Posted on 05/07/2003 6:08:37 PM PDT by ConservativeVoice
McCarthy Transcripts Point to Cover-up by Justice Department
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.comWASHINGTON – The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has just made public its hitherto sealed closed-door hearings 50 years ago showing widespread Soviet penetration of the U.S. government. Despite the negative media spin, the hearing transcripts show its chairman, Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy, was ahead of his time.
Wednesday, May 7, 2003
A prime example is the case of the atomic scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer, whose advocacy of sharing nuclear secrets with the Soviet Union helped bolster the war machine of the genocidal Joseph Stalin. This gave the Soviets a leg up in the Cold War that lasted nearly a half century and took millions of innocent lives.
Paul Crouch, at one time a top functionary of the Communist Party, broke with the Red conspiracy and exposed communists in influential positions. Before McCarthy’s committee, Crouch testified that he had attended a closed Communist Party meeting with Oppenheimer.
Worse, he told the senators, two Justice Department officials in 1952 barred Crouch and his wife from testifying at a perjury trial of another scientist for fear that in so doing, he would end up exposing Oppenheimer.
The result was that the scientist on trial, Dr. Joseph Weinberg, was found innocent of lying when he said he was not communist. Crouch could have identified the man under oath, but because his testimony would also have exposed Oppenheimer, the Justice Department effectively conceded the case.
Part of the testimony before McCarthy’s committee reads as follows:
McCarthy: Did they [the Justice Department lawyers] say who had given them these instructions [not to allow Oppenheimer's name to come up]?
Crouch: No, sir, they did not. They did not indicate it in any way.
And a minute later ...
McCarthy: Is there any doubt in your mind that Oppenheimer was a member of the Communist Party?
Crouch: None whatsoever.
Crouch also testified in public hearings before the Senate panel and shared his knowledge with the FBI.
Now fast forward to 2002:
Out comes the book “Sacred Secrets” by Jorrold and Leona Schecter, two historian/journalists who scoured Soviet archival material and intelligence documents and conducted extensive interviews. They settle the argument. Oppenheimer was not innocent.
Though the authors are also critical of McCarthy, R-Wis., they show the “profound influence that an aggressive Soviet intelligence service exerted on U.S. domestic and foreign policy” in those years.
The Schecters find that Oppenheimer (code name CHESTER) was “a secret member of the American Communist Party [the Soviet NKVD identifies him as an 'unlisted member']." Their book produces FBI and Soviet intelligence documents showing that “the Communist cell to which Oppenheimer had belonged prior to working with the Manhattan Project received instructions to cease relations with CHESTER to avoid compromising him.” Henceforth, his contact would be restricted to Soviet intelligence channels.
Now back to the 1953 testimony before the McCarthy committee:
McCarthy: And if he [Oppenheimer] were under Communist Party [or Soviet] discipline, he, of course would be bound to turn over any atomic secrets to them that he had available?
Crouch: That the party directed.
Also:
Crouch: It is a matter of record that Dr. Oppenheimer appointed many Communists to key positions in the atomic energy program.
His methods might have been crude, even cruel, but a few real rats were, in fact, caught in the trap.
Nothing is ever black and white.
And his methods, as crude as they were, smeared some innocent people (esp in the Army/McCarthy hearings), and as such, hurt the cause of anti-Communism far more than his methods helped it.
Ask yourself this: If a much more responsible yet equally anti-Communist Senator, dedicated to the truth rather than to grabbing headlines, had been in charge of the investigations, wouldn't things have gone a lot better?
Only somebody like McCarthy would have taken this fight on. At the time, it was the third rail in DC. It had been a political embarassment to Truman and, after him, to Eisenhower as well.
The people involved in the Army-McCarthy hearings were innocent, just for starters. Where do you think that "do you at last have no sense of decency" comment came from?
McCarthy did great damage to conservatism. He fired a ton of buckshot, most of which missed the target and hit innocent people.
Nixon going after Hiss via HUAC (of which he was just a member, but the key investigator) was far more effective. It was targeted toward someone against whom there was clear evidence.
Nixon made a lot of enemies due to the Hiss hearings, but he didn't undermine the anti-Communist movement in the process. Rather Nixon proved something that McCarthy was never able to prove, the existence of Communists in high positions in Washington.
McCarthy used generalities ("I have here a list") and rarely had the evidence to support the charges. Yes, he was onto something. But with his wild accusations with minimal evidence, he hurt the cause. A more careful Senator would have rooted out the Lattimores and so forth instead of leaving them painted as victims for several decades.
Disagree. McCarthy had widespread support outside the eastern media until it became clear that he didn't have the evidence.
