The Clintons' War on Women
Page 23
This reported “mouth to neck” circumstance surrounding Mr. Foster’s death explains:
(1) Paramedic Richard Arthur’s sworn testimony: “What I saw is what I saw…. and I saw a small—what appeared to be a small gunshot wound here near the jawline. Fine, whether the coroner’s report says that or not, fine. I know what I saw.”
(2) [Redacted]
(3) Why many of the crime scene Polaroid photographs mysteriously vanished;
(4) Why the FBI falsely reported all 35 millimeter photographs were “underexposed” and that despite attempts by the FBI laboratory these photographs “were of limited value;”
(5) Press reports that Miguel Rodriquez resigned from his position with the OIC after he “insisted on conducting a painstaking review of the case [but was] met with stiff opposition from FBI agents assigned to Starr’s probe”—after he had the original Polaroid photographs “enhanced by a specialized lab outside the FBI”;
(6) A press report that a “photograph … reveals that Foster suffered trauma to the right side of his neck, just below the jawline … it has the appearance of a small caliber gunshot wound … a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr … has shown it to individuals ‘off the record’… this photo was never presented to the panel of four pathologists brought in by the Fiske investigation …”
(7) A press report that “Joe Purvis … said last March that he was told by a staff member of Ruebel’s Funeral Home in Little Rock that Foster had … an exit wound ‘the size of a dime’ close to the neck at the hairline”; and
(8) Why investigators stated that no autopsy X-rays were taken while inexplicably failing to investigate significant evidence the X-rays were in fact taken but mysteriously vanished.
The Medical Examiner’s report that there was a gunshot exit wound in Mr. Foster’s neck is inconsistent with the official conclusion that this neck wound “did not exist,” and is but one of numerous records in this matter which refute the official conclusions.
CONCLUSION
Patrick Knowlton reported to authorities what he had seen at Fort Marcy Park shortly before the official discovery of Mr. Foster’s body. Mr. Knowlton complied with FBI agent Larry Monroe’s request that he not report his observations to the press.
After Mr. Knowlton learned from a reporter, some 27 months after Mr. Foster’s death, that agent Monroe had falsified his account, his account along with contradictory information from his FBI interview reports were reported in a London newspaper. That newspaper account was the catalyst for Mr. Knowlton’s being:
(1) Targeted by an orchestrated campaign of harassment and intimidation;
(2) Treated with utmost disrespect during his grand jury appearance;
(3) Attacked as a delusional conspiracy theorist;
(4) Wrongfully attacked as being a homosexual; and
(5) Attacked as an outright liar.
Mr. Knowlton did nothing to deserve this outrageous treatment at the hands of the FBI and the OIC. He did nothing to deserve being yanked into this FBI debacle, having his life turned upside down, and having to endure this fight for his reputation. Patrick Knowlton’s only “crime” was reporting to the authorities what he had seen at Fort Marcy Park—consistent with his understanding of his duties as a good citizen.
Mr. Knowlton’s position that the intimidation he suffered were overt acts in furtherance of an overall FBI conspiracy to obstruct justice will gain more acceptance after the release and public review of the Independent
Counsel’s final report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 594(h)(2) and upon release and public review of other records pursuant to, inter alia, 5 U.S.C. § 552; 28 C.F.R. § 16, Subpart A; 28 U.S.C. § 594(k)(4)(B), and 28 U.S.C. § 595(a)(2). In light of significant evidence of a cover-up already in the public domain, and based upon the fact that most of the investigative records in this matter will eventually be released, it is axiomatic that the subject Office of Independent Counsel will go down in history as facilitating a fraud upon the American people by its use (perhaps unknowingly) of a federal investigative agency with a powerful vested interest in a finding of no criminal activity in the last Foster death investigation. The American people will now probably never know the truth of the events of July 20, 1993. But eventually they will be apprised of the fact of an FBI cover-up. However, this could take years. In light of the shortcomings of our press in the instant matter, it likely will not occur until after the current administration leaves office.
