my interview on RFK case status

[Ron Ecker]

Paul, I've said before and will say again that politically America has two great crime families, the Bushes and the Clintons, although the Bushes now are about used up. But how one perceives these two crime families seems to depend almost entirely on where one stands politically. For those on the left like yourself, all the evidence of Bush criminality is legit. But bring up evidence of Clinton criminality, such as an obviously crooked stock bonanza or evidence that Vince Foster did not commit suicide (which the Clintons would surely be aware of) and that Foster's files were raided before the police could seal his office, and it's nothing but rumors "from the bottom of the garbage can."

It's easy to say that the Clintons have never been charged with anything (other than Slick Willie's impeachment). Well, have the Bushes ever been charged with anything? What?

[Paul Brancato]

Prescott Bush was prosecuted by Congress for trading with the enemy. He was not convicted. But the Union Bank certainly was guilty.

I would say that powerful families are largely above the law, a sorry but true fact.

I think that there is a false equivalence in your analysis, even though as you say ones view of the Bushes and Clintons is colored by ones political leanings. I remember well the feeling I had when Bill was in office and the scandals you mention were swirling around him and Hillary. I saw these scandals as witch hunts. But in my defense I have to say that whenever I tried to scrutinize Whitewater, or Vince Foster, I was left with the feeling that there was no there there. That doesn't mean I saw no possibility of sleazy financial dealings, but it was nothing out of the ordinary, nothing that couldn't be said about politicians in general. Show me something other than stolen files that points to the Clintons having had Foster murdered. Frankly I was more upset with Bill Clinton for free trade deals and welfare reform than any of the scandals you mentioned. From the left perspective Bill was far too centrist.

So why was he hounded by the Republicans so mercilessly? This wasn't just political squabbling and complaining the way Democrats did during Bush the younger's presidency. I came to the conclusion that there had to be a deeper reason. There is no moral high ground on the Republican side. In my opinion financial elites stand to gain a lot from governmental disfunction. I see divide and conquer at work. I don't see a great deal of difference in foreign policy between the parties. Domestically we have been fighting about self evident human rights like women's right to choose or gays right to marry not because there are really two sides to these issues, but rather because it takes so much energy to fight these battles that we never get to focus on issues like poverty and privilege, issues the financial elites really do care about.

So if people become convinced that both sides are equally inept and equally corrupt we end up in the situation we are apparently in now, which is that a loser like Trump can harness the bitterness of the blue collar and unemployed underclass and make a serious run at the White House. Unfortunately this reminds me of another loser in another country not too long ago.

[Ron Ecker]

Paul, I have never said that the Clintons had Foster murdered. I have said there is evidence that he was murdered. And I would bet the farm that the Clintons at least know who did it. I'm not going to spend time rehashing the evidence, it's available on the web. I'll just ask you one for instance. Does it say anything to you that the Foster autopsy x-ray are "missing"? (The coroner later tried to claim that he didn't take any x-rays because the machine wasn't working. A real pro, just like the three stooges at Bethesda.)

To me the worst thing that Bill Clinton did was cover-up Iraqi involvement in the Oklahoma City Bombing. I can't think of any reason why the FBI would do that unless ordered to do so. If you want the evidence for Middle East involvement, read the book The Third Terrorist by investigative journalist Jayna Davis. Former CIA director James Woolsey called Davis a hero.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Ron Ecker

[James DiEugenio]

Ron:

This is not the place to go into the Foster case, but please, three Republican prosecutors could not make the case for homicide.

And that includes Ken Starr, who was essentially working for Scaife.

And Scaife is the guy who almost single handedly created that case through his agent Ruddy. Who then got the big payoff with Newsmax.

[Ron Ecker]

Ron:

This is not the place to go into the Foster case, but please, three Republican prosecutors could not make the case for homicide.

Which proves what? Two official investigations could not make the case for conspiracy in the murder of JFK. Does that make any sense? (To elaborate, the second investigation was simply going to rubber stamp the first one, but was confronted at the last minute with evidence that it didn't know what to do with. So it concluded, "Uh, umh, well, there was probably a conspiracy." But then the FBI supposedly debunked said evidence. So the bottom line after two investigations? No conspiracy.

