-Caveat Lector-
-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Recipient list suppressed <Recipient list suppressed>
Date: Saturday, January 23, 1999 3:42 PM
Subject: One Time Sample of TPDL
This is a ONE TIME sample of TPDL. It is FREE.
THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE c
"THE Internet Clipping Service"
1079 Farroll
Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420-4136
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vol 5-L012399
=============================================
Eloquent, perhaps but was it legal?
A friend on Capitol Hill writes:
TAS
Somebody ought to be nosing around about why it is that Dale
Bumpers can lobby the entire U.S. Senate about impeachment . . .
The Ethics in Government Act, specifically 18 U.S.C. sec. 207(e),
prohibits any Senator from "within 1 year after that person leaves
office, knowingly mak[ing], with the intent to influence, any
communication or appearance before" any Senator "on behalf of
any other person . . . in connection with any matter on which such
[former Senator] seeks action by . . . [a current Senator] in his or
her official capacity."
- - - - - - - - -
'TOON of the DAY
RATINGS
NP = Non-Political but excellent
SD = Scroll Down
=============================================
[01]
Cox Blasts Clinton on China
22 January, 1999
By Scott Hogenson
CNS Executive Editor
[02]
A $4.4 trillion surplus? Forecast raises doubts
By Aaron Zitner, Globe Staff, 01/23/99
[03]
Starr Seeks to Compel Lewinsky Meeting
Investigation: Independent counsel asks judge to order former
intern to meet with House prosecutors. He threatens to withdraw
immunity.
By RICHARD A. SERRANO, MARC LACEY
LA Times Staff Writers
[04]
Hillary Clinton announces funding to guard abortion clinics
Copyright � 1999 Nando Media
Copyright � 1999 Agence France-Press
[Editors Note: Clinton's talking point of the day!]
[05]
Foster: Find the X-Rays or Exhume the Body
Accuracy in Media
January 23, 1999
[06]
In Key Area, Ruff Admits Error
By PETE YOST Associated Press Writer
[07]
Judge: Lewinsky Must Testify
ASSOCIATED PRESS
[08]
Immigration requests taxing U.S. agency
USA TODAY
=============================================
>From cooling your Coke to your Car, Borealis Cool
Manufacturing Limited has the answer. Cheap, silent,
environmentally friendly with long life. The Borealis Industrial
Revolution is becoming a reality.
www.borealis.com
=============================================
IT IS TIME
impeachclinton.com offers Evidentiary information and Articles
of Impeachment for Bill Clinton and Al Gore, a means of
EMailing all of your representatives in both houses of Congress,
and other interesting features. We invite you to make your voice
heard and to help counterbalance what the 87% of media refuse
to let people know by giving you a resource from which you can
copy and paste in EMail and other forums.
Webmaster at impeachclinton.com
=============================================
* * * * * * * Who Says Politics Isn't SEXY? * * * * * * *
THE CONSERVATIVE CLASSIFIEDS -
Conservative Political Announcement Service -
SUBSCRIBE NOW:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=============================================
[01]
Cox Blasts Clinton on China
22 January, 1999
By Scott Hogenson
CNS Executive Editor
(CNS) Washington, D.C. - Saying that the Clinton
Administration has given "a full Lewinsky" to China's communist
leadership, Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA) Friday leveled some
of the harshest criticism yet against President Clinton and Vice
President Al Gore on their handling of American foreign policy.
Cox, who chaired the House select committee on technology
transfers to China, told the members of the Republican National
Committee that the administration's foreign policies have "made a
more dangerous world," by failing to address the issues of arms
proliferation, facilitating the transfer of high technology to China
and ignoring human rights abuses by Chinese communists.
After rattling off a list of human rights violations by China, Cox
accused the president and vice president of being "deaf, silent
and blind," to China's history of abuse over the past six years,
and said the administration's security policy toward China has
failed because of what he called a "craven" attempt to curry
favor with China's communist leadership.
At one point, Cox was asked by a member of the RNC to
explain the difference between the administration's China policy
and treason. After a brief pause, Cox said, "We know it when
we see it," drawing applause from the assembled Republicans,
who were attending the committee's annual winter meeting.
Much of the information uncovered by Cox's committee
regarding the transfer of technology to China is included in a top
secret report, which Cox said he hopes to get declassified and
released publicly, perhaps as early as March.
Cox was also asked about what role, if any, was played by
Democratic fundraiser John Huang in the transfer of technology
to China. Citing the classified nature of the select committee's
report, Cox said only that "John Huang is discussed in our
report."
[02]
A $4.4 trillion surplus? Forecast raises doubts
By Aaron Zitner, Globe Staff, 01/23/99
WASHINGTON - They called it the ''rosy scenario,'' the upbeat
economic forecast that President Reagan conjured to show that the
nation could afford to cut taxes while building up the military.
