Seth Rich Equals Vince Foster?
Seth Rich Equals Vince Foster?
A PizzaGate Connection?
To tell you the truth, following the story of Seth Rich, the young staffer for the Democratic National Committee who was murdered on July 10, 2016, on a Washington, DC, street while returning home from a bar, I had not thought to compare the incident to the violent July 20, 1993, death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. After all, Foster was a much more prominent figure and the claim in his case was that he had committed suicide. The closest parallel that quickly came to my mind was that of Mary Caitrin “Caity” Mahoney, the young former Clinton White House intern shot to death in 1997 along with two other employees of a Starbucks in Georgetown. That incident was also called a “botched robbery” because no money or valuables were taken.
Then out comes The Washington Post on May 17 with a long article entitled “In rumors around a DNC staffer’s death, a whiff of a Clinton-era conspiracy theory.” * The “theory” to which they refer is that Foster did not kill himself with a .38 caliber revolver pressed into his mouth that produced no exit wound that any witnesses saw nor any blood and gore behind his head. Rather, irresponsible “rumormongers” actually claimed that Foster, whose time and manner of disappearance from the White House compound was never checked using surveillance camera records and who, according to the best witnesses, somehow arrived at Fort Marcy Park in Virginia without driving his own car there, was murdered.
As I read The Post article, though, I do see one very strong point of similarity in the two cases. It is in the very energetic selling job being done by the mainstream media, and especially The Washington Post, for the botched-robbery story, similar to the equally unlikely suicide-from-depression story that they peddled with the Foster death. So obvious and over-the-top have they been, in fact, that if I had not been suspicious of Rich’s death in the first place, I certainly would be after seeing the way The Post compares it to the Foster case.
Check out this opening paragraph:
Depressed and losing sleep after a few months in the White House, Vince Foster became convinced that the turmoil surrounding his work for President Clinton would never stop. He’d already been the subject of a scathing newspaper editorial that had raised questions about his long association with Bill and Hillary Clinton, and his name kept appearing in White House controversies.
Lying for the Cover-up
How about that for a sales job, and for mind reading? You’d never guess from this opening sally that initially Foster’s family, friends, and colleagues at the White House were unanimously clueless as to any reason he might have had for taking his own life. Here is how Hugh Turley describes those early days in “Vince Foster’s Indignant but Curiously Unconcerned Sister”:
On the night of Vince Foster's death, July 20, 1993, the Park Police went to the Foster home to notify the family and interview them as part of their investigation. The police arrived at the home at the same time as Foster's sister Sheila Anthony.
Park Police Investigator John Rolla testified to the Senate Banking Committee, “Sheila Anthony was talking with us, I spoke to her, [Investigator] Cheryl [Braun] spoke with her, she was very cordial. I remember asking her, did you see any of this coming, and she stated no. Nobody would say anything about depression or that they noticed some signs, they were worried.”
Foster's widow Lisa was also interviewed by Investigator Rolla. His FBI interview report states, “[Rolla] does recall eventually conversing with Mrs. Foster specifically asking her if she had any indication that anything was wrong with her husband, with Mrs. Foster responding in the negative.”
Four days later on July 24, the family, through Sheila's husband Beryl, was still denying Foster was depressed. The Washington Times reported, “'Close friends told [Foster] to cool things and relax and not take things so personal,' the [anonymous] source said, citing Mr. Foster's ex-brother-in-law, former Rep. Beryl Anthony, as one who had talked to Mr. Foster about his depression...'There's not a damn thing to it. That's a bunch of crap,' Mr. Anthony said yesterday, slamming down the telephone at his El Dorado, Ark. home.”
The Washington Post concealed that the family told the police Foster was not depressed by falsely reporting, “Police who arrived at Foster's house the night of the death were turned away after being told Lisa Foster and family members were too distraught to talk. Investigators were not allowed to interview her until [July 29.]”
Walter Pincus, a Washington Post reporter, was at the small Georgetown townhouse when the police investigators interviewed the family for over an hour and were told Foster was not depressed.