In the interim, Mr. Knowlton respectfully asks that the Division of the Court exercise its discretion and grant the relief prayed for. Mr. Knowlton has no remedy at law for injury to his reputation causally related to the subject investigations.
In the event the Court would be disposed to grant Mr. Knowlton’s request to include his submission as an Appendix, save the 45 page opposition to Summary Judgment Motion, Mr. Knowlton respectfully asks this Court to consider including the Table of Contents of that opposition. In the event that the subject report is not a final report within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 594(h)(2), Mr. Knowlton respectfully asks this Court to hold the instant motion in abeyance until such time as the OIC submits its final report on the death of Vincent Foster, Jr.
The relief Mr. Knowlton requests falls squarely within the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 594(h)(2), “to assure that the report is full and complete and to afford a measure of fairness to persons mentioned in the report …” In re North, Id. Mr. Knowlton merely seeks to refute allegations that he is:
(1) A liar and perjurer;
(2) A homosexual; and
(3) Mentally unstable.
If the OIC files a response hereto, Mr. Knowlton specifically asks the OIC to avoid a secret ex-parte communication and to serve counsel with a copy of any such response.
WHEREFORE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 594(h)(2), Patrick James Knowlton respectfully moves the Division of the Court to furnish him relevant portions of the Report on the death of Vincent Foster, Jr., and to include as an Appendix to that Report:
(1) A letter from counsel; and
(2) A copy of Mr. Knowlton’s opposition to motion for summary judgment filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on June 6, 1997, filed in support of Mr. Knowlton’s cause for conspiracy to obstruct justice against FBI agents in connection with the acts of FBI agents detailed to Mr. Fiske’s and Mr. Starr’s investigations into the death of Vincent Foster.
John H. Clarke
1730 K Street, NW Suite 304
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 332-3030414
In 1997 Patrick Knowlton went to the U.S. Park Police headquarters to get information on his 1994 car vandalism case. With the knowledge that his case had been closed, Knowlton wanted to see his case file. Instead of giving Knowlton a full case file, the civilian employee, upon the orders of a belligerent park police officer, gave Knowlton three documents, with the instruction that this was all he was allowed to see.
“Knowlton argued that, since the case was closed, he should be permitted to see the whole file,” said journalist Joseph Farah. “When he suggested that he knew the FBI was involved, the police officer became visibly shaken. Knowlton was told he was trespassing and would have to leave.”
Knowlton said that when he left the U.S. Park Police headquarters, his vehicle was followed by a squad car. After traveling about twenty-five blocks, just before he reached his home, the police car flashed its lights and pulled him over to the side of the road. Knowlton waited with his driver’s license and registration in hand. But the officer never approached the car. After a few minutes, the police car’s lights went off and the officer drive away.
What would you think if this bizarre chain of events happened to you? Knowlton is persuaded that what he once believed to be a case of random vandalism was an incident perpetrated by government officials—presumably from the FBI. There is no doubt in his mind that the harassment he experienced later, when he was testifying to the grand jury in 1995, was orchestrated by FBI agents.
Farah had an opinion as to why the government was so vested in discrediting Knowlton.
“Why would the government be so concerned about Knowlton and what he saw that day in Fort Marcy Park?” Farah asked. “The only explanation is that he saw something very much in conflict with the official story—the story that, despite all evidence to the contrary, is being pushed aggressively by Starr, the Clinton administration, the FBI, the US Park Police and the establishment press.
“You have to ask yourself: If Knowlton is wrong about what he saw, why all the fuss? Why are FBI agents so concerned about a loose-cannon witness who got his facts wrong? Why would they risk their jobs, their livelihoods and their reputations on discrediting one misguided eyewitness?”
Both the government and the media (except for the courageous investigative work of Ruddy and Evans-Pritchard) refused an honest look at the Foster death.