According to Democrats, the Republican president was cooking
the numbers.
This week, President Clinton laid out projections of an equally
rosy economy, one that can support massive expenditures on
Social Security, Medicare, defense, and education. The White
House said it is banking on the booming economy to produce
budget surpluses over the next 15 years of $4.4 trillion.
That is greater than the combined value of the French, British, and
German economies this year. At its current pace, Ford Motor Co.
would need 35 years to sell $4.4 trillion worth of cars. It is enough
money to fund the entire federal government for two and a half
years.
It is also an unrealistic number, say some budget analysts, who say
they believe Clinton has brought his own spin to the old rosy
scenario.
''It's something of a fantasy number,'' said Cynthia Latta, chief US
economist at Standard & Poor's DRI, a Lexington forecasting
firm.
''Sleight of hand,'' said Stan Collender, who heads the federal
budget group at Fleishman-Hillard, a consulting firm. ''This is as
close to a budget gimmick as you can get.''
Equally notable to some analysts was that, unlike in Reagan's days,
no lawmakers challenged the president on his forecast.
Republicans are promoting an income tax cut as well as more
spending for Social Security, and they signed onto Clinton's
numbers, which he released as part of his State of the Union
address Tuesday. ''What's really been astounding is how quickly
everyone bought into that $4.4 trillion - both sides, Republican and
Democrat,'' said Robert Bixby, policy director for the Concord
Coalition, the balanced-budget advocacy group.
That suggests that the budget battle this year will focus less on
whether big surpluses will actually materialize than on how to
spend them. With both parties agreeing to devote most of the
surplus to Social Security, their major difference is whether the
remainder should go to tax cuts, as Republicans want, or to fixing
financial problems in the Medicare health insurance program, a top
Clinton priority.
Most economists agree that a season of surpluses is at hand, but
not all are ready to say the good times will last for 15 years. So far,
the White House has not disclosed the economic assumptions
behind its predictions. A test of their validity will come on Jan. 29,
when economists who work for Congress release their next
forecast.
The White House has said that it assumes the economy will grow
by slightly more than 2 percent each year, which is well in line
with forecasts by private sector economists. In past years, Clinton
has assumed about 2 percent growth while the economy actually
grew by better than 3 percent, ''but we continue to use 2 percent to
allow for ups and downs in the economy,'' a White House aide
said.
In taking a mainstream view of economic growth, at least,
Clinton's forecast stands in contrast to Reagan's, which were
criticized for predicting an outright economic boom. In the most
famous ''rosy scenario'' of 1981, for example, Reagan held that his
tax cuts would jolt the economy into growth above 4 percent.
But several analysts said that Clinton's numbers were still suspect.
To begin with, they said, Clinton is probably assuming that he and
Congress will resist the temptation to spend most of the surplus,
retaining the current caps that limit how much they can spend on
various government programs. ''With a budget, it's hard to predict
what will happen more than three or four years out,'' Latta said.
''You're going to have a new president, a new Congress, and you
don't know what they'll do about taxes and spending.
Moreover, relatively little of the surplus will turn up in the early
years of the forecast. According to a White House aide, more than
half of the total surplus, or $2.3 trillion, would come in the last
five years of the 15-year forecast.
Budget hawks complain that framing the numbers this way gives
Congress license to spend money now that will not arrive until well
in the future - if at all. ''Why don't they use a five-year forecast?
Because that doesn't get them the money that they need,'' said
Collender. ''Using a 15-year forecast is political accommodation,
not economic fact.''
Finally, critics of the Clinton forecast say that long-term
projections are unreliable. Until the last few years, Congress most
often produced five-year forecasts, Collender said. Even now it
usually does not try to look beyond a decade. ''We have enough
trouble projecting budget numbers one or two years in advance,''
said Bixby. ''By 15 years out, you're just in fantasy-land.''
Henry Aaron, an economist with the Brookings Institution,
illustrated the uncertainties of long-term budget projections by
citing a forecast that congressional economists issued in 1995.
Looking ahead one decade, the Congressional Budget Office that
year foresaw a federal budget deficit for the year 2005 of over
$400 billion. By 1998, the office was predicting a surplus for 2005
of $100 billion - a swing of a half-trillion dollars for one year
alone.
Not everyone takes an uncharitable view of Clinton's attempt to
draw a long-term view of the economy. After all, the president
made his forecast as part of an attempt to shore up Social Security,
which faces serious financial problems in 14 years and could
become insolvent in 33 years. Social Security's managers try to
plan 75 years into the future.
''There are two things to say these numbers,'' Gary Bass, executive
director of the budget watchdog group OMB Watch, said of
Clinton's forecast. ''One is, they're never right. The second is, these
numbers are as good as any.'' The lack of outcry from
Republicans, he said, shows that Clinton's forecast has more
credibility than did Reagan's ''rosy scenario.''