Remember, the reason McCarthy was listened to in the first place was due to the Hiss perjury trial and conviction (which followed the Hiss/Chambers HUAC hearings). The possibility of Communist infiltration was clearly quite credible and was accepted by everyone but the liberal media. A careful investigation in 1951-52, led by someone like a then-Senator Nixon, would have rooted out the problem without undermining the movement.
Eisenhower got involved (subtly, in the background) when McCarthy started going after innocent Army people. Before then he frankly didn't want to touch the issue, because McCarthy had such widespread popularity, which goes against your third rail argument.
The Chairman. Mr. Crouch, there is something we have often wondered about, and maybe you can enlighten us. In the trial of this Scientist X, as I recall, you had considerable information and evidence on him. Why weren't you called by the Justice Department in that case, if you know?
Mr. Crouch. I was called as an expert witness in rebuttal, but was not permitted to describe my knowledge of him as a member of the party, or to describe the closed meetings of the Communist party I had attended. And my wife [Sylvia Crouch], who was under subpoena in the trial, was not called at all, and I was advised informally to the effect that it was impossible for us to give our testimony without bringing in the name of an internationally famous scientist who was also a member of the Communist party, who had been present at the meetings with Scientist X.
The Chairman. Who in the Justice Department told you you could not be used to testify about your knowledge of Scientist X, his Communist activities?
Mr. Crouch. Mr. Cunningham, of the Justice Department, and Mr. Hitz, assistant United States attorney, advised me that I would not be questioned because our testimony would bring in his name.
The Chairman. Bring in the name of Robert Oppenheimer?
Mr. Crouch. Yes, sir. Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer.
The Chairman. Both you and your wife, I understand, then, were available; the Justice Department knew you had attended Communist party meetings with Scientist X, and one of the issues was whether or not he was a Communist?
Mr. Crouch. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And the jury found him not to be a Communist, ultimately?
Mr. Crouch. They found him not guilty due to lack of sufficient identifying witnesses who had been in closed meetings with him, that is, witnesses who could testify to that effect.
The Chairman. Just for the record, was he being tried for perjury?
Mr. Crouch. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And one of the counts was that he committed perjury when he said he was not a Communist?
Mr. Crouch. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And because of lack of evidence, he was acquitted?
Mr. Crouch. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And both you and your wife, when members of the Communist party, had attended these closed Communist party meetings with him, and you were informed by two Justice Department lawyers that you would not be used because if you were used and you were examined as to who else was there, you would have had to identify Robert J. Oppenheimer; is that it?
Mr. Crouch. To that effect, yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did they say who had given them those instructions?
Mr. Crouch. No, sir, they did not, they did not indicate it in any way.
The Chairman. When was this trial held?
Mr. Crouch. Last year. The Chairman. What was the date of that trial, Roy? Mr. Cohn. I don't know the exact date.
The Chairman. And Scientist X, who has been identified, as Scientist X, what is his name again?
Mr. Crouch. Dr. Joseph Weinberg.
The Chairman. Is there any doubt in your mind that Oppenheimer was a member of the Communist party?
Mr. Crouch. No, sir, none whatever. I met him in a closed meeting of the Communist party in a house which was subsequently found to have been his residence at the time, although I did not know it then, and following that I met him at quite a number of Communist party affairs in Alameda County.
The Chairman. I noticed with some interest Oppenheimer's articles in regard to the H-bomb, for example; he vigorously opposed our proceeding with any experimentation in the development of the H-bomb. When he lost out in that, he now has taken the position that we should not have an air force capable of delivering that bomb. Maybe I am simplifying it a bit, but in fact that is his argument. His argument has been that we should build a screen of defense around this nation.
From your knowledge of the working of the Communist party, do you know whether or not that was the policy of the Communist party at that time?
Mr. Crouch. His position, in substance, his efforts have corresponded with the efforts of the Communist press throughout this period. The Communist press has sought to prevent the development of the H-bomb. They have sought to obtain a U.S. pledge not to use the atomic bomb, first in time of war, and their policy has coincided with the public statements of Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer and the authoritative press accounts of J. Robert Oppenheimer's position as appeared recently in Fortune magazine, Life, and others.
The Chairman. Just to refresh my recollection and to get the record straight on this, is it correct that after you notified the FBI that you had attended a closed Communist meeting with Oppenheimer that they drove you around the city of Los Angeles to find the house in which you had attended that meeting?
Mr. Crouch. Not Los Angeles--in Berkeley, California.
The Chairman. In Berkeley?
Mr. Crouch. Yes, sir. FBI Agent Brush, and another FBI agent----
The Chairman. Brush?
Mr. Crouch. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. B-r-u-s-h?
Mr. Crouch. Yes.
The Chairman. Do you know his first name?
Mr. Crouch. I don't recall.
The Chairman. Do you know the other agent's name?
Mr. Crouch. Modehouse, or a similar name.