Knowlton, his lawyer Clarke, and other activists contacted the national media and offered them a blockbuster story. They were ignored or discredited. Here are some of the replies they got from the American press and political commentators.415
The following is just a sampling of the journalistic non-response to the death of Vince Foster and critical witness Patrick Knowlton, who claimed he was subjected to an FBI terror campaign of witness tampering:
• George Will, Feb., 1996: “We’re not interested in that [Foster case]”;
• Fred Barnes, Feb. 23, 1996: “Conservatives should ignore the death of Vincent Foster and stick to the real issues … It was a suicide … No, I don’t want to meet Patrick Knowlton”;
• Tim Russert, Feb. 29, 1996: “I appreciate your taking the time … It is important to have your input”;
• James Stewart, March 20, 1996: “Now I think it is too much of a coincidence that he [Foster] would be that depressed and then that somebody would somehow move in and fake some kind of crime. Life just doesn’t work like that”;
• Haynes Johnson, May 28, 1996: “You have raised provocative questions”;
• Ted Gest, 1996: “Our magazine [Newsweek] covers consumer issues, that is not the kind of story we cover, try one of the daily papers”;
• James Whalen (a professor of journalism at St. Paul University): “If there was anything suspicious about Foster’s death, the Washington press would cover it”;
• Paul Gigot (the Wall Street Journal), July 23, 1996: “Foster committed suicide. Everything points to that … No, I don’t want to meet him [Patrick Knowlton] and you probably think I am part of the conspiracy”;
• Michael Barone, July 30, 1996: “I’m not going to defend the coverage of Vincent Foster by US News & World Report, I do not know enough about the Foster story”;
• Jerry Seper (Washington Times), Oct. 17, 1996: “I don’t cover Foster, I’m covering Whitewater. Ask George Archibald, he has been assigned the Foster story”;
• George Archibald, Oct. 24, 1996: “Foster is dead. I don’t cover Foster … My time is limited”;
• Eugene Meyer (Washington Post), Nov. 5, 1996: “No, it’s not my job … I don’t care about your friend”;
• Karen Ballard (Washington Times), Nov. 5, 1996: “Why don’t you write the story”;
• William Kristol, Nov. 8, 1996: “Amazing … What kind of work does Mr. Knowlton do?”;
• Candy Crowley (CNN), Kwame Holman, Peter Kenyon (NPR), Nov. 19, 1996: “If it was reported I would cover it … I have to cover other news, it’s not my job”;
• Carl Stern, Michael McCurry, Marlin Fitzwater, and Charles Bierbauer (CNN), Feb. 13, 1997: “We don’t know anything about it”;
• Cokie Roberts, April 13, 1997: “Thousands of reporters have looked into the death of Vincent Foster and everyone including the numerous investigations have concluded that his death was a suicide”;
• Paul Harvey, July 16, 1997: “The death of White House counsel Vincent Foster has now been investigated four times including Kenneth Starr’s most recent one and all four have reached the same conclusion. There was no conspiracy, no cover-up, it was suicide”;
• Mike Wallace, July 23, 1997: “Just wait until Ken Starr’s report is released, then you can apologize to me”;
• Tom Sherwood, WRC-DC, July 31, 1997: “I can’t believe there would be a cover-up … Why don’t you contact Mike Isikoff”;
• Michael Isikoff, Aug. 13, 1997: “[I] do not have enough evidence to go with the story about Patrick Knowlton’s allegations”;
• Martha Malan, (St. Paul Press), Oct. 12, 1997: “We don’t have the resources to cover the Foster story … No, I don’t want to talk to Patrick Knowlton”;
• John Crudele (New York Post), Nov. 1997: “I don’t believe there is a cover-up”;
• Steve Labaton (New York Times), Nov. 1997: “The court had to attach your submission”;
• Bob Zelnick, May 30, 1998: “[There isn’t] any credible evidence that Vincent Foster was murdered. Can I ask to change the subject?”;
• Harold Hostetler, June 25, 1998: “Mr. Knowlton does appear to be an honest and forthright person who is sticking up for his principles and beliefs. However, I do not see this as a potential story for Guideposts”;
• Sam Fullwood (L.A. Times) at Sanford Ungar AU forum (with L. Brent Bozell III, Karen DeYoung, and Bill Plante), Sept. 8, 1998: “It’s not my kind of story … Why don’t you post it on the Internet then everyone will know … Why don’t you write a book, you could make lots of money”;
• Matt Drudge: “I’ll read this [written materials] but I was just about ready to believe the body was moved and now you’re saying he was murdered”;
• Frank Sesno, Sept. 24, 1998: “I’ll look at this”;
• Helen Thomas, Oct. 7, 1998: “[T]his should be reported to the American people”;
• Helen Thomas, April 9, 1999: “Q. I gave you the addendum to Starr’s Report. Will you write about Patrick Knowlton? A. No … I don’t have time. Q. Can I quote you? A. No. Q. You said then that his story should be reported. A. It is very unfair of you to do this to me. Just forget it.”