While Bixby of the Concord Coalition called Clinton's numbers
''overly cheerful,'' he found something in them that even a budget-
hawk could love.
Clinton would use more than half of the surplus to pay off what
the nation owes to future Social Security retirees, reducing federal
debt held by the public. ''That part is very fiscally responsible,''
Bixby said.
[03]
Starr Seeks to Compel Lewinsky Meeting
Investigation: Independent counsel asks judge to order former
intern to meet with House prosecutors. He threatens to withdraw
immunity.
By RICHARD A. SERRANO, MARC LACEY
LA Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON--Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr on
Friday asked a federal judge to order Monica S. Lewinsky to
cooperate with House Republican managers and "allow herself to
be debriefed" by the prosecutors handling the impeachment trial of
President Clinton.
Starr's office also asked U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway
Johnson to revoke Lewinsky's immunity agreement against
prosecution if she refuses to cooperate--thereby clearing the way
for him to indict her for obstruction of justice for allegedly joining
with Clinton to hide their secret sexual relationship from lawyers in
the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.
The judge is expected to make a ruling today or Sunday, before
the Senate votes--possibly as early as Monday--on whether to
allow depositions or live testimony from any witnesses in the
impeachment trial.
But should Lewinsky be forced to give a pre-testimony interview
to the House managers, it could give them a much-needed boost in
their efforts to convince senators that the trial should continue with
a number of witnesses telling their stories on the floor of the
Senate chamber.
Absent any voluntary testimony from Clinton, which has been
repeatedly rejected by the White House, Lewinsky would far and
away become the trial's most sensational witness.
Some Democrats quickly cried foul over the last-minute
maneuvering by Starr's office and the House managers outside the
Senate chamber, where the trial continues today.
"My first reaction is, wow!" said Abbe Lowell, chief Democratic
counsel of the House Judiciary Committee.
"Legally speaking, it could not be more inappropriate for the
House Republicans to collude with the independent counsel to try
to gang up on a witness. As a political issue, I am stunned that the
House Republicans would be immune to the appearance of
desperation and heavy-handedness."
Added another House Democratic aide: "One wonders if this is
appropriate or even ethical." The White House said it had no
immediate comment.
A top prosecution aide said that, for the House team to make its
best case for calling witnesses, it had "to more precisely know
what they say."
The steps to try to force Lewinsky's cooperation began Thursday,
when Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), the lead House manager, wrote
a letter to Starr stating that they were in the process of assembling
a witness list and complaining that Lewinsky's lawyers "have
declined to make her available for an interview."
He noted that under her immunity agreement, in which she agreed
to cooperate with Starr and appear before his grand jury last
summer, she was "required to submit to interviews and debriefings
if so requested by" Starr's office.
Hyde added that he wants the interview to take place this weekend,
adding, "Your assistance with the interview will be appreciated.'
Robert J. Bittman, deputy independent counsel in Starr's office,
then telephoned Lewinsky's lawyers and requested that she be
made available.
But her lawyers, Jacob A. Stein and Plato Cacheris, declined,
saying they did not think it right for her to assist the managers and
not also the White House lawyers.
Stein and Cacheris, in a follow-up letter, told Bittman: "We believe
it is inappropriate for Ms. Lewinsky to be placed in a position of a
partisan meeting with one side and not the other.
"Therefore," her lawyers wrote, "we have recommended against
interviews with either side."
In response, Bittman cited a provision in Lewinsky's immunity
agreement that states she could be "fully debriefed" by "any other
institutions as the OIC [office of independent counsel] may
require."
Bittman also did not buy the argument that she would just be
talking to one side of the case.
"While I understand Ms. Lewinsky's misgivings," he wrote, ". . .
the managers are acting on behalf of the House of Representatives
as a whole, not on behalf of a political party. Their task is
constitutional in nature."
Still, Lewinsky's lawyers did not budge. On Friday, they wrote
back to Bittman, saying that they interpret the provision in the
immunity agreement to mean Starr's "agents" and not unknown
"others."
They added that she would respond to any subpoena from the
Senate.
With that, Starr's office filed an emergency petition late Friday
afternoon with Johnson, asking her to order Lewinsky to be
interviewed by the managers or risk losing her immunity.
He noted that the Senate, while not yet deciding on whether to
allow witnesses, has not precluded either the managers or the
White House to conduct preparatory work in the event that
depositions from witnesses and live testimony are permitted.
"Nothing," Bittman told the judge, ". . . restricts the ability of the
House to debrief witnesses in a non-deposition setting.
"Indeed, it would be strange for the Senate to prohibit the House
and the president from doing the investigation necessary to
determine whether they wish to call witnesses and which witnesses
to list in their motions."
An aide to the prosecution team said the managers want to
question Lewinsky in part because the president's attorneys have
challenged her grand jury testimony on several key points, such as
the handling of the gifts Clinton gave her.