Did you catch that, readers? The Washington Post, in obvious furtherance of the cover-up of Foster’s murder, flat-out, knowingly lied, saying that the police were turned away from the Foster house. Turley has a link to a copy of the original print version of the story; I have since located it online. Here it is with an intriguing follow-up sentence:
Police who arrived at Foster's house the night of the death were turned away after being told Lisa Foster and family members were too distraught to talk. Investigators were not allowed to interview her until yesterday. "That was a matter between her lawyers and the police," [White House counselor David] Gergen said, and the White House "had no role in it."
In “The Reign of the Lie,” which is part 6 of my “America’s Dreyfus Affair: The Case of the Death of Vincent Foster,” I reveal how my skepticism of that story yielded additional fruit:
[Park Police] spokesman, Major Robert Hines, even embellished the lie a bit for me. Explaining my interest from having gone to college with Vince, I called him and asked how it would have been possible for a private lawyer to stand in the way of police carrying out an investigation. He told me that I was right, that he couldn’t, but that the newspaper had misreported the facts. He said that the police had left the residence upon determining that the widow, Lisa, was too broken up to talk to and that they had returned the next day for an interview. That version of events, like the one told by The Post, was also made “inoperative,” to borrow a Watergate-era term, a year later by the released police report and the Senate testimony of Park Police investigators Rolla and Braun about their visit to the Foster home.
So The Post and the Park Police spokesman, it turned out, were lying about that first night at the Foster house. They were stalling for time, it is clear, to get all their suicide-from-depression ducks in a row. Even four days later, as Turley reports, sister Sheila’s husband wasn’t yet on board with the depression concoction, saying that it was “a bunch of crap.” The very same edition of The Washington Times that has the Anthony quote, also had an article about depression that contained the following quote about Foster from White House spokesperson Dee Dee Myers: "His family says with certainty that he'd never been treated (for depression)," as I report in part 1 of “America’s Dreyfus Affair.”
I don’t know about you, but when I discover that someone has lied to me, I tend to lose confidence in anything that they might say. Known liars also make very poor witnesses in a court of law.
The Post and its brothers in propaganda also consistently do violence to the truth in a host of slightly subtler ways. A collection of them are enumerated in my “Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression.” “Boldly and brazenly lie” doesn’t come up until #15. In the very title of the Post article, written by Avi Selk, a man who would have been around six years old when Foster died, we see the use of technique number three, “Characterize the charges as rumors.”
One can be caught out in a lie, so the deceivers in the press would rather not resort to that crude method of deceit. Of course, to suggest that the only thing that critics have against the press-peddled story, official or otherwise, is based upon nothing more substantial than some vague “rumors” amounts to a lie in itself, but it leaves some room for quibbling, which a bald-faced lie does not. One can read everything that I have written challenging the absurd suicide-from-depression story and nowhere will he find me passing on anything as unsubstantial as a rumor. The case for the murder of Vince Foster, I can assure you, rests upon very solid evidence.
Foster’s Closest Friends Puzzled by “Suicide”
Now let’s pick up young Selk’s narrative in The Post:
“In Washington you are assumed to have done something wrong even if you have not,” he told a friend in 1993, a few weeks before the deputy counsel left his office midday, went to a park and shot himself.
“He thought the matter would never end,” the friend later explained to federal investigators looking in to Foster’s death.
And it never did.
To find out who that “friend” was you have to click on the link, which leads you to a heavy-duty propaganda article by The Post’s David Von Drehle and Howard Schneider eagerly and uncritically accepting the poorly substantiated suicide conclusions of special prosecutor Robert Fiske in 1994. It turns out that the friend was assistant attorney general Webster Hubbell, who was also Foster’s partner along with Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock.
This is hardly a disinterested witness whose word one should take implicitly, especially when he gives it after enough time has passed for him to know what the official story has come to be. What Selk does not tell you is what we learned from Foster’s mentor at the Rose Law Firm associate, Phillip Carroll, as reported by Esquire magazine in November 1963: “Webb called me at midnight the night it happened. He said, ‘Don’t believe a word you hear. It was not suicide. It couldn’t have been.”
Hillary Clinton echoed Hubbell when she said, “Of a thousand people who might commit suicide, I would never pick Vince.” When she got the news of Foster’s death she was in Little Rock meeting with friend James “Skip” Rutherford. This is from the FBI interview of Rutherford:
RUTHERFORD had lunch at HILLARY CLINTON’s mother’s residence. HILLARY CLINTON was in complete disbelief and shock at the thought of FOSTER committing suicide. HILLARY CLINTON told RUTHERFORD that she could think of no indication or reason for the suicide. HILLARY CLINTON and RUTHERFORD were trying to determine a motive for FOSTER’s suicide.