Government "investigations" prove nothing, as everyone here should know by now.

[Larry Hancock]

Given that I was originally highly impressed by Jayna Davis' book and recommended it to many people I need to go on record retracting that. After doing my own research, including with Oklahoma sources, and exploring a good bit of information that came up after she published, it is pretty clear to me that there was a terrorist connection - but not to Iraq. The connection was two fold, first to an ultra-right cult in eastern Oklahoma and second through connections to jihadi terrorists and bomb builders. Richard Clarke delves into that a bit in his book but nobody else has really published the full, more contemporary, story. As he points out Nichols and McVeigh could not get their bombs to work, then McVeigh made his mysterious trips to the Philippines and when he came back - the new bombs worked quite well. The fact that one of the most expert jihadi bomb builders just happened to visit the same small town that he did, at the same time, is very likely no coincidence. There are a number of additional connections, not much has been written about the fact that one of the first international jihadi networking events was at a semi-private conference in Oklahoma City or the fact that one of the most radical mosques was in Norman, Oklahoma. And few outside of this state are aware of the abortive student/terrorist bombing of an OU football game which would have killed hundreds - if the young man had not been turned back at the gate and later blown himself up on the OU campus.

When the David book came out I was first impressed and then puzzled about the CIA endorsement - since when does a CIA director, ex CIA or not, give an endorsement to a conspiracy book. Eventually, and after a few head slaps it dawned on me that the book endorsement (published in 2004) was simply one small piece of the overall propaganda run up to the Iraq invasion. Make Saddam responsible for a terror attack on America. lets go get him. I have good reason to feel that Davis was quite sincere, whether or not all her sources were is another story. As far the CIA endorsement of the book - as well as endorsements from several conservative, neocon Congressmen, some from my state and some on the Congressional intelligence committee.... I suspect those may also have been part of the anti-Saddam campaign.

[Ron Ecker]

Larry, thanks for the update. Very interesting. So are you saying that you found terrorist connections to the OKC bombing that the FBI couldn't find?

[Larry Hancock]

Actually the FBI did have some of them, in regard to the ultra right cult group in eastern Oklahoma the FBI even sacrificed one of their most important informants to protect the fact that they

were monitoring the group and Nichols connections and visits to it.....they have a bad habit of doing that when events after the fact might prove they were holding back on arrests to get more information. Certainly

there is plenty of evidence now, that they were very much aware of Nichols and of plotting against Bureau agents and offices over the Bureau's actions in Waco.

Beyond that, actually the defense lawyer, an Oklahoman, turned up a great deal of the evidence related to the Philippines, I would recommend his book. Some of that information the FBI was aware

of, some they were not. Its the old matter of the prosecution coming first, with no desire to be distracted by other leads that might prove embarrassing if you chase them down. I can't claim

to have turned up anything special myself other than compiling and associating things that came up in the decade following the Davis book, Stu took this further in his research for his book American Jihad.

The other point is that during the period of time in question, the CIA and FBI were not playing well together, I go into that in detail in Surprise Attack. My suspicion is that the CIA may well have had files

related to a jihadi terrorism connection to American anti-government radicals, connections worked through the Philippines. If I'm correct we will never see that now, certainly not in my lifetime.

In short, its a lot like the other crimes we are familiar with, its not that the FBI did not have some of these leads, especially leads that point to a broader conspiracy, its a matter of whether they were ordered to pursue them. And surely the CIA was not going to volunteer anything. At the time of the actual bombing, tracing any jihadi connection into the U.S. was held extremely closely within both the CIA and at NSA as well.

[Ron Ecker]

In short, its a lot like the other crimes we are familiar with, its not that the FBI did not have some of these leads, especially leads that point to a broader conspiracy, its a matter of whether they were ordered to pursue them.