[04]
Hillary Clinton announces funding to guard abortion clinics
Copyright � 1999 Nando Media
Copyright � 1999 Agence France-Press
[Editors Note: Clinton's talking point of the day!]
WASHINGTON (January 23, 1999 2:47 a.m. EST
http://www.nandotimes.com) - The White House has earmarked
some $4.5 million in the next federal budget to improve security at
abortion clinics, First Lady Hillary Clinton said Friday.
"When doctors are murdered, clinics are bombed, splattered with
acid or set on fire, this is not free expression, this is domestic
terrorism, and it must stop," the first lady said.
The money is to cover the cost of installing surveillance cameras,
alarm systems and bullet-proof glass at clinics, Clinton said at
lunch organized by the National Abortion and Reproduction
Rights Action League.
In the past ten years, seven people have been killed and there have
been 38 assasination attempts, 146 arsons and 732 acts of
vandalism directed at doctors and abortion clinics.
According to a study by the Fund for a Feminist Majority,
increased police protection around abortion clinics led to a
decrease in violence, with 22 percent of abortion clinics being
attacked in 1998, compared to 24.6 percent in 1997.
Last year, Barnett Slepian, an abortion doctor, was killed in his
home in Amherst, N.Y., and a security guard was killed at an
abortion clinic in Birmingham, Ala.
As Hillary Clinton spoke, thousands of anti-abortion activists
began an annual protest in Washington, 26 years after the
Supreme Court ruled abortion legal in the United States.
[05]
Foster: Find the X-Rays or Exhume the Body
Accuracy in Media
January 23, 1999
This month marks the fifth anniversary of the serious investigation
of the death of former White House deputy counsel Vincent
Foster by unofficial investigators, beginning with the work done by
Christopher Ruddy, whose first article raising doubts about the
suicide finding was published in the New York Post on January
27, 1994. Except for Miquel Rodriguez, who was for a brief period in
charge of Ken Starr�s grand jury probe of Foster�s death, none of
the official investigators have shown any interest in looking at this
case as a possible homicide.
Their attitude is exemplified by Starr spending over seven weeks
scouring Fort Marcy Park for the bullet that killed Vincent Foster
because he had been advised that without the bullet he had no
forensic evidence to support the claim that Foster died where his
body was found. The search, the third one that had been made, was
a failure. By contrast, Starr had rejected suggestions that he spend
a fraction of the money being wasted on the search for the bullet to
check the validity of claims that there were wounds on Foster�s
body that would prove that he was murdered. This would require
that the body be exhumed and a second autopsy performed. This
shows that Starr�s main objective was to find some basis for
confirming the official findings that Foster had committed suicide.
He had zero interest in proving that was not the case. That is why
he let his Democratic deputy in Washington, Mark Touhey III, rein
in Miquel Rodriguez. Soon after, Rodriguez resigned because he
didn�t want to be part of another cover-up.
The unofficial investigators continued to plug away. Recently
significant evidence that supports the case for homicide was
discovered in Foster�s autopsy report by Robert Bracci (pronounced
Bracey) who only recently developed an interest in the Foster case.
The evidence he discovered was in the report of the Foster autopsy
written by Dr. James C. Beyer, the assistant medical examiner for
Northern Virginia. Here is how Dr. Beyer described the bullet
wound that is supposed to have killed Foster:
Perforating gunshot wound mouth-head; entrance wound is in the
posterior oropharynx at a point approximately 7�" from the top of
the head; there is also a defect in the tissues of the soft palate and
some of these fragments contain probable powder debris. The
wound track in the head continues backward and upward with an
entrance wound just left of the foramen magnum with tissue
damage to the brain stem and left cerebral hemisphere with an
irregular exit scalp and skull defect near the midline in the occipital
region. No metallic fragments recovered ... sections of soft palate
positive for powder debris. (Senate Banking Committee Hearings,
Vol. 1, p. 365)
What�s The Posterior Oropharynx?
Very few people who read that report knew what was meant by the
posterior oropharynx, the foramen magnum and the occipital region.
Robert Bracci, a high school graduate, may be the only student of
this case who took the trouble to find out. The posterior oropharynx
is the back wall of the throat below the soft palate. The soft palate
is the tissue that forms the aft portion of the roof of the mouth. The
foramen magnum is a large opening in the floor of the skull through
which the brain stem passes. The occipital region is the lower back
of the skull.
So Dr. Beyer was saying that the bullet that killed Foster was fired
into the back of the throat, but instead of exiting from the back of
the neck, it made a 90 degree turn upward parallel to the spinal
column. It broke through the floor of the skull near the left front
side of the brain stem and then made another 90 degree turn and
exited from the back of the skull near the base.