Here we resume the Selk narrative exactly where we left off:
Not after the investigation concluded beyond any doubt that Foster killed himself. Not decades later — after multiple inquiries by police, FBI agents, Republicans, Democrats and two special prosecutors had all debunked the still-persistent falsehood that the Clintons had Foster killed to protect themselves from what he knew.
Now just think about it. These strong words of assurance that everything was on the up-and-up in the Foster case come from a news organ that went so far as to lie in service of the suicide-from-depression story. Consider as well that The Post accepted the Park Police’s suicide conclusion announced on August 10, 1993, even when the cops withheld all the evidence that they had collected that might have supported their conclusions. The only reporter who objected when Justice Department spokesman Carl Stern said they would have to file a Freedom of Information Act request to get it was Sarah McClendon of the independent McClendon News Service. In fact, the mainstream press did not even report that no supporting documentation would be forthcoming. As late in the game as August 1, after the depression narrative had started to crystalize, Von Drehle, the lead writer of that Fiske-Report endorsement mentioned above, told us that the Edwin Arlington Robinson poem, Richard Cory, about a man who committed suicide for no apparent reason, was a sufficient explanation for him for how Foster died, strongly suggesting that it should be sufficient explanation for the public as well.
How Dare You?
Reflecting upon this truly sorry performance by our Fourth Estate, I began “The Press and the Death of Vincent Foster” this way:
The most basic charge to be made against the American press in the coverage of the death of Vincent Foster is that it has not behaved as we should expect a free and independent and minimally competent press to behave. It has not demonstrated the curiosity or the natural suspicion of even the average man on the street nor has it shown any resourcefulness at all in putting known facts together and making plausible inferences. Lacking the time or the means to gather the information for himself, the citizen is dependent upon the press to gather the information for him. This the press has simply not done. It has done virtually no independent investigation such as interviewing witnesses nor has it shown a fraction of the diligence of some few private citizens who have taken the time to look into the official record and report upon what they find. At best it has merely been a conduit for the executive branch's official announcements and conclusions; at worst it as been a cheerleader for and an embellisher of those conclusions.
When the information imparted by the executive branch has had inconsistencies and anomalies, it has made no effort to resolve them, or even to point them out. When witnesses have testified before Congress it has virtually ignored the proceedings, and it even has failed to do substantive reporting on such events as the press conference by the Justice Department, the FBI, and the United States Park Police on August 10, 1993, when the first official conclusion of suicide was announced or of the inclusion of the dissident witness's submission with the report of the Independent Counsel on Vincent Foster's death. In a word, America's press has not acted in this matter as though it felt any obligation at all to be of service to the public. Rather, it has acted little differently, on its face, from what one would expect if it were the official public relations department of the executive wing of the federal government.
Calling skeptics “rumormongers” is hardly the only truth suppression technique that The Post has recycled in the Seth Rich case. Check out this passage from the Selk article:
As with Foster, local authorities have tried to dispel rumors that politics played a role in Rich’s death. In this case, D.C. police believe he died in a random robbery attempt.
Relatives have also begged rumormongers to lay off. On Tuesday, a family spokesman decried a Fox News report suggesting Rich was involved in leaking Democratic Party documents before his death.
But Foster’s family had tried that, too — both men became conspiracy victims anyway. The Fox News story continues to collect comments like “Seth Rich has joined Vince Foster in the pile of bodies that follow Hillary Clinton around.”
This is #2 in the techniques, “Wax indignant. This is also known as the ‘How dare you?’ gambit.” The indignation is expressed in this instance, as in the Foster case, by invoking the family of the victim. At this point we should note that when the family of a victim joins the “conspiracy theorists” in challenging the official story, as in the cases of, say, Martin Luther King, Jr., Kenneth Trentadue, or Tommy Burkett, The Post falls back on #1 and dummies up, as though the victim had no family with a strong opinion.