“Attorney Clarke, Mr. Turley and I spent years calling, mailing and personally delivering this information to the Congress, to the press and to others,” Knowlton recalled. “Every member of the 104th and 105th Congress was provided documented proof of the criminal cover-up. Every major newspaper and media outlet including the network news, Dateline, Nightline, 20/20, Larry King Live, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, Time, US News and World Report, CNN and countless others ignored us.”416
This provocative chain of events raises questions about the Clintons’ strong-arming behavior that shouldn’t be shoved under the carpet.
CHAPTER 16
WHITE HOUSE FOR SALE
“I don’t think there is any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon were attributable to his large gifts. In my opinion, that was disgraceful.”
—Jimmy Carter on Clinton’s pardon of billionaire swindler Marc Rich417
In one of his last moves in office, President Clinton cemented his reputation of being one of the most notorious grifters to ever occupy the oval office. This was of course the precursor to the Lyndon Johnson–like wheeling and dealing that would engulf the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2015. President Clinton gave a pardon to billionaire swindler Marc Rich, then a fugitive. In return, Rich’s ex-wife Denise gave Clinton millions of dollars for his library. It was Arkansas pay-for-play politics at its worst. The story of how it happened is breathtaking.
Convicted Ponzi-schemer Stephen Hoffenberg was vying for a pardon at the same time. Hoffenberg went down in a stunning $460 million scam and was using Democratic power broker Ben Barnes to broker the deal. Hoffenberg said Clinton let it be known that a million dollars was not enough to secure what he was after. As you will see, Rich circumvented the normal, legal review process and secured a tainted pardon.
> Clinton’s controversial pardon of financier Marc Rich was a move that even earned the ire of former president Jimmy Carter.418 What did Rich need to be pardoned for and why would Clinton consider granting the pardon?
Rich was indicted by Rudy Giuliani in 1983 on sixty-five criminal counts, was accused of wire fraud, racketeering, and even trading with Iran during the hostage crisis. During his indictment, Rich was residing in Switzerland, while his wife held court stateside.419
Denise Rich donated large sums of money to the Democratic Party during Clinton’s tenure ($1,000,000) and would go on to donate $100,000 to Hillary’s Senate campaign and close to $500,000 to the Clinton Library.420
Hamilton Jordan, a former chief of staff to President Jimmy Carter argued in a WSJ editorial in 2001 that the Clintons were in fact “The First Grifters.”421
Jordan would go on to outline the very detailed and complex process that surrounds a presidential pardon: history of the case, substantive arguments for and against the pardon, written recommendations from the prosecuting team. Mr. Jordan asserts that, due to a lack of a written history or paper trail of such a process, Clinton and his team worked outside the framework to push through the pardon of Mr. Rich.
Below is Hamilton’s check list of requirements for a pardon during the Carter presidency.
• A formal, written analysis of the case by the Justice Department.
• A description of the crime and a history of the trial.
• The written statements and recommendations of the prosecuting team that won the conviction.
• A listing of the substantive arguments, for and against the pardon and a statement of any extenuating circumstances that justify the review of the case.
• The formal and written recommendations of the Justice Department (usually the attorney general in high-profile cases like Patricia Hearst or Marc Rich) and of the White House counsel.