29-06-2014, 05:54 PM
Simkin did offer a kind of flip last word when asked as to what he really meant by the comparison of Hiss with the WC.
He said that Hiss, according to Weinstein, should have been arrested years before. But somehow the FBI fell down in their duties to hunt down communists.
Can you believe this? Hoover was not militant enough against commies. Mr Palmer Raids somehow was getting soft on reds.
The problem for both the FBI and Justice was simple. When Chambers first went to Adolph Berle in 1939, there was no mention of espionage according to Berle's notes at State Department. In fact, at that time, Chambers did not even say the several government officials he saw at meetings were communists. In other words, there was no crime. Chambers simply accused Hiss, and other government officials, of being at first, interested observers out to gather ideas, then communist sympathizers, and later, as his story endlessly changed, party members. That pattern--of there being no espionage-- continued for several years. In fact, Chambers specifically denied there was any espionage as late as August of 1946. And he insisted that he left the communist party in December of 1937. He said the same before HUAC in the summer of 1948. In other words, for ten years, Chambers said there was no espionage involved and he left the party in December of 1937.
It was only after Hiss denied his association with the communist party that Nixon, a member of HUAC, now went to work. He prepared a report entitled "Hearings Regarding Communist Espionage in the United States Government." This despite the fact that, for ten years, Chambers never mentioned any espionage, in fact, he specifically denied it. Nixon now went to work making it appear that Chambers had accused Hiss of espionage. When, in fact, he had not.
Therefore, it was only now that Chambers--after forgetting about it for ten years-- produced some documents and the infamous Pumpkin Papers. After being visited by Nixon, and Nixon leaving town, Chambers deliberately moved some documents to a pumpkin and delayed his "discovery" of them to night. Nixon had this "discovery at nightime" scene photographed by the media, as he also had himself photographed as he returned from abroad to bolster Chambers' newest story. In other words, this was all rehearsed stagecraft for the cameras . It was these documents which Chambers and Nixon now said that Hiss and his wife retyped, and this contained the core of this newly created charge of espionage. Except, without the typwriter, there was nothing to link them to Hiss. So now the FBI--which according to Weinstein was protecting Hiss-- went about creating a typewriter. And they cleverly planted it on the defense, to make it seem as if Hiss--who thought the typewriter would acquit him-- was incriminating himself.
But there was one problem which Nixon overlooked. Some of the documents were dated as late as April of 1938. If Chambers had left he communist party in late 1937, how could that be so? Why would he still be spying for them? So now, after saying no less than five times that he left in 1937, Chambers changed his story again. To coincide with these new documents he forgot about, he now said he left the party in April of 1938. Does this not strongly suggest the documents themselves were planted? For if they were not, Chambers would have reviewed them before one of his interviews with Berle and the FBI, and he would have kept his story straight.
And its on this ground that Simkin, and his hero Weinstein, say the FBI should have arrested Hiss previously? Hiss and about 6-7 others, including asst. Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White, who Chambers said had attended communist meetings? I guess Weinstein wanted Hoover to go back to the Palmer Raids days. If you were accused of attending a communist meeting, you go to jail. Even on the word of someone who was as nutty and unreliable as Chambers.
Finally, what the heck does this have to do with the JFK case? Is Simkin saying the FBI should have arrested Oswald in advance of the assassination? For what? Being an agent provocateur for the CIA and an FBI informant? For going to Mexico City and meeting with Kostikov? When in fact, most observers think that was nothing but paper mache? In fact, as John Newman so finely elucidates, it was part of the plot.
I have never thought much of Simkin as a JFK researcher. But the above makes me wonder about his abilities as a historian also.
He said that Hiss, according to Weinstein, should have been arrested years before. But somehow the FBI fell down in their duties to hunt down communists.
Can you believe this? Hoover was not militant enough against commies. Mr Palmer Raids somehow was getting soft on reds.
The problem for both the FBI and Justice was simple. When Chambers first went to Adolph Berle in 1939, there was no mention of espionage according to Berle's notes at State Department. In fact, at that time, Chambers did not even say the several government officials he saw at meetings were communists. In other words, there was no crime. Chambers simply accused Hiss, and other government officials, of being at first, interested observers out to gather ideas, then communist sympathizers, and later, as his story endlessly changed, party members. That pattern--of there being no espionage-- continued for several years. In fact, Chambers specifically denied there was any espionage as late as August of 1946. And he insisted that he left the communist party in December of 1937. He said the same before HUAC in the summer of 1948. In other words, for ten years, Chambers said there was no espionage involved and he left the party in December of 1937.
It was only after Hiss denied his association with the communist party that Nixon, a member of HUAC, now went to work. He prepared a report entitled "Hearings Regarding Communist Espionage in the United States Government." This despite the fact that, for ten years, Chambers never mentioned any espionage, in fact, he specifically denied it. Nixon now went to work making it appear that Chambers had accused Hiss of espionage. When, in fact, he had not.
Therefore, it was only now that Chambers--after forgetting about it for ten years-- produced some documents and the infamous Pumpkin Papers. After being visited by Nixon, and Nixon leaving town, Chambers deliberately moved some documents to a pumpkin and delayed his "discovery" of them to night. Nixon had this "discovery at nightime" scene photographed by the media, as he also had himself photographed as he returned from abroad to bolster Chambers' newest story. In other words, this was all rehearsed stagecraft for the cameras . It was these documents which Chambers and Nixon now said that Hiss and his wife retyped, and this contained the core of this newly created charge of espionage. Except, without the typwriter, there was nothing to link them to Hiss. So now the FBI--which according to Weinstein was protecting Hiss-- went about creating a typewriter. And they cleverly planted it on the defense, to make it seem as if Hiss--who thought the typewriter would acquit him-- was incriminating himself.
But there was one problem which Nixon overlooked. Some of the documents were dated as late as April of 1938. If Chambers had left he communist party in late 1937, how could that be so? Why would he still be spying for them? So now, after saying no less than five times that he left in 1937, Chambers changed his story again. To coincide with these new documents he forgot about, he now said he left the party in April of 1938. Does this not strongly suggest the documents themselves were planted? For if they were not, Chambers would have reviewed them before one of his interviews with Berle and the FBI, and he would have kept his story straight.
And its on this ground that Simkin, and his hero Weinstein, say the FBI should have arrested Hiss previously? Hiss and about 6-7 others, including asst. Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White, who Chambers said had attended communist meetings? I guess Weinstein wanted Hoover to go back to the Palmer Raids days. If you were accused of attending a communist meeting, you go to jail. Even on the word of someone who was as nutty and unreliable as Chambers.
Finally, what the heck does this have to do with the JFK case? Is Simkin saying the FBI should have arrested Oswald in advance of the assassination? For what? Being an agent provocateur for the CIA and an FBI informant? For going to Mexico City and meeting with Kostikov? When in fact, most observers think that was nothing but paper mache? In fact, as John Newman so finely elucidates, it was part of the plot.
I have never thought much of Simkin as a JFK researcher. But the above makes me wonder about his abilities as a historian also.