Clicking on that “family spokesman” link in Selk’s article leads eventually to another strong parallel to Foster. It takes some reading, but eventually we get down to the name of the spokesman, one Brad Bauman. What The Post does not tell us is that Bauman is a regular Democratic Party publicist. That is to say, he is a flack for a prime suspect in the hit. Bauman may be compared with the “Foster family lawyer,” James Hamilton. Take a look at this excerpt from my letter to Robert Anderson, the producer of the infamous 60 Minutes episode on Foster featuring reporter Christopher Ruddy, in which I take Anderson to task for using Hamilton as his authority on Foster’s presumed “depression”:
Unmentioned is the fact that Hamilton was also an important member of the Clinton political transition team and the author of a memo to Clinton counseling stonewalling in the Whitewater case. His word, which is not only tainted, but is in this case obvious nonsense if you just think about it a little, is simply taken as final.
The criminal lawyer Hamilton is also cited by Mike Wallace as his authority that Foster was depressed, but when interviewed on screen Hamilton hardly corroborates the characterization, saying only that he "had been told" that Foster had been experiencing bouts of anxiety, or something to that effect. Was there no doctor in the house? Were you unable to interview Dr. Larry Watkins of Little Rock, Arkansas, the man who Fiske tells us prescribed an anti-depressant to Foster after talking to him on the phone, or are you as lacking in confidence in him as you are [autopsy doctor] Dr. [James] Beyer?
In that episode, by the way, Wallace showed that The Washington Post has nothing on CBS when it comes to #15 in the techniques, boldly and brazenly lying. At one point, he looked squarely into the camera and in his authoritative baritone stated, “The forensic evidence shows that the fatal bullet had been fired into Foster’s mouth from the gun found in Foster’s hand and that Foster’s thumb had pulled the trigger.”
He had to have known that there is not a word of truth in that statement. There was no way to match the bullet with the gun when the bullet was never recovered. Furthermore, Foster’s fingerprints were not on the gun and the body scene, as described by numerous witnesses, was inconsistent with the scenario that Wallace paints.
Turning to the Post article to which Selk links, we find Bauman playing the “how dare you” card with even greater vigor than we have seen in the Foster case, “This is devastating to the family,” Bauman said. “They have confidence in the police investigation and believe that every single one of these fake news stories actually harms the ability of the police department to get to the bottom of what actually happened.”
Before they get too confident in the DC police, perhaps the Rich family should get in touch with the family of Chandra Levy.
Who Did it and Why?
Later in his piece Selk, at the same time, employs #12 in the techniques, “Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely,” and inadvertently points out a major difference between the Foster and Rich cases:
But why even have Foster killed? He was just a deputy counsel — and the early Clinton scandals for which he’d blamed himself did not amount to much.
For this problem, the theorists had baseless rumors that Foster and Hillary Clinton, his former partner at an Arkansas law firm, had been having an affair. Or alternatively, that the Clintons’ longtime friend was simply privy to too many of their secrets.
It is certainly not necessary to know who killed Foster and why to see from the evidence that he was murdered. What the motive might have been for Foster’s killing has been a puzzle from the beginning. One probably needs greater insight into the sordid affairs of the Deep State than we currently have to get completely to the bottom of it. Lacking the law enforcement powers that the state has, and chooses not to use, regular citizens can hardly be expected to do it. I cover various conjectures and take a stab at the latest possibility with my December 2016 article, “Was Vince Foster’s Murder PizzaGate Related?”
In Rich’s case, by contrast, you can start with the motive, which almost screams out at you. He is strongly suspected of being the source of the leaks of the DNC emails to Wikileaks that supposedly did so much damage to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Wikileaks has even published an email from campaign manager John Podesta that says, “I’m definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.” That might explain why nothing was taken from Rich in the “botched robbery.” If you make the murder look too much like it was simply the byproduct of a garden-variety street crime, the intended message would not be sent. That might explain as well why no money was taken from the Starbucks cash registers in the Caity Mahoney killing.
Oh, but wait a minute! Those leaked emails from John Podesta are what started all the suspicions about a high-level pedophilia ring, PizzaGate for short. We reveal in our article speculating on the motive for Foster’s murder that for some reason the FBI’s Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit was involved in the Foster death investigation. Now that’s something that could get a person killed. Perhaps there is a real connection between the two deaths, not just the phony or superficial ones that The Post would point to in order to mislead us.