Those who didn�t know the meaning of these anatomical terms
accepted the description of the entrance wound and the trajectory
of the bullet that was provided to special prosecutor Robert B.
Fiske, Jr. by the four pathologists he hired as consultants. They
submitted a report to Fiske in which they moved the entrance
wound from the back of the throat to the soft palate. That change
made it easy to make a plausible case that the bullet was fired on a
trajectory that took it directly through the floor of the skull and
out
the back of the head. Here is what they said.
The large quantity of gunpowder residue present on microscopic
sections of the soft palate indicates that Mr. Foster placed the
barrel of the weapon in his mouth with the muzzle essentially in contact
with the soft palate when he pulled the trigger .... The bullet
perforated the soft palate, entered the cranial cavity directly to the
left of the foramen magnum, contused the left side of the
brainstem, grazed the medial aspect of the left cerebral hemisphere and
exited through the occipital skull and scalp.
The Explanation
This is a very radical revision of what Dr. Beyer had reported, but
they did not reveal that. Nor does it appear that they discussed the
change with Dr. Beyer, who repeated his description of the location
of the entrance wound in a deposition he gave after the Fiske report
was made public. We were able to contact three of these four
pathologists, Dr. Charles S. Hirsch, the chief medical examiner of
New York, Dr. James S. Luke of the Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology and Dr. Donald Reay, the chief medical examiner for
King County, Washington.
Dr. Hirsch was asked if it would be legitimate to describe a wound
in the posterior oropharynx as a wound in the soft palate. He
replied, "Well, I suppose if somebody had an injury of the palate,
somebody might call that the pharynx, sure." Did that mean you
might call the soft palate the pharynx?, we asked. Hirsch replied,
"that's part of it, I suppose. It's not what I would ordinarily think of
as the posterior pharynx." He asked why we were raising this
question, and we explained that we were interested in Dr. Beyer's
autopsy report in the Foster case in which he described the entrance
wound as being in the posterior oropharynx and said the bullet went
upwards into the skull. We asked if that was possible. This dialogue
followed.
A: Oh sure, absolutely.
Q: How could that happen?
A: In the first place, my recollection of the evidence in Foster's
autopsy is that the entry really was on the soft palate. I believe I
recall looking at microscopic slides of the palate that showed the
track of the gunshot, and it contained an abundance of gunpowder
residue. There was no question in my mind that that's where the
wound started and that the muzzle of the gun was inside his mouth.
>From there through the floor of the skull is just basic anatomy. And
there wasn't anything at all suspicious, unusual or inconsistent about
the path of the bullet.
Q: Why would Beyer say in his autopsy that it was in the posterior
oropharynx if it was in the soft palate? Because he mentions the
soft palate separately in that very report.
A: I really don�t have it in front of me, of course, and don�t recall
the specific language, and you know, it sounds like a careless use of
language if that�s indeed what he said, but that has nothing to do
with the substance of the issue.
Q: I�ve got the report before me. He says, "Perforating gunshot
wound mouth-head, entrance wound in the posterior oropharynx at
a point approximately 7�" from the top of the head. That would
put it down rather low in the throat, right?
A: Right. I don�t recall it specifically, whether you would call it low
in the throat or high in the throat, this is a matter without any
consequence whatsoever. The evidence is that the gun was in
Foster�s mouth. There�s no question that the bullet perforated his
skull and exited from the back of his head. I think you�re mincing
words over anatomical fine points that have no consequence of any
imaginable sort whatsoever.
Q: Well let me go on-
A: Mr. Irvine, I�m tired of this conversation.
Q: Already? (He hangs up.)
It Won�t Wash
Dr. Hirsch said it was absolutely certain that a bullet fired into the
back of the throat could exit from the back of the head, but instead
of explaining how that could happen, he explained why he decided
that the entrance wound was really in the soft palate. But his
recollection of how he made that decision differed significantly from
what he and his colleagues reported to Fiske. In the taped phone
interview he said, "I believe I recall looking at microscopic slides of
the palate that showed the track of the gunshot, and it contained an
abundance of gunpowder residue." The report submitted to Fiske
made no mention of the microscopic slides showing the track of the
gunshot. It says, "The large quantity of gunpowder residue present
on microscopic sections of the soft palate" is what led them to
conclude that the track of the gunshot went through the soft palate.
Dr. Beyer apparently saw both gunshot residue and a gunshot
wound in the rear of the throat. He saw a "defect" in the soft palate
and "probable powder debris" on some of the "fragments," and
sections of the soft palate testing positive for powder debris. He
says nothing about seeing a .38 caliber bullet hole in the soft palate.
