Celebrities, Gay, Privacy, SCOTUS, Supreme Court

LBJ, FBI, And SCOTUS All Spying On George Hamilton Because... Gay Stuff

Basically, the government spied on its people just as much in the 60s as it does today, it's just back then knowing gay people made you "a potential terrorist" instead of "Bravo's demographic."

By  
on

When you think of George Hamilton, if at all, you think of the walking precautionary example for artificial tanning. Maybe you think of Tom Hagen’s replacement as the Corleone Family lawyer in Godfather III (if you acknowledge that the movie exists). But there was a time in the 60s when George Hamilton was the bee’s knees and hob-knobbing with the rich and powerful.

And because he was an actor, Lyndon Johnson thought Hamilton was “running around with a bunch of homosexuals,” so the White House set the U.S. Supreme Court and — ironically — J. Edgar Hoover on the case of digging into George Hamilton’s private life. It’s like a “Stars — They’re Just Like Us” feature for the current administration — see, government spied on its people just as much in the 60s as it does today. It’s just back then knowing gay people made you “a potential terrorist” instead of “Bravo’s demographic.”

Thanks to a FOIA request at the heart of an Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision, this is all finally coming to light…

Professor Tuan Samahon, of Villanova Law, is researching the premature resignation of Justice Abe Fortas. Professor Samahon has uncovered some interesting nuggets along the way, including a message from a Deputy Director of the FBI to Justice Fortas alleging that the former justice had engaged a male prostitute. Based on this and other information uncovered, Professor Samahon believed that the FBI blackmailed Justice Fortas about an illicit relationship to get confidential intel on the inner workings of the Supreme Court. It’s a pretty salacious theory. Unfortunately for Professor Samahon, it turned out to be wrong, but in a crazy and unpredictable way.

The crux of this case is the so-called DeLoach memorandum, written by then-FBI Deputy Director Cartha DeLoach, which sounds like the name of a bounty hunter working for the Hutts. In a version released to Professor Samahon, DeLoach wrote:

For record purposes, Justice Fortas called at 10:30 this morning to express appreciation for the information the Director had me furnish him concerning the [REDACTED] matter. Justice Fortas advised he agreed with the Director that no further action need be taken at this time. He stated he would get in touch with us in the event further inquiries should be made.

Sponsored

In the very same memo, DeLoach notes that he asked Justice Fortas to spill the beans on when the Court would render a decision in a wiretapping case and what the decision would say. According to the memo, Justice Fortas — who had recused himself from the case — explained when the decision would be released and that the Court was going to remand the case. DeLoach himself would later describe these disclosures as “blatantly unethical,” but that assumes there are ethical constraints on SCOTUS, which is downright fanciful.

After reviewing an unredacted version of the memo and the underlying FBI files in camera, Judge Eduardo Robreno swatted aside the FBI’s arguments to keep evidence of their abuse of power under wraps and revealed that the redacted individual was none other than George Hamilton.

At the time, George Hamilton was dating Lynda Bird Johnson, LBJ’s daughter, and President Johnson saw it within his purview as a father to order the nation’s chief law enforcement agency to probe Hamilton with a specific eye toward finding out if someone in Hollywood might have gay friends. Thus, DeLoach was tasked “to go up and see Abe Fortas,” who was still LBJ’s resident fixer even though he was already sitting on the Supreme Court. Justice Fortas then acted as the go-between on the investigation. Speaking of “blatantly unethical,” if the Supreme Court is going to impose any limit on itself, then “running personal, probably illegal, errands for the President” should get on the list before leaking SCOTUS’s schedule.

It turns out that George Hamilton had reason to worry. Apparently the plot of Zorro, The Gay Blade was not far off:

Hamilton writes that his brother, Bill, was gay, and that “‘gay’ was the dirtiest word anyone could have used in and around the Johnson White House.” Id. at 201. According to Hamilton, “[a]s far as homosexual scandals were concerned, the legal doctrine of ‘fruit of the poisoned tree’ often applied, fair or not,” meaning that, “[i]f Bill were outed, [Hamilton] would be inevitably tarred” with the “homosexual” label as well. Id. at 202. Hamilton says that he “didn’t want [his] family dragged into the mud,” and that his relationship with Lynda Bird Johnson ended shortly after Hamilton became aware of that scrutiny.

Sponsored

As this passage suggests, George Hamilton was ultimately aware that people were looking into him because of his relationship with the daughter of the president, but he may not have known that this scrutiny was coming from an at best sketchy and at worst illegal FBI investigation spearheaded by a Supreme Court justice. Now there’s something to be proud of: “I inspired two branches of government to trample the Bill of Rights.” It’s a better credit for the résumé than 8 Heads in a Dufflebag.

Judge Robreno’s decision ordering the FBI to release unredacted (except for certain personal information) copies of Hamilton’s nearly 50-year-old file to Professor Samahon recognizes that the released documents don’t help the professor’s preexisting theory, but notes of the FBI’s investigation:

Ultimately, the inquiry uncovered little, if any, negative information about George Hamilton, but it reveals much about the ways and means of the government’s investigation of private citizens in the 1960s.

But also consider the paradox of this case. While the revelations provided by Edward Snowden and the frightening abuse of power implications of using the FBI to vet your daughter’s boyfriends shows how little the arrogance of the U.S. government has changed over the last half century, the fact that the Supreme Court is recognizing gay marriage less than 50 years after one of its liberals led a witch hunt to expose an actor for knowing gay men is a sign of monumental change. If one considers public awareness in any way critical to the latter progress, maybe it’s time for more transparency or at least scrutiny of the former.

In about 50 years, maybe we’ll get some.

The whole decision, including Judge Robreno’s thorough critique of the FBI’s lame excuses for withholding the file, is available on the next page.

1 2Next »

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,