Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 4 Num. 54

("Quid coniuratio est?")


On April 4, 1995, I interviewed Mr. Sherman Skolnick of the Citizens' Committee to Clean-up the Courts [CCCC] by telephone. The following is my transcription of that interview. Note that in this interview I neither necessarily agree nor disagree with either all or some of the statements of Mr. Skolnick.

-- Brian Francis Redman, Editor-in-chief, Conspiracy Nation

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +


So you can understand... In other words, another guy that was right up there, as associate attorney general, third-in-command, who resigned to face federal charges, was Webster Hubbell -- who we believe is fingering Hillary, and that may be the basis for an indictment.

I'm not saying that anybody (anybody outside of Kenneth Starr himself) is certain as to whether Hillary will or will not be indicted on federal criminal charges of embezzlement and obstruction of justice. I mean, they're considering the thing. And it has to be taken into consideration that all of this is happening while these secret societies (that the press doesn't discuss) are about to meet (like the Bilderberg Group), and while the dollar is practically in a free-fall in the yen market, and while all these other things are happening.

I mean, in other words, in that context you have to consider: maybe Kenneth Starr is afraid to proceed, on the basis that indicting Hillary will put such pressure on the President and on the Clinton White House that foreign allies of the United States will lose total confidence in the U.S. dollar, which would then, supposedly, go into a free-fall. And maybe that's one of the things that they're considering in hesitating to indict Hillary.

And I just find it more than coincidental that Hillary, just at the point of these rumors of a grand jury subpoena "runnin' after her", that she's out of the country, beyond the federal jurisdiction for the moment.

Yeah, well that's my tandem observation: that she also may be wanting to do something nice for her daughter, just in case she's about to go to jail, it might be kind of a nice thing on her part. Because she would have a natural affection towards her daughter, as compared to, she may have no real affection towards Bill.

All these stories... I mean, Gennifer Flowers' book is coming out. And when you saw her on the television, whatever opinion someone formed during the '92 election, Gennifer Flowers appears to be quite reasonable. She's a journalist (many people didn't know that), previously. The press, uh "Hard Copy", that controversial TV show, showed her briefly. They did not quite make it clear whether she was a print journalist or a TV journalist. But she claims that, starting in '77, when Clinton was a state attorney general in Arkansas -- for 12 years thereafter, she was his mistress. And that she's appalled that the same one that was her lover, is now the President and seeks to lie about something that she can prove.

Okay. I wanted to make double-certain about something that you had said. Foster's death, I think we both agree that it's highly suspicious. And if it was a suicide, it at least did not occur at Fort Marcy Park.

Well, yeah. The point is, notice the oddity: according to stories in the London Sunday Telegraph and a few other papers (but not in all the major papers in the United States), Starr's people subpoenaed key witnesses from the Park Police and the FBI. And in a rare move, warned them, before they went in to the grand jury, they were read the federal perjury law, as a warning: "Hey. You don't tell the truth behind the unmarked door, you may go to jail for perjury!"

But then they "took the fifth", right? {1}

Well. What goes on behind the unmarked, federal grand jury door is supposed to be secret. But if they there took the Fifth Amendment or not, is speculative. How can we know? It hasn't been revealed.

It seemed to me I heard somethin', that they had been...

Yes. There are stories circulating, like that. There is a lot of information that is leaking out. And what has happened is, [Rupert] Murdoch, who I believe is the owner of the London Sunday Telegraph, wants to throttle back the British writer, who is named Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, situated in Little Rock, who has gotten a lot of inside information. And other, much lesser journalists, are apparently now privy to some of the inside information that Pritchard used to get. In other words, Pritchard's stories, in recent weeks, were not that revealing. And knowledgeable journalists here, and in England and elsewhere, are commenting that Murdoch has ordered Pritchard "throttled back". It may well be that, at some point, he'll recall him from Little Rock.

Why would Murdoch do that?