Nevertheless, Dr. Hirsch said, "There was no question in my mind
that that�s where the wound started and that the muzzle of the gun
was inside his mouth." The purpose of testing the soft palate for
gunshot residue is to determine if the shot was fired inside the
mouth. Finding gunshot residue on the palate but no bullet hole does
not justify overruling the medical examiner who performed the
autopsy and relocating the entrance wound from the back of the
throat to the soft palate. Dr. Hirsch said, "There wasn�t anything at
all suspicious, unusual or inconsistent about the path of the
bullet"-provided, of course, one assumes as he did that the bullet
went through the soft palate. He did not explain how a .38 bullet
fired into the back of the throat could have followed that same path.
He hung up before we could press him to explain how that could
have happened.
Doctors Disagree
Two medical examiners we talked to did not believe this would be
possible. A third said it would be possible if the head were tilted
backward far enough. It would take a very long tilt to line up a shot
through the back of the mouth entering the skull in front of the
brain stem. Hirsch said the question of whether the entrance wound
was low in the throat or high in the throat was of no consequence
whatsoever because "there is no question that the bullet perforated
his skull and exited from the back of his head." By changing the
location of the entrance wound to the soft palate, Dr. Hirsch could
then say, "There wasn�t anything at all suspicious, unusual or
inconsistent about the path of the bullet." Having made that point he
avoided any further embarrassing questions, saying he was tired of
the conversation and hanging up.
Dr. Donald Reay denied that they had relocated the wound. He
responded to a statement that he and his colleagues had relocated
the entrance wound saying, "Oh bullshit. I don�t believe that." It
appears that Dr. Hirsch came up with the idea of saying the
entrance wound was on the soft palate instead of the back of the
throat and that Dr. Reay didn�t realize that this involved altering
what Dr. Beyer had reported. Dr. James Luke, another of the four
distinguished pathologists, refused to comment on the first question
he was asked: What are the chances of a bullet being fired into the
back of the throat ending up inside the skull? Saying, "I�m not going
to comment on something like that," he hung up. They clearly do
not welcome opportunities to defend their handling of the Foster
case.
It seems not to have occurred to these experts that the bullet fired in
Foster�s mouth was not necessarily the same bullet that penetrated
his skull and killed him. Robert Bracci�s discovery of Dr. Beyer�s
placement of the entrance wound at the back of the throat lends
greater strength to other evidence that there was a an exit wound in
the back of Foster�s neck, the most logical place for the bullet to
exit.
The Rear-Neck Exit Wound
Dr. Donald Haut, the Fairfax County, Virginia medical examiner
who was called to examine Foster�s body at Fort Marcy, wrote in
his report dated that day that the wound was "mouth-neck." On the
first page of the typed report, a word following "mouth-" had been
lifted off, leaving the bottoms of four letters in place. The word
"head" had been typed in, not over the erasure but after it. On the
second page the description of the wound was "mouth to neck." No
change had been made. Alteration of official medical records in
Virginia is supposed to be made by crossing out the word to be
corrected, writing in the correct word and initialing the change. In
this case the change was not initialed.
When AIM questioned Dr. Haut about this on July 22, 1997, he
said that he stood by his report as originally written. However, he
did not reply to a memo we sent him the next day, reminding him
that he had told us in August 1994 that the exit wound was in the
back of the skull and requesting more information about the location
and size of the wound in the neck. He has never responded.
He was interviewed about this again on Oct. 30, 1998 by Wesley
Phelan for the Internet publication, Washington Weekly. Phelan had
heard from a source that insisted on anonymity that before the
cover-up began that Dr. Haut had told one or more persons that
Foster�s death could not have been a suicide. In the Phelan
interview, Haut denied having told anyone that. He said he had seen
a hole in the back of Foster�s skull a little above the base and that it
went all the way through. He did not recall officer John Rolla
probing the back of the skull for a hole and not succeeding in
finding anything but a mushy spot. [Dr. Haut�s mouth-neck report
was not included in the Foster documents released by the Senate
Banking Committee in 1995. It was discovered by Hugh Sprunt and
Patrick Knowlton among the documents held by the National
Archives in July 1997.]
Joe Purvis, a long-time friend of both Vince Foster and Bill Clinton,
was interviewed by Joe Goulden of AIM about the Foster death
several years ago. Purvis said that when Foster�s body was in the
Reubel Funeral Home in Little Rock, the proprietor allowed him to
view the body and called his attention to a hole in the back of
Foster�s neck at the hairline. He said the hole was about the size of
a dime. Purvis had told this to others, as well, but he subsequently
denied having done so. The proprietor of the funeral home refused
to discuss the matter.
Are the Haut and Purvis denials credible? It is hard to believe that
Dr. Haut would have written "neck" twice when he really meant to
write "head." His confirmation to AIM that he stood by his report
and his later repudiation of what he had written in his interview with
Phelan makes his revised story very difficult to believe. The Bracci
discovery that Beyer located the entrance wound at the back of the
throat suggests that it is quite possible that both men have changed
their stories under pressure.