The Chairman. In any event, they drove you around Berkeley to see if you could find the house in which you had attended the meeting with Oppenheimer; is that correct?
Mr. Crouch. That's right.
The Chairman. And you drew a diagram for them of the inside of the house?
Mr. Crouch. Exterior and interior, before the house was located.
The Chairman. So that before the house was located you gave them a drawing of the interior of the house in which you attended the meeting, and you described the exterior of the house; you didn't know the address, so they drove you around until you found the house?
Mr. Crouch. That's correct. All I knew was the house was in the hills around Berkeley, overlooking the bay. That's all I knew. I gave these drawings to the FBI and to the California Un-American Activities Committee.
The Chairman. Now, when someone from the FBI later went into this house, did they find that your drawing of the interior was an accurate drawing of the house?
Mr. Crouch. I don't know whether the FBI went into the interior or not, but they told me they had obtained information regarding the interior, and that the interior corresponded to my drawings and description.
The Chairman. Was it discovered then also that at the time the meeting was held in this house, the meeting which you attended, that he was living in that house?
Mr. Crouch. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. In other words, that was his home?
Mr. Crouch. That was the first information I obtained that that was the home of J. Robert Oppenheimer, was from the FBI, from Agent Brush.
The Chairman. How many Communist meetings would you say you attended with Oppenheimer?
Mr. Crouch. I attended one closed meeting restricted only to party members, where I gave an official report. I attended a number, at least six, social affairs arranged by the Communist party, where he was present, one being at the home of Kenneth May, one being an affair arranged to raise funds for the Spanish Communists.
Incidentally, I talked with Dr. Oppenheimer last year in the presence of Justice Department officials and Dr. Oppenheimer recalled one of these occasions, the one to raise funds for Spain, and placed the date of it as the night before Pearl Harbor, in the presence of Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Hitz. As for the other affairs, he said, in substance, he attended so many Communist-arranged affairs, he couldn't recall how many; he might well have been at the one at Kenneth May's home. He could not recall the closed meeting at his own home or my report there. He did recall one meeting at which Mr. William Schneiderman was present in 1941.
The Chairman. Now, there are two Oppenheimers, both rather famous, and I think we should have the record clear that you are speaking about the Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer.
Mr. Crouch. Yes, I knew both. I knew his brother, Frank as a Communist, also, and identified Frank as a Communist in testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in May of 1949. . . .
There are many other Communists who were employed by Dr. Oppenheimer and also, according to the California committee's information, Dr. Oppenheimer was active in urging atomic scientists to join a Communist espionage apparatus called the FAECT--Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians--headed by Marcel Scherer, who had been trained in the espionage schools in Moscow and who had been in charge of infiltration of scientists since 1928, to my personal knowledge.
The Chairman. This FAECT was headed by a man who went to the Moscow School of Espionage and Sabotage?
Mr. Crouch. Yes.
The. Chairman. That is the Lenin school?
Mr. Crouch. Yes.
The Chairman. Where is he now, do you know?
Mr. Crouch. He is in New York City at the present time. The Chairman. Is he connected with atomic work now, do you know?
Mr. Crouch. I don't know.
The Chairman. What is his name?
Mr. Crouch. Marcel Scherer.
The Chairman. Oh, yes.
Mr. Crouch. I personally participated in discussions that set up this apparatus for scientific espionage in 1928 and was present at discussions between Scherer and William Z. Foster, and Scherer and Communist international representatives from Moscow, when this project was approved.
The Chairman. That will be all, then, for today.
Bobby Kennedy served on McCarthy's committee and he made the Senator the godfather of his son. JFK praised McCarthy as a "fine American" and told the public that "He might be on to something"...
Mr. Cohn. Mr. Gragis, were you ever employed at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratory?
Mr. Gragis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cohn. And did you work there from 1945 to 1950?
Mr. Gragis. Yes, roughly that.
Mr. Cohn. Did you work on any government work while you were there?
Mr. Gragis. Yes.
Mr. Cohn. Mr. Gragis, were you at that time a member of the Communist party?
Mr. Gragis. Not for the full length of that time, but for a good period of the time.
Mr. Cohn. You were a member of the Communist party?
Mr. Gragis. Yes.
Mr. Cohn. During what years were you a member of the Communist party?
Mr. Gragis. Say from about 1946 to very early in 1950.
Mr. Cohn. You were a member of the party from 1946----
Mr. Gragis. To rather early in 1950.
Mr. Cohn. I see. Were any of the other people working at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratory members of the Communist party?
Mr. Gragis. Some.
Mr. Cohn. Can you furnish us with their names? Mr. Gragis. Yes, I can. Harry Hyman, Al Shadowitz, Ruth Levine, Jack Saunders . . .
Mr. Cohn. Did you know Ernest Pataki?
Mr. Gragis. Yes.
