Independent Counsel Probe of Ron Brown Ongoing
Washington Weekly
February 16, 1998
OYSTER BAY -- In a stunning development obscured by the media's Monica-mania, the Washington based legal watchdog group Judicial Watch has revealed that the independent counsel's investigation of the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown did not, as widely believed, end with his death. In 1995 Attorney General Janet Reno had recommended an independent inquiry into Brown's public and private dealings. A three judge panel selected Florida attorney Daniel Pearson for the job. After Brown died on April 3, 1996, it was widely reported that Pearson had closed up shop and had turned all remaining questions over to the Justice Department for further review. Now it turns out those reports were apparently erroneous.
The fact that Pearson continues to investigate the Brown case leaves the door open for the same three judge panel that appointed Pearson to expand his charter, with or without the Attorney General's acquiesence. On Thursday, Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch sought to encourage the court to do just that, by filing a petition to expand Pearson's probe into the circumstances of Brown's death. Initially it was believed that the late Commerce Secretary died as the result of injuries sustained in an accidental plane crash while on a trade mission to Bosnia. But in recent months new evidence has surfaced that suggests foul play. Three high ranking Armed Forces pathologists have stepped forward claiming that clear indications of a possible bullet wound were ignored by the forensic team in charge of Brown's body when it arrived at Dover Air Force Base. Additionally, a veteran military photographer claims she was told by a superior that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed.
Judicial Watch, which now represents two of the four whistleblowers in the Brown case, hopes to persuade the court that Brown's death warrants further investigation based on their testimony, along with x-rays and photographs that show a suspicious cylindrical wound to the top of Brown's skull. On Friday, Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman explained the situation to the Washington Weekly:
"Daniel Pearson's probe has never really gone out of business. It's still active. The three judge panel ultimately controls the scope of the investigation. And the three judge panel is also the only authority which can terminate the investigation. And it has never terminated this (the Brown) investigation. In fact, it was confirmed by John O'Sullivan, who was Mr. Pearson's first assistant and who's now back in the U.S. Attorney's office in Miami, that the probe is still open and that they are looking at some things. He couldn't reveal what areas are still under investigation because he can't breach grand jury secrecy.
Judicial Watch isn't doing anything that's very radical here. All we're saying is that the court ought to direct Mr. Pearson, who is still in operation, to look into these matters because he has a live proceeding. And if the death of the target of the investigation (Brown) was not accidental, that would be the ultimate obstruction of justice. Clearly, Mr. Pearson already has the authority to look into this with or without the three judge panel telling him to."
How has the press managed to miss the fact that Independent Counsel Daniel Pearson still has jurisdiction over the Ron Brown case? Klayman offered one possible reason for the confusion:
"Some parts of the Ron Brown probe were indeed turned over to the Justice Department. But nobody ever looked into the actual case file. The file itself reveals that Pearson's investigation is still open. And before I looked at the file myself assistant U.S. attorney O'Sullivan confirmed this to me."
Asked if the court would have to respond to Judicial Watch's petition by any certain date, Klayman explained: "No, but I would suspect that since we have bi-partisan support, they would respond quickly". That bi-partisan support comes via civil rights crusader Dick Gregory and Mark Thompson, Chairman of the Political Action Committee of the NAACP, D.C. Chapter, both of whom joined with Judicial Watch in petitioning the court to expand Pearson's probe.
Klayman admitted that the controversy surrounding Ron Brown's death was a political hot potato that most in Washington would rather not deal with. But he told the Washington Weekly:
"I think we have an excellent chance that the court will move forward on this. This case is made more compelling because you have the actual Armed Forces people who blew the whistle on this coming forward. These are not folks with any kind of alleged political agenda. And one of our clients, the forensic photographer, Kathleen Janowski, was a White House volunteer. She has a certificate signed by President Clinton and Vice President Gore thanking her for her service."
Something else that might auger well for a positive response by the three judge panel is it's recent history with the Vincent Foster case. In July 1997 Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr concluded that Foster's death was a simple suicide in the park despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Three months later the panel, headed by Judge David Sentelle, finally released Starr's report on the case, but only after attaching a 20 page dissenting analysis documenting the flaws in Starr's Foster investigation. The press has steadfastly refused to acknowledge this part of the report, but it is every bit as much a part of the official court sanctioned conclusion on Foster's death as anything written by Starr's team. If the same attitude prevails as Sentelle's panel weighs Klayman's petition, chances for justice for Ron Brown (along with collective media cardiac arrest) are good.
Klayman said that the AFIP four - Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, Lt. Col. David Hause, Air Force Major Thomas Parsons and Naval Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janowski, continue to pay the price for their honor and honesty. They have been reassigned to other duties. All materials related to the Brown case have been confiscated. The AFIP has even gone so far as to try to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from professional conferences.
The predicament of these brave soldiers was paramount in Dick Gregory's mind, when the Washington Weekly reached him on Friday:
"My whole concern right now is not Ron Brown. It's not his family. It's those beautiful people who put their careers on the line at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. That is probably one of bravest acts I have ever witnessed. They are military people. Those folks have a regimen. And you never, ever, ever see military people do anything that they haven't been told to do by their superiors.....I want them (the Brown case whistleblowers) to know that there's a group of us out here and we say: Our first priority is to watch your back. And to make sure nothing happens to you. And to make sure that if you think anything is wrong - call us. We'll be out in front of the general's house, we'll be out in front of the Pentagon, we'll take it to the White House if we have to. That's my number one concern right now."
Eleven years ago, the denouement of the Iran Contra hearings came when Sen. Daniel Inouye confronted Lt. Col. Oliver North. North had bested committee Democrats, explaining that whatever was done was done for a noble cause and that as a good soldier, it was his job to "salute smartly and go charging up the hill." In his summation, Inouye tried to turn the tables, invoking the Nuremberg trials of German officials who claimed they were merely good soldiers, "just following orders." In the Ron Brown case we have just the opposite: four brave soldiers who broke ranks and told the truth rather than knuckling under to the "just following orders" culture. Instead of being celebrated as heroes they are left to twist in the wind.
This time it is the press and the politicians who behave like "good Germans."
Published in the Feb. 16, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly. Copyright © 1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com). Reposting permitted with this message intact. |