The Right-Neck Entrance Wound
If the bullet fired in Foster�s mouth exited from the back of his
neck, a different bullet must have been fired into his brain. The
official investigators all agree that a bullet shot into Foster�s skull
caused his death. If two bullets were fired, that spells murder.
Richard Arthur, an experienced paramedic who saw Foster�s body
in the park, told the FBI that he saw a small caliber gunshot wound
on the right side of Foster�s neck just below the jaw. He believed
that this wound explained the blood found on the right shoulder of
Foster�s shirt. Arthur reported the death as a homicide. One thing
that made him suspicious was the contrast between the small caliber
wound he saw on Foster�s neck and the large caliber gun that was
found in his hand.
Arthur�s observation of this wound is supported by a photograph of
Foster�s head and neck which is said to show a dark spot, possible
evidence of trauma, in the area where Arthur saw the wound.
Reporters Chris Ruddy and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard both say that
they have seen this photo. Its existence was acknowledged in the
Starr report by Starr�s hired pathologist, Dr. Brian Blackbourne,
who dismissed the claim that the dark spot was caused by trauma.
He claimed it was dried blood, a claim that other experts said could
not be determined from a photograph.
Why The X-rays Vanished
The existence or non-existence of these wounds would not be in
question today if the X-rays taken of Foster�s head could be found.
The disappearance of the X-rays that must be taken in Virginia in
case of gunshot wounds and that were taken according to the
autopsy report is highly suspicious. It suggests that they showed
evidence that more than one shot was fired into Foster�s head.
They may have shown a .22 caliber bullet still inside his skull. Park
Police Sergeant John Rolla failed to find an exit wound in Foster�s
head and concluded that the bullet was still inside the skull. A report
to that effect was sent to FBI headquarters by the bureau�s
Washington field office. It said that a preliminary autopsy showed
no exit wound.
This should have raised more than eyebrows at the FBI, where all
those familiar with guns would find it hard to believe that a high
velocity .38 caliber bullet fired into the head through the mouth
would remain inside the skull. When they obtained a copy of Dr.
Beyer�s autopsy report to check the accuracy of this claim, they
must have been even more surprised when they saw that the
entrance wound was reported to be in the back of the throat. How
could that bullet have ended up in the head instead of exiting
through the neck? They must have realized that a different bullet
was fired into the cranium. They must have realized that this spelled
homicide, not suicide.
If two bullets were involved, this would have been proven by the
X-rays of Foster�s head. The disappearance of the X-rays, Dr.
Beyer�s denial that he had taken them and the lie he told to explain
why he hadn�t taken them are all indications that the X-rays showed
evidence that Foster was murdered. The chief medical examiner in
Virginia has a rule that X-rays must be taken in deaths involving
bullet wounds, with rare exceptions. Dr. Beyer, in addition to
checking the box on the autopsy report form to show that X-rays
were taken, told the attending Park Police officers that the X-rays
showed no bullet fragments in the skull. But when FBI agents
working for Robert Fiske wanted to see the X-rays, Beyer said he
had not taken any, and he repeated that in testimony before the
Senate Banking Committee.
Dr. Beyer said he had checked the form in advance because he
planned to take X-rays. He claimed that he had not done so because
the machine was not working properly. He could not recall telling
the officers that the X-rays showed no bullet fragments. Dr. Beyer
claimed that they had been having a lot of trouble with the X-ray
machine, which had been installed new several weeks prior to
Foster�s death. The company that installed and serviced it checked
its records and found that the first request for service they had from
Dr. Beyer�s office was at the end of October for a minor
adjustment.
That was over three months after Foster�s death. Beyer�s
explanation of why there were no X-rays was false. Why would he
hide or destroy the X-rays, telling lies to explain their absence?
There is only one plausible reason. The X-rays had captured
evidence that disproved the official line that Foster had killed
himself by firing a .38-caliber, high-velocity bullet into his brain via
his mouth. The disappearance of these X-rays reveals the truth
about how he died almost as surely as would the X-rays themselves
if they could be found.
By slipping in the truth that the mouth entrance wound was at the
back of the throat and constructing a cockamamie path that
purports to explain the route that the bullet took to pass through the
brain and exit from the skull, Dr. Beyer has verified what might be
called the Richard Arthur theory of how Foster was killed-a
small-caliber bullet fired into the brain from beneath the jaw. This is
a technique favored by some professional hit men when they want
to minimize the mess. The shot in the mouth probably followed
after Foster was dead. It may have been symbolic. The mafia use it
to send a message to stool pigeons. One of the rumored
explanations of Foster�s death is that if he was subpoenaed he was
determined to testify truthfully about matters that might be
damaging to the Clintons. Another possible explanation is that the
killers realized that even the Park Police would not believe that
Foster had killed himself with the .38 revolver found in his hand if
the only visible wound was so small that only one paramedic
noticed it.
