - he constantly traveled the country by automobile. His travels to Texas and his correspondence with a number of right wing individuals has also been documented (there were so many of them that I can't recall if I have a copy of a specific Walker letter or not; I do have a lot of his letters). Stu and I write at length about Milteer and his ultra right connections in The Awful Grace of God. It should be noted that the HSCA actually collected an extensive set of documents on Milteer, including a motel receipt for his room on November 22, 1963 - in North Carolina. Those documents are still in place in a courthouse in Georgia. That is someone else's story to tell and a book may be forthcoming on that as well...not by me.

I will be most interested to see Dr. Caufield's book, especially having spent considerable time researching Milteer's overall activities - there is no doubt that "operationally" he was heavily involved with Stoner of the NSRP and with the network created by Wesley Swift....as well as a couple of very violent groups in the southern states. At one point he offered to actually work with one of the groups to attack the Supreme Court - he had previously had work experience in the capital and was familiar with the buildings and floor plans.

My point is that a number of researchers have spent a good deal of time looking into Milteer, hopefully Dr. Caufield even contacted some of them for their information and perspectives rather than working entirely on his own. When his book does come out there will be considerable contextual material to reference it against, that is always a good thing. I will eagerly await the book.

-- Larry

[Paul Brancato]

Adams claims that FBI investigation into Milteer was compromised from the top down beginning with Hoover. Not aurprised.

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, I'm afraid that should be taken with a small grain of salt, perhaps more than a few grains. There are actually years of extensive FBI files on Milteer, at headquarters at least. And his JFK remarks in Miami were communicated to the Secret Service as well as several FBI field offices, no cover up there at all. You can fault the FBI's investigation - as Stu and I do - but it involved field offices in several states and they were indeed very interested in both Milteer and the informants they were using against them. Much of that is in The Awful Grace of God. I'm not sure how much of this Adams even knew or knows but after Stu spent great amounts of time and years of FOIA requests on Milteer we have a fair picture of the overall investigation of him -- including their history with the key informant they were using.

I would agree that FBI headquarters including Hoover did compromise one area of the Milteer investigation, but that was in regard to the King assassination where Milteer may well have had involvement and knowledge.

-- Larry