Mr. Cohn. Was he a party member?
Mr. Gragis. Yes.
Mr. Cohn. How about Frank McGee?
Mr. Gragis. Yes.
Mr. Cohn. Leo Kantrowitz?
Mr. Gragis. Yes.
Mr. Cohn. Andy Castros?
Mr. Gragis. Yes.
Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings at Harry Hyman's home?
Mr. Gragis. Quite a number of times.
Mr. Cohn. At Hyman's home?
Mr. Gragis. Yes.
Mr. Cohn. How about at Pataki's home?
Mr. Gragis. Quite a few times.
Mr. Cohn. And while attending these cell meetings with people from the Federal Telecommunications Laboratory, were there ever any discussions of revolution and specifically of ``State and Revolution'' by Lenin?
Mr. Gragis. Yes. Frank McGee was the leader of the educational discussion.
Mr. Cohn. He was the leader?
Mr. Gragis. Yes.
Mr. Cohn. And had he been employed at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratory?
Mr. Gragis. Yes.
Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, this Mr. Gragis obviously is a most cooperative witness, and he is taking a very honorable approach to this. I was wondering, rather than asking him anything more, if Mr. Buckley could talk to him later in the afternoon or tomorrow, and then possibly we would have Mr. Gragis later. I think that is it. Mr. Buckley will work along with you, Mr. Gragis, and we will keep in touch with you that way. We certainly want to thank you for taking this attitude.
Mr. Gragis. If I might just say one word----
Mr. Cohn. Surely.
Mr. Gragis [continuing]. I wish to say this, that when I was separated from the company, FTL, I spent a good number of years thinking on just what I should do and before I read in the papers about Fort Monmouth or anything about FTL, I had come to the conclusion that I should voluntarily go to the FBI and I did. I gave them a complete history of myself for about twenty years back.
The Chairman. How long ago did you do that?
Mr. Gragis. That was around June of last year, I believe. Now, I might be wrong, but I think it is around then, June or maybe July.
The Chairman. I think the country owes a rather deep debt to people who have made a mistake and who are willing to rectify it as well as they can by going to the FBI or to the committee and give then that information. I know your job is an unpleasant one. It would be much easier for you to come in and refuse to testify and that sort of thing. I would like to thank you very, very much for the help not only that you have given to the committee but for the help that we understand you have also given to the FBI.
Mr. Gragis. May I say another thing?
The Chairman. Certainly.
Mr. Gragis. I have another fear now, too, and that is this: Although I went to the FBI, I knew that my appearance before them would be kept in the strictest confidence. Because I have appeared here now I have a fear that should I be publicized or anything, that some of these subversives might make my life miserable at home with my wife or daughter. Mr. Cohn. We will have Mr. Buckley work with you on that angle, and we will do everything within our power to prevent that. We will be mindful of the fact that that is a problem.
(break)
Mr. Cohn. We just had a witness in here who said that while you were working at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratory, you were a member of the Communist party. Were you?
Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that under the Fifth Amendment a person may not be compelled to bear witness against himself.
Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the party today?
Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the same ground.
Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the party while working at Zenith on Monday?
Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds.
(break)
Mr. Cohn. While you were attending Cornell, did you know a man named Alfred Sarant?
Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
Mr. Cohn. Did Sarant recruit you into the Rosenberg spy ring?
Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
Mr. Cohn. Did you engage in a conspiracy to commit espionage with certain persons working for the Army Signal Corps? (snip)
Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
Mr. Cohn. In the year 1952, were you asked by William Perl to place a person working in the Army Signal Corps in contact with the Soviet underground in this country?
Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
Mr. Cohn. Did you transmit instructions to various members of the Rosenberg spy ring within the last eighteen months?
Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. (snip)
The Chairman. Mr. Finestone, you have been accused, and obviously have been guilty of, espionage, which is treason against your country, or otherwise you would answer these questions. You have had an accusation against you of being a part of the Rosenberg spy ring. How many deaths that spy ring, including you, have caused, no one will ever know, of course.
How many more people have died because of your activities as a traitor, no one will know. Let me ask you this question: In view of the fact that the Rosenbergs were executed for the same crime of which you are obviously guilty, can you see any reason why you should not meet the same fate that they did?
[The witness conferred with his counsel.]
Mr. Finestone. I don't believe I can answer that question. I don't see the relevance or the assumptions that it is based on.
gosh...this sounds just like mr n mrs bill klinton... n their communist administration sharing with the chiCOMM's
For such "dedicated" people, that wasn't very many for the un-America committee to stop.
I read Radical Son too. Great read.
I suspect that the destruction of McCarthy was where the OldDominantLiberalMedia learned just how powerful it was, and how free from restraint it might be.
It appears to me, more and more, that Watergate was essentially a "Media Coup".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.