Dr. Beyer�s autopsy report is evidence that Foster was murdered. If
the missing X-rays cannot be found, Foster�s body must be
exhumed to see if the neck wounds exist or not.
What You Can Do
Send letters to Rep. Henry Hyde, the chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., chairman and
publisher of The New York Times and to an editor of your choice.
If you would like to commend Robert Bracci for his important
discovery in the Foster case, his address is 4114 Calhoun, Apt. 404,
Dearborn, MI 48126.
[06]
In Key Area, Ruff Admits Error
By PETE YOST Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a concession forced by House
prosecutors, White House Counsel Charles Ruff acknowledged
Friday the president's legal team had mischaracterized evidence
about alleged obstruction of justice in a way that favored Clinton.
Ruff and deputy White House counsel Cheryl Mills told the Senate
earlier this week that Clinton could not have obstructed justice in
his Jan. 18 conversation with secretary Betty Currie because she
was never a prospective witness in the Paula Jones case.
But House prosecutor Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., noted Friday that
Mrs. Jones' lawyers added Mrs. Currie to their witness list and
subpoenaed her within 48 hours of the Monica Lewinsky
controversy erupting in the news media on Jan. 21.
``I did not accurately reflect the fact that ... the Jones lawyers
indeed issued ... a long list of subpoenas,'' Ruff told the Senate.
``For that misleading statement I apologize.''
Hutchinson also focused on another relevant fact that Mills and
Ruff never mentioned during their presentations at Clinton's
Senate trial - that Clinton had a second conversation with Mrs.
Currie a few days after the Jan. 18 discussion.
In both meetings, Clinton made statements such as ``you were
always there when she (Ms. Lewinsky) was there, right?'' and
``Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?'' Mrs.
Currie testified.
Ruff said in the end it did not matter because Clinton did not know
Mrs. Currie would be called at the time of either conversation with
his secretary.
House managers, however, maintained that Clinton had essentially
identified Mrs. Currie as a potential witness during his Jan. 17
deposition in the Jones case when he claimed that Ms. Lewinsky's
frequent visits to the White House could be explained by her
friendship with Mrs. Currie.
[07]
Judge: Lewinsky Must Testify
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton's impeachment trial
resumed today with attention divided between senators' questions
and a new legal battle touched off by prosecutors' efforts to force
Monica Lewinsky's cooperation.
In a chain of events set in motion by lead House prosecutor Henry
Hyde, R-Ill., Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's attorneys went
to court Friday for an emergency order to compel Ms. Lewinsky
to be interviewed by the House managers concerning the alleged
coverup of her affair with Clinton. The judge ruled today that she
must submit to questioning.
The Starr attorneys argue that the former White House intern's
immunity agreement requires that she cooperate with the House.
[08]
Immigration requests taxing U.S. agency
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON - Not since the Great Depression have immigrants
made up such a large percentage of the U.S. population - nearly
10% - and the Immigration and Naturalization Service says it cannot
keep pace with the number of new applications for legal residence.
The number of foreigners granted residence in the United States
dropped by 13%, to 800,000, in 1997, largely because the INS has
been struggling to deal with a surge of green-card requests, the
agency reported Friday. Immigrants accounted for 9.8% of the U.S.
population last year, double the 4.8% registered in 1970. Although
at a high not seen s
ince 1930, the percentage remains well short of the 14.7% attained
in 1910. Mexico was the largest source country for immigrants in
1997, accounting for 18% of all those admitted during the year.
=============================================
THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE is FREE.
The POLITICAL DIGEST is essentially an Internet "Clipping Service."
We gather many "Political News Articles" and "Political Columns and
Editorials" that are on the Internet and combine them into one e-mail
message, just as a "Clipping Service" does for people with
"Hard Copies" of newspapers.
THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE is FREE.
To receive THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE,
just send an e-mail message with the word
subscribe TPDL in the subject line to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To stop receiving the TPDL just send an
e-mail message with Unsubscribe in the subject line to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you.
No Charge, it's FREE.
= = = = = = = =
\\/ayne //\ann
"I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have
changed government policy *solely* because of a contribution."
-- President Clinton, March 10, 1997
--
Forwarded for info and discussion from the New Paradigms
Discussion List, not necessarily endorsed by:
***********************************
Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research (POB 20273,
Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the
entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales,
rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date
Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources.
To Discuss Ideas:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://msen.com/~lloyd/
For Ordering Info & Free Catalog:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://a-albionic.com/
For Discussion List:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
text: subscribe prj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
**FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: <http://a-albionic.com/search.html> **
Explore Our Archive: <http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html>
Please Patronize PRJ's Advertisers: http://home.msen.com/~daugh/store.htm
Many Pay Even If You Just Look and Don't Buy! Video Finder, Free catalogs,
Health Products, Sweepstakes, Etc.
***********************************
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