Bingo.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Ron Ecker

[Larry Hancock]

In the OKC bombing case, it would be extremely interesting to take a close look at the documents going between Justice and the FBI on the case. I can say that Stu and I did that in regard to the King case and we found that Justice was very interested in a broader investigation and in being involved but Hoover stonewalled them, ordered his people not to talk to Justice Dept staff and essentially aborted any broader investigation right there within the FBI. We described some of that in AGOG. Hoover managed to get away with that since the actual prosecution was local, and the FBI was simply "assisting" Memphis prosecutors. Justice had no ownership. I admit to being clueless on the legal dynamics within the OKC case but I suspect some of it is in the book my the defense lawyer that I mentioned and I'm just not remembering it....too much data, too little storage. One of the things I have learned in all of this is that all the agencies will do some hard to believe things in order to protect informants and also to cover up field information that headquarters failed to react to before an actual crime. Its hard to underestimate the degree of CYA that occurs.

[Ron Ecker]

Larry, you said you wondered about the CIA endorsement of Davis' book. I wondered about that too. I remember reading somewhere that Woolsey complained that as CIA director he couldn't even get an appointment to see the president. So I wondered if he endorsed Davis' book simply because he had a grudge against Clinton. But your idea (that it was an anti-Saddam tactic) is more plausible.

[Tom Neal]

Prescott Bush was prosecuted by Congress for trading with the enemy. He was not convicted. But the Union Bank certainly was guilty.

Paul,

Let me assist by posting just one illegal act for each Bush, each of which is worse than anything the Clintons have been accused of doing::

Two of Prescott Bushes company were shut down per the trading with the enemy act. Bush didn't do any time but the companies WERE shut down. So the CEO was guilty of trading with the enemy.

How about a smoking gun for Iran Contra? GHW Bush said for 12 years that he was "out of the loop". Yet when he failed to get a 2nd term, he had to turn his diary over. His diary revealed the he was in on it from the beginning. Additionally, he stated that he feared the press getting hold of the story which proves he knew it was legal.

GW Bush lied about WMD's, etc. to start a decade long war got thousands of American's killed, plus the wounded, plus letting the actual 911 terror group into Iraq , and what happened to the economy?

JEB Bush after taking the oath as Governor of Florida refused to obey the law that REQUIRED a recount. Even after the Florida State Supreme Court ORDERED a recount JEB still refused. By the time the US Supreme Court declared his brother the victor, according to the state Electors the complete recount could have been done twice.

None of the above is questionable.

[James DiEugenio]

Nice work Tom.

Ron, as per comparing the Foster case with the WC and HSCA, please.

The whole special prosecutor office was just about autonomous unto itself since the three judge panel that appointed it was packed with rightwing justices. Its not like they were being restricted in any way from the top. In fact, they got rid of Fiske because he was not aggressive enough in going after the Clintons.

I mean, they ended up with a nutcase in Starr. When so called scandal after scandal did not pan out, we ended up with Lewinsky. Which was really so bizarre that they made a comedy movie out of it, Wag the Dog. And it made Clinton a hero in the eyes of much of America.

Some right wing nuts tried to make the same case to me many years ago, equating Foster with the JFK case. I was taken aback by it then, and I still am.

BTW, the one scandal that really had something to it, Mena, they could not follow up on since it involved the GOP also and North.

Edited March 23, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Ecker]

Jim,

One question. How much of the "investigative" work for the special prosecutor's office was done by the FBI? (I don't know, I only have a strong suspicion, that's why I'm asking.)

[Nick Bartetzko]

Jim,

Its been years since I've looked at the Foster case and my recollection of the case is not the best. Im not wanting to derail things too far, but can you answer a couple of questions for me.

1) Did anyone do any investigation about identifying the rust colored 80s Honda with Arkansas plates that was seen in the parking lot by witness Patrick Knowlton? It must have been extremely burdensome to try and run all those plates in such a large state as Arkansas

2) What is your opinion of former US Attorney Miguel Rodriquez credibility? It appears he was quite upset about the investigations and later went to California to where, last I recall, he was in the US Attorneys office in Sacramento.

Since these were official investigations into the Foster case, I have to conclude they were as accurate as the official investigations conducted by the in the JFK case

Nick