How about in 1945 within the first three months of winning WWII.. . . And @GeographyDude when is Truman doing this? . . .
How about in 1945 within the first three months of winning WWII.. . . And @GeographyDude when is Truman doing this? . . .
seems like a pretty good idea. . . An ambassadorship, he really wanted,
No Hoover was appointed by the President and if he did do bad things why did they keep appointing him? Remember, how ironic it was Truman, "The Buck Stops Here". That would gain a mass of sympathy.How about in 1945 within the first three months of winning WWII.![]()
Hoover had dirt on everyone, including the presidents. The only way to remove Hoover is to get dirt on him and hope he doesn't take you down with him.No Hoover was appointed by the President and if he did do bad things why did they keep appointing him? Remember, how ironic it was Truman, "The Buck Stops Here". That would gain a mass of sympathy.
He would go away if he was given something else. Dewey was going to put Hoover on the Supreme Court. An ambassadorship, he really wanted,
Really couldn't dismiss or arrest him as he had too much Washington clout. Moving him was the only viable option and he, (according to plans drawn up with Dewey) preferred to take a Supreme Court Justice position and have his second take over the FBI. Which makes sense as it gives him an 'official' life-time position to 'adjust' American law as he saw fit and still effectively run the FBI at the same time. He never seemed to care about organized crime and was always more politically motivated which was a detriment to the FBI I think.
Rumor is I don't know why, if he couldn't get on the court, he wanted an ambassadorship to New Zealand.
Name him ambassador to Turkey. He'll get to continue playing his little secret police spiel, and have an adversary to measure in the form of the NKVD.
How would Hoover influe on the SCOTUS jurispridence on civil rights and criminal law?
The earliest opening is Frank Murphy dying on 1949; Hoover could take his place instead of Tom C. Clark, who seemed to be a moderate, favorable to civil rights, moderate on criminal law and deferent to the government over the anti-subversion laws enacted during the 1950s.
The irony is Hoover opposed the internment of the Japanese. Arresting a victim is wrong and stupidHow many people would say those are wrong to do? If after China goes communist, it's Truman politicizing the FBI by firing the one man against communism. If before that, Republicans will hammer him. They opposed his legislation 100%, and Hoover had a great PR machine. He got away with calling an old lady "a hardened criminal." The U.S. interned Japanese Americans just a few years before, the supreme court hasn't ruled in favor of a right to an attorney, need for warrants, Miranda rights. You are looking at it from 2017. Then? It would only matter if he was doing any of that to the right sort of WASP, and not immigrants/left/etc. That's the issue, most people would view it as an attack on the G-men, and not as advancing civil rights.
He would go away if he was given something else. Dewey was going to put Hoover on the Supreme Court. An ambassadorship, he really wanted,
Secret Service executes a mob style hit on Hoover?
By that time yes. 15 years earlier, Hoover might have been openI'm afraid old Jay Edgar didn't want any other job than the one he had. I can say
this with confidence because IOTL LBJ did
try to fire Hoover. But he found it just too
difficult & backed off. Now LBJ was a master
horse trader, which of course involves you
giving the other guy what he wants in ex-
change for him giving you what YOU want.
If Johnson couldn't find something- anything
- else to give Hoover, than it just wasn't there. (Incidentally, he justified keeping
Hoover with this priceless statement: "Well,
it's probably better to have him inside the
tent pissing out, than outside pissing in.")
(Quoted in David Halberstam, THE BEST
AND THE BRIGHTEST, 1972, p. 529 in the
Fawcett Crest edition)