In Part 1 of “America’s Dreyfus Affair,” in the section called “The Search for a General Mercier,” I speculate that the whole purpose of the appointment of a special prosecutor was to get a central authority figure, like General Auguste Mercier in France’s railroading of Captain Alfred Dreyfus for spying, to put his seal of approval on the cover-up. My big cause for suspicion is that the ostensible precipitator of the appointment of Special Prosecutor Robert Fiske was an article in The Washington Times. That article, by Jerry Seper in December of 1993, cited anonymous Park Police sources reporting that Whitewater Development Corporation documents were removed by White House officials from his office on the night of Foster’s death. The link between the two scandals provided the excuse for a special prosecutor to investigate all of them. Since at the time of Foster’s death the Whitewater mess was still far below the public radar, I surmised that it would have been highly unlikely that any Park Police investigator would have any idea what a Whitewater document was. Dan E. Moldea later confirmed that suspicion in his book A Washington Tragedy, How the Death of Vincent Foster Ignited a Political Firestorm. He interviewed all the Park Police investigators, and they told him that they could not have been the source for Seper’s article precisely because they knew nothing about Whitewater.
As we have seen, Robert Fiske with his weak little “investigation” was a good enough authority figure for The Post, but Attorney General Janet Reno had appointed him. When the Congress renewed the Ethics in Government Act, a three-judge panel appointed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist appointed, in turn, Judge Kenneth Starr to take over Fiske’s investigative responsibilities. He became the key authority figure for the prevailing molders of public opinion to rally around. The following five short paragraphs encapsulate The Post’s latest rallying, as manifested in the Selk article:
In 1997, independent counsel Ken Starr concluded the last of them — after probes by the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Government Operations, a Senate committee and previous independent counsel all backed up the police conclusions.
Starr was no Clinton ally. He would go on to expose the president’s affair with Monica Lewinsky and to this day accuses the administration of many misdeeds.
But after a three-year forensic investigation that looked into nearly every conspiracy theory around Foster, Starr concluded the man simply killed himself.
No matter. Weeks after the report came out, a book called “The Strange Death of Vincent Foster” hit the shelves and rekindled every theory.
Written by a reporter who is now CEO of Newsmax, the book poked new holes in the police investigations, compiling examples of sloppiness and the accounts of a dissenting investigator to suggest “something dastardly happened,” as a New York Times book review put it.
Let us address each paragraph in turn.
The ranking Republican on the House committee that Selk speaks of was William Clinger. What Selk calls a “probe” was simply Clinger’s eight-page endorsement of Fiske’s conclusions. ** The Senate committee mentioned was not commissioned to determine the cause of Foster’s death. Its stated purpose was only to look into the behavior of White House officials in the wake of the death, particularly the handling of those documents in Foster’s office.
Kenneth Starr had been solicitor general in the justice department of President George H. W. Bush. In its policies, the Bill Clinton administration might as well have been a continuation of the Bush administration. In recent years, the two former presidents have shown themselves to be very close. The Monica Lewinsky episode was a prime example of #13 in the techniques of truth suppression, Starr drew attention away from the Foster investigation while he dragged his feet and at the same time created the impression that he was really out to get the Clintons, when, in fact, they were all on the same team. President George W. Bush rewarded two of Starr’s assistants, Brett Kavanaugh and John Bates, by making them federal judges. Most recently, Starr was forced to resign in disgrace as president of Baylor University for the role he played in covering up a major sex scandal there involving the football team.
What Selk calls a “three-year forensic investigation” might better be called the result of three years of delay. One might well ask what took so long. The really important thing in that sentence is the link to The Post’s reproduction of Starr’s report. Please notice this sentence in bold letters in the introduction: “This file does not contain the report's footnotes or appendix.” For a number of years that statement was not there and The Post, with its usual level of dishonesty when it comes to the Foster case, left the impression that what you were reading was the entire report. Why leave off the footnotes and appendix, one might ask. The footnotes often lead to reports by hired “experts” that are not available to the public. The appendix contains the letter of John Clarke, the lawyer for Patrick Knowlton, the dissident witness in the case. That letter was ordered to be included with Starr’s report over Starr’s strenuous written objections, because, as Judge John D. Butzner put it, “I suspect that if we deny [Knowlton’s] motion we will be charged as conspirators in the cover-up.” The 20-page letter completely destroys Starr’s conclusion of suicide. The car that Knowlton saw in the parking lot at Fort Marcy Park when Foster lay dead at the back of the park was not Foster’s, even though the FBI changed Knowlton’s testimony to say that it was. To this day neither The Post nor anyone anywhere in the supposedly free American press has told us even about the existence of that Clarke letter, much less what is in it. In part 3 of “America’s Dreyfus Affair,” I called it “The Great Suppression of ’97.” Sadly, that bit of news suppression, a shining example of #1 in the truth suppression techniques, continues. (For the record, both Knowlton and I, as lifelong Democrats, voted for Bill Clinton for president in 1992. We are not right-wing zealots.)
