Miguel Rodriguez memorandum Vincent Foster death investigation, December 1994, Fiske counsel report conclusions are not fully supported by existing record, Report contains misstatements and supposed facts inconsistent with the record

USDOJ

Miguel Rodriguez memorandum Vincent Foster death investigation, December 1994, Fiske counsel report conclusions are not fully supported by existing record, Report contains misstatements and supposed facts inconsistent with the record

 

“MEMORANDUM
Date: December 9-29, 1994
From: Miguel Rodriguez
To: File
Subject: November 29, 1994 Meeting Concerning Foster
Death Matter And Supplemental Investigation
Prior to Grand Jury

Present for this meeting were Mark Tuohey, Brett
Kavanaugh, Jeff Greene and me. The meeting was convened to
di-,scuss my review of the Foster death materials.
I began by citing my earlier memorandum
independent review observations, in summary. I explained that

(1) the Fiske counsel report conclusions are not fully supported
by the existing record and that the report contains misstatements
and supposed facts that are inconsistent with the record; (2)
there is not “overwhelming” evidence in the existing record to
support voluntary discharge of the weapon in suicide or to
support that VF was alone the afternoon of his, death; and, (3)
there is not “overwhelmingl! evidence to support the report’s
conclusions regarding motivation for suicide. Before any
discussion, Tuohey disagreed.

1.
Regarding motivation, generally, I pointed out that
numerous “state of mind” issues are inconsistent with suicide.

First, VF did not intimate suicide and facts
indicate VF was not intent on fatally harming himself; indeed, VF
indicated to a number of individuals that he was optimistic about
work-related events to come and that he was planning future
family events.

Second, the gravity of VF’s apparent involvement in
the travel office and usher matters did not indicate VF was in a
dire predicament. The spirit of writing about the travel office,
indicated Lisa Foster (LF), was optimistic and an effort to
prepare for an offensive stance, i.e. that VF did not commit
impropriety regarding the travel office. Moreover, I pointed out
that those persons working closest to VF on the travel office
matter indicated that VF was not obsessed with the matter. White
House staffers Neel and Nolan declared that it was out of VF’s
hands. VF was not implicated in the travel office matter (or
even the usher matter) ; the magnitude of the matters was, at
worst, ethical violations by Clinton administration officials and
supposedly embezzlement by non-Clinton administration officials.
Others conducted the review of the travel office matter — GAO
and (internally by) McLarty and Panetta;l the matters had been
out of VF’s hands for at least four weeks; and, to the extent VF
was upset, he was upset regarding William Kennedy’s (WK)
reprimand (as indicated in the internal McLarty/Panetta report) .
These facts were’not pointed out by Fiske counsel. 2

Third, I pointed out that there were additional
matters on VF’s mind that indicated VF’s ability to cope with
variables and stress, which matters were not addressed by Fiske
counsel. These matters may not be disputed and at least include:
(1) the blind trust; (2) the 1992 taxes, which taxes involved
Whitewater concerns; (3) VF’s wife, recently in Washington, D.C.;
(4) the FBI’s director was being replaced (after the FBI had hot
been accommodating to the White House on the travel office
investigation); (5) new personnel in the counsel’s office (Sloan
and Castleton) ; (6) VF’s weekend with Hubbell; (7) VF’s visiting
sister; and (8) financial concerns,3 which concerns were
demonstrated by VF’s special authorization of release of
financial statements, every Friday, to LF via VF’s secretary.

Fourth, apparently on VF’s mind were private .
conversations VF had, at length, with two blonde females (Marsha
Scott and Susan Thomases) prior to VF’s death. Neither female
can recall details of her conversation with VF. Neither female,
however, indicated that her conversation with VF caused VF dire
concern. Although Fiske counsel identified that such
conversations occurred, no probe of the conversations was
conducted. Thomases claimed attorney client privilege regarding
her conversations with VF. I have advocated, however, that she
has no such privilege and/or VF had no such privilege. I
strongly recommended further exploration on her (and Robert
Lyon’s) dealings with VF and the privilege issues.

And fifth, on the day of VF’s death — in
Arkansas — the search warrant for Hale’s office was executed.
However, while VF’s Rolodex contained Hale’s telephone number,
there is no indication that VF knew of the search or that VF was
preoccupied by events concerning investigation of Hale. Later in
Arkansas, reportedly, documents VF had worked on were removed
from Rose law firm storage and were destroyed.”
Read more






Related News

  • Accused of rape why won’t president Clinton scream his innocence?, Juanita Broaddrick of Arkansas accused him of raping her in 1978, Why isn’t President Clinton behaving like an innocent man?, Uses his legal wordsmiths as human shields, Newsmax March 2, 1999
  • Kathleen Willey Schwicker vs. William J. Clinton et al, Hillary co defendant, Violation of the 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), Obstructing justice; intimidating party witness or juror, Threats made by jogger, Hillary as guilty as Bill, Newsmax September 21, 2000
  • L.D. Brown testifies about White House intimidation, Seeks attorney with “Intestinal Fortitude” to go against Clinton, Information on possible White House witness tampering, Concerned about my personal safety and for that of my family, Washington Weekly October 6, 1997
  • Judicial Watch finds pattern of lying by Clinton allies, Stephanopoulos sanctioned, Carville rebuked by court, Stephanopoulos warned on national TV of “Ellen Rometsch strategy” by “White House allies” to “bring down” perceived adversaries of Clinton Administration, Judicial Watch August 20, 1998
  • The Podesta cover-up, Top Clinton aide fighting impeachment, Implicated in cover-up of sale of Clinton Commerce trade mission seats for campaign contributions, Nolanda Hill testified in sworn affidavit and in open court, Judicial Watch September 23, 1998
  • Why is Clinton White House afraid of Dolly Kyle Browning?, Paula Jones witness prepared to testify in senate trial, Browning can testify to Clinton perjury threats and obstruction of justice, Judicial Watch January 11, 1999
  • Declaration of Dolly Kyle Browning March 6, 1998, Paula Jones’s lawyers released, Sexual relationship with Bill Clinton from mid-1970’s until January 1992, 1994 high school reunion encounter, “I agreed not to tell the true story about our relationship”
  • Browning Vs Clinton, Plaintiff’s expedited motion for leave to perpetuate testimony of threatened witnesses, Case No. 98-1991, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Elizabeth Gracen, Kathleen Willey, Julie Steele, Sally Perdue
  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked as *

    *