Murdoch has got hundreds of millions of dollars involved in his communications monopoly. He needs the blessings of both the Democrats and the Republicans. And his newspaper, the London Sunday Telegraph, has been scandalizing the Clintons repeatedly with inside information. And, after all, Clinton still has quite a control, through Janet Reno and others, of the Justice Department. And they could stop Murdoch, or cause him great delay and expense, by accusing him of various anti-trust situations. In some cities, they have given him an exemption -- the FCC has. Under law... There's some kind of a law, regarding the FCC, that they cannot have a major newspaper and a major TV station in the same market, owned by the same people. In some markets, they've granted an exemption -- like the Tribune, and others. But apparently, at one point NBC was fighting Murdoch on the basis that he's a foreigner, and shouldn't be granted certain rights. Murdoch has claimed that he's now an American citizen. But his company, NewsCorp, is a foreign-owned company. And the FCC, and NBC, until just recently have been fighting Murdoch. And I gather that NBC backed off, and the FCC backed off -- apparently on orders from the Clinton Justice Department. And therefore, Murdoch is calling off his dog. In other words, in so many words, he's telling Pritchard, "Will ya back off!? Get off Clinton's back."

So... because the Clinton Justice Department and so on is in a position to cost Murdoch hundreds of millions of dollars in expenses if they start bothering him on anti-trust and other legal problems.

All right, but let me just clarify this one point you had made before. We agree, I think, between us, that Fiske's report on Foster's death was a whitewash, right?

It had to be a whitewash! Because Fiske, before he was appointed, by the Justice Department... See, Kenneth Starr was not appointed by the Justice Department. He was appointed by a special three- judge panel, set up under the independent counsel law. Fiske was not set up under that special law. He was given the title of, so-called, "independent counsel" by the Clinton Justice Department, which is... he isn't that independent. And previously, Fiske was involved in covering up aspects of the rogue bank, BCCI; that part has been published. So he had a built-in conflict of interest -- Fiske -- and was inclined to go along with covering up Foster, because Foster and Hillary were the attorneys that arranged for BCCI to penetrate the American market!

So, I mean, Fiske was inclined to cover the whole thing up!

All right, and so, that's a whitewash. And you're saying that Starr is, Starr is gonna say what? That Foster's death was a suicide?

Some journalists are commenting on the fact that alleged stories had leaked out that Starr was gonna uphold what Fiske said, that Foster was a suicide. The delay in doing that, and calling Foster's children before the grand jury (which had not, apparently, been done previous), leads some to believe that Starr would not so easily uphold the suicide theory.

Also, the London Sunday Telegraph, in their March 19th, '95 issue, refers to a highly-sensitive and confidential matters in a secret FBI file. And to give the **number** of it (which has not been previously known), and, so that... When you consider the whole thing -- about Sheila Anthony being a top official (that's Foster's sister, uh sister-in-law): she was a top official in the Justice Department that helped select U.S. Marshalls, federal judges and prosecutors, and all that -- you could see the whole situation uh, there was a built-in conflict of interest!

Yeah. There's also just too many discrepancies between the actual evidence and things that Fiske had ignored.

There's all kinds of things. The coroner is, to many, seems to be fraudulent. I mean, he made a statement that he x-rayed Foster's head, to see which way the bullet went? And then later, he said, "The x-ray wasn't needed, and besides which, my x-ray machine" (which was a new machine) "had not been working for 2 weeks." How come he didn't get it repaired? How come he didn't send the body over to a nearby hospital to be x-rayed?

I mean, there's all...

Yeah. And there's no bone fragments found.

Yeah, there's all these... not that much blood on the ground; they leaked an apparent fraudulent picture, to be used on ABC Evening "News" with Peter Jennings; ABC has apparently gone along with this cover-up; etcetera. I mean, there's something wrong, all the way around.

And the point is, what they're all worried about, to me seems obvious: they're worried that if it comes out, that Foster's death was not a suicide, then Clinton and his wife become accomplices to murder -- simply by trying to cover it up! They didn't have to order the murder; they didn't have to pick up the gun and personally shoot their alleged "friend", Foster -- but just by covering it up, under law, they become accomplices and they're... I think, accomplices to murder can be a capital offense! In any case, it would topple the government, okay? Topple the government, at a time when the dollar is going to the devil.


I predict, within 30 days of the meeting of the Bilderberg Society, it is likely that something dramatic will happen, regarding the Clinton White House.

-------------------------<< Notes >>----------------------------- {1} "Took the fifth" -- This basically means that they (supposedly) refused to answer questions on the grounds that their answers might tend to incriminate themselves. The "fifth" in the phrase, "took the fifth", refers to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the united States, which offers this protection against self-incrimination.

I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."

If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name" to -- To cancel, send a message in the form "unsubscribe conspire" to
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9

Brian Francis Redman "The Big C"

Coming to you from Illinois -- "The Land of Skolnick"