Then Selk tells us about Christopher Ruddy’s book, The Strange Death of Vincent Foster, that he says was published in the wake of the Starr Report. Actually, the book came out on October 1 and the Report was published on October 10, 1997. That was part of the master cover-up plan, as we can now see clearly in retrospect. The Free Press, a division of Simon and Schuster, published Ruddy’s book and The New York Times gave it publicity by reviewing it. Simon and Schuster had also published the heavily publicized cover-up book, Blood Sport, by James Stewart. The use of Ruddy, writing first for Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post and then for Richard Mellon Scaife’s minor newspaper, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, is a shining example of #16 of the techniques, “Have your own stooges ‘expose’ scandals and champion popular causes.” As I show in “Double Agent Ruddy Reaching for Media Pinnacle,” one can hardly find a better example of a Deep State stooge than Christopher Ruddy.
Curiously, Selk does not see fit to give us Ruddy’s name. Rather, he detours us through a 2015 Washington Post article entitled “Conservative Christopher Ruddy is now in full-throated defense of Hillary?” that is behind the link for “now CEO of Newsmax.” At this point The Post is being too cute by half, because they give away the game that Ruddy was really nothing but a false critic and fraud all along, something that serious students of the Foster case had known for quite a long time.
Another name that Selk conspicuously does not give us is that of Starr’s “dissenting investigator” described in Ruddy’s book. For that, we have to go to the link for the New York Times review of Ruddy’s book to discover that his name is Miguel Rodriguez. It’s interesting that the Times should spell the first name correctly, because Rodriquez was hardly a public figure and Ruddy spells his name “Miquel” in his book. Ruddy also made it a point to tell me, and others interested in the case, that that was how it was spelled. That’s why you will see it that way in my “America’s Dreyfus Affair,” Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, and in the work of other Foster case investigators like lawyer Allan Favish and the late Accuracy in Media head Reed Irvine. I only learned the correct spelling when we found Rodriguez’s resignation letter in the national archives and published it in 2009. Following the “dummy up” technique #1, no one in the press—certainly not The Washington Post—has made any mention of that resignation letter. Neither has anyone in the mainstream media touched the dissenting memorandum that Rodriguez wrote for the record and we published in 2013 or the recorded telephone recordings between Rodriguez and Irvine in which Rodriquez spoke, among a lot of other revealing things, of the numerous conversations he had had with reporters in a futile effort to get the truth out. Finally, before we leave the subject of that New York Times review of Ruddy’s book, which I discovered for the first time from reading the Selk article, I must say, in all modesty, that one would be much better served by reading my review. I also sent it to Amazon.com, and it used to be touted there, based upon other readers’ approval, as the leading critical review of the book. Now, though, Amazon has made it almost impossible to find, although it is still there. Someone must have given Amazon owner and now Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos a heads-up.
So The Post and others in the mainstream media have done us a big favor—albeit inadvertently—by drawing parallels between the shooting deaths of Seth Rich and Vince Foster. If folks weren’t suspicious before, they surely should be now.
* On May 22, The Post changed the title to “In the debunked story on a DNC staffer’s death, a whiff of a Clinton-era conspiracy theory.” I am unaware of any actual debunking that has been done. The Post, it would appear, has decided in this instance to trade in #3 for #15 in the “Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression.”
** The Clinger Report, including the one-page cover, is on the FBIcover-up.com web site as exhibit #168 on pp. 593-601 of the 630 pages of official government document exhibits that support the court document and book, Failure of the Public Trust. A link to the exhibits is found at the bottom of the homepage.
May 25, 2017