CC on CC

Chaplin said in 1972 concern the post-war 'Red Scare.'

I've read both MA and the RAMPARTS article (I have it here next to me) and I found *neither* to be 'seething with resentment.' But from someone who reads so much into a Presidential laugh

Yeah, sorta like the 80ish Lita outgrowing her anger at Chaplin in her second book.

~ Crooner

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

    Read the part where Steffens asks, 'What was he getting even with?.' I never said the whole article depicts him in that 'seething' mode.

You don't need to read a lot into that laugh to see that it didn't mean disapproval of Hoover, or of wiretapping a prominent left-wing politician.

Just to amplify my original comments, Prior to Chaplin's indictment, LA Federal Prosecutor Charles Carr went to Washington to confer with AG Francis Biddle and head Justice Dept criminal prosecutor Tom Clark. This was December, 1943. Strategies were discussed concerning the Chaplin case.

(Carr began his investigation in order to expose corruption within the Beverly Hills police force. Specifically, he was interested in the use of the police force by wealthy BH citizens as a private security force. He concluded that Chaplin might have used the police this way in order to get Joan Barry out of town

You definitely need to read *something* into it to see anything other than that FDR was enjoying the fact that Hoover got caught. Whether you choose to see that as two pals who share political goals commiserating, or the reaction of a political adversary to someone with whom he has a civil personal relationship (a la Kennedy and Hatch), depends on how you view the realities of history. George's supremely creative view of history is quite simply not one I share.

His unwillingness to attempt to view anything historical from *outside* of his particularly unique perspective is what, it seems to me, leads him from 'no evidence' through weeks of contentious debate, for the expressed purpose of seeing to it that 'liberals and democrats share the blame', on the basis of his perception of the views of one reviewer of a book he hasn't even read.

Thanks, George.

In true Shelpsian fashion, George neglects to mention that during the Mann Act trial which led to an acquittal for Chaplin, the civil rights violation action (which had been joined to the Mann Act charges) was dropped at the specific instruction of the Attorney General. The FDR Justice Department chose to neither appeal this trial, nor pursue filing perjury charges against some of the witnesses as had been suggested by the FBI.

Also interesting, is the timing. According to the FBI files, Hoover assigned a special agent to investigate Chaplin's involvement with Joan Barry 2 months after she first publicly accused Chaplin of paternity in June of 1943. 3 days after assigning the special agent, Hoover requested that the investigation be expedited. In the next 4 months the Bureau produced over 400 pages of material. Nowhere in any of this material is there any indication that it was requested or authorized by anyone outside the FBI.

Indeed, the evidence shows that at least as regards the civil rights parts of 'Carr's dubious plan' they *were* quashed by the Attorney General. And no further action was taken after the acquittal by anyone in the Justice Department until McGranery. The same can most definitely *not* be said of the FBI.

But they *did*, although a bit later than would have been most just. And the evidence shows a strong and almost overriding involvement of the FBI in the Mann Act portion of the indictment during the same period of time and later.

Two reviews. And I *have* read the book.

You simply want me to agree with your paranoid left-wing perspective, and we've had enough of that passing as 'history.'

It's time for truth.

That's news to everyone here. You've only cited one review and gave no background on the reviewer. Would you be willing to share some idea of the perspective he brings to the topic? Maybe the same on the author? Is the other review consistent with the first? Who wrote it, and what background does *he* have?

My 'paranoid left-wing perspective' asserts only that J. Edgar was *by far* more influential and responsible for the government's harassment and persecution of Chaplin than any other single individual. I'm more than happy to have that perspective stand the test of rational historical analysis.

Ya mean like Gerald L.K. Smith? *That* kind of 'truth'?