("Quid coniuratio est?")
P O T P O U R R I
Next, Congressman Dan Burton (R., Ind.) goes on-record about a $50 million transfer of Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA) money to the Cayman Islands. Burton wonders aloud, Why on earth did ADFA money, meant to benefit Arkansas small business, get sent to the Cayman Islands? Says Burton on May 29, 1996:
ADFA [Arkansas Development Finance Authority] was created by Governor Clinton in 1985 to provide economic development loans in Arkansas. In December of 1988, ADFA deposited $50 million in a Japanese bank in the Cayman Islands. I have a copy of the contract that I will enter into the record. I have also delivered a copy of this document to the Independent Counsel's office. Why would an economic development agency in Arkansas deposit $50 million in a bank in the Cayman Islands? The Cayman Islands are a well-known center of money laundering for drug dealers. The State Department's international narcotics control report described the Caymans as "a haven for money laundering."
One of the questions that I think is very, very important is why did the Arkansas Development Financial Authority send $50 million of Arkansas money to the Cayman Islands to deposit in a bank in the Cayman Islands, which is a major drug transit point acknowledged by almost every DEA agent in the world? I have the electronic bank transfer statements in my office. I am going to put them in the Congressional Record. There is no doubt the money was wired to the Cayman Islands. The question needs to be asked, why was it wired? Why would the Governor of Arkansas allow that? (Congressional Record, 5/29/96, H5627-28.)
Later in 1996, Sherman Skolnick and Joseph Andreuccetti file suit against, among others, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, charging that plaintiffs obstructed disclosure
of the secret details of the unlawful transfer of a 50 million dollar portion of 58.4 million dollars of funds of the Federal Home Loan Bank, parked and held in custody, and supposed to be so, with Household Bank and Household International in the Chicago area, and supposed to be held to make good the claims of plaintiff Andreuccetti.
...the use of said 50 million dollar unlawful transfer by defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton was to cover up 47 million dollars that was misappropriated and embezzled, and/or otherwise unlawfully encumbered, used, or removed from an Arkansas savings and loan, Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, as to which defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband, William Jefferson Clinton, committed or caused to be committed, and allowed, permitted, and condoned, and acquiesced in, acts and doings punishable under provisions of the federal criminal code.
Responding to Skolnick and Andreuccetti's lawsuit, lawyers representing Hillary Rodham Clinton stated that
Plaintiff's complaint fails to meet the minimum standards of intelligibility and brevity... The complaint is both frivolous and abusive and is yet another example of plaintiffs' misuse of the judicial process. Accordingly, the complaint against Mrs. Clinton should be dismissed with prejudice.
[The plaintiffs' complaint is] a convoluted and lengthy collection of allegations that are either unintelligible or irrelevant. To take but one example, in paragraph 30 (part of a four-and-a-half page narration of a purported meeting with an IRS agent), plaintiffs appear to allege that a United States bankruptcy trustee is corrupt, that the "nephew/godson" of a bishop embezzled $900,000, that one of the plaintiffs has been put into involuntary bankruptcy as a result of fraud, that a bank involved in that bankruptcy was run by someone who used to be the head of the "mafia-dominated Vatican Bank," and that the United States Attorney's Office in Chicago is yet another corrupt institution. Even after partially untangling this dense web of accusations, the relationship of the allegations to any cause of action that might reasonably be brought against the defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton remains a complete mystery.
Representing Hillary Rodham Clinton and authors of the above excerpts from "Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton's Motion to Dismiss" are David E. Kendall, Nicole K. Seligman, Max Stier, and also Michael R. Feagley and Walter M. Rogers of the firm Mayer, Brown & Platt.
Confused? Or perhaps cherubic Lady Clinton's face makes you think, "Naw, not Hillary. She wouldn't be connected with any embezzlement." Then consider the following statement by Lisa Schiffren, as reported in the February 1997 issue of George magazine:
A better financial journalist than me would be well employed finding out where the Clintons have stashed their money offshore. I would imagine there are hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting in the Cayman Islands. I really believe this. If I had a lot of time and someone was willing to pay me a lot of money, I'd go find it. The $100,000 [which Hillary Rodham Clinton made in the cattle futures market], courtesy of Tyson Foods, is the tip of the iceberg. I'm giving them credit for having been bought for more than a measly hundred grand.
Present during the Hayes trial was "Limpiar Phebi Dojocia" (pseudonym). I spoke with "Limpiar" on the phone today, and here's what I got:
** The jury was 8 to 4, with four of its members favoring acquittal. That got narrowed down to one, then none, and the jury returned a guilty verdict.
** The prosecution did a last minute, dramatic unveiling of a Federal Express envelope, giving the impression it was "hot stuff, just in." The envelope, from the CIA, contained a response to inquiries. Says CIA: "Chuck Hayes? Chuck Hayes? Nope, never heard of him." But, says "Limpiar," the envelope in fact must have arrived on or about January 15, making the January 29th "dramatic unveiling" misleading. An added prosecution benefit of this "last minute" routine is that defense discovery guidelines get bypassed; how can prosecution have shared the letter with defense when they themselves "just now got it."
** Why didn't defense attorney Gatewood Galbraith call Bill Hamilton, of Inslaw, as a witness? Hamilton could have verified that Hayes was indeed a former CIA employee. "Limpiar" tells me that Hamilton was willing to testify. Much of the case hinged on whether or not Hayes really was a former CIA agent. Apparently the only one called by Galbraith to corroborate the claim was James Norman, former senior editor with Forbes magazine.
So what is going on? Why the revelations? Recall how, not long after the April 19, 1995 bombing(s), Colonel (Retired) James "Bo" Gritz and others were referring to McVeigh as "Lee Harvey McVeigh." This was an allusion to Lee Harvey Oswald, accused lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy. Paraded into the angry Oklahoma sunshine shortly after the bombing of the Murrah Building, clad in a bright orange "see me" jumpsuit, it appeared as if someone might save the prosecution some work by murdering McVeigh, a la Jack Ruby doing the same to Oswald. Were the government and/or its agents hoping that might happen, that McVeigh would magically be removed from the equation?
Unfortunately for those desiring the removal of McVeigh and consequent absence of a trial in the matter, McVeigh was not assassinated and the trial is at last imminent. McVeigh's attorney Stephen Jones seems to be no slouch, and with closed circuit television to be made available to interested survivors, family members, and apparently to an alert underground press, Jones will be heard. And he will be heard without the "helpful" little interpolations of corporate "news" media. This spells trouble for any working to cover up the truth about the Oklahoma City bombing(s). By now they must be wishing, more fervently than ever, that McVeigh could somehow just disappear.
With that as background, consider how convenient it would be for the case against McVeigh to be thrown out, due to tainted evidence. Recent revelations about FBI crime lab misdoings come at an opportune time for any who are wishing that the upcoming trial would just go away. And, FBI could just sit back and say, "Well, we know that McVeigh did it. It's just that picky legalities thwarted justice."
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those
of Conspiracy Nation, nor of its Editor in Chief.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
For information on how to receive the improved Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net
See also: http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html
See also: ftp ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred