January 10, 2000
Hillary Clinton?s Complicity in Forgery
By
Reed Irvine
On January 7, Barbara Olson, the author of Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton, had an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal in which she listed the charges on which Hillary Clinton might still be indicted. Missing was the most serious of all?her involvement in obstructing the investigation of the death of Vincent Foster. This was not limited to instructing her chief of staff, Maggie Williams, to remove files from Foster?s office on the night of his death. Far more serious was her involvement with the torn-up note that was supposed to have been found in Foster?s briefcase six days after his death and four days after the briefcase had been searched by White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum in the presence of a Justice Department lawyer, FBI agents and U.S. Park Police officers.
This note, which played an important role in making the case that Foster committed suicide, was allegedly found by Associate White House Counsel Stephen Neuwirth, when torn scraps of paper fell out of the briefcase as he was putting it in a carton for shipment to Mrs. Foster. Michael Chertoff, the special counsel of the Senate Whitewater Committee, told me that he and his staff tried holding Foster?s briefcase the same way Neuwirth demonstrated he was holding it when he testified before the committee. (This was shown on TV. He held it gripping one end of the briefcase with both hands and tilting it slightly with the open end down. I have made the same test with a similar briefcase, and I have demonstrated publicly several times that one has to turn the briefcase upside down and shake it to dislodge scraps of paper in the bottom.) Chertoff said no scraps of paper fell out when the briefcase was held as Neuwirth claimed. He clearly lied about how the note was found, but the committee never made this public.
Nussbaum, Neuwirth, Mack McLarty, his assistant, Bill Burton, and David Gergen all neglected to tell the FBI agents who interviewed them only days after the discovery of the note that Hillary Clinton had been shown the note as soon as it was "discovered." (McLarty and Gergen were out of town with the president. Nussbaum was called by McLarty after it was shown to Hillary, telling him of Hillary?s reaction. McLarty discussed it with Gergen.)
The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight was critical of the silence of these officials re Mrs. Clinton?s role in its final report on the investigation of the White House travel office matter. It said, "(T)hese witnesses had no reason to universally forget information about Mrs. Clinton unless it was by design. None of the reports of these interviews included the fact that Mrs. Clinton had been brought in to review the note even though all of the above individuals were aware of that fact."
Nussbaum told the committee that he did not mention Mrs. Clinton?s involvement because all she did was take a brief look at the note, had an emotional reaction and bowed out without discussing it. He said, "Hillary Clinton happened not to be a participant in those events....She wasn?t involved in any discussions." That was contradicted by David Gergen, who told his attorney, Burt Rein, that McLarty had decided to wait until the next day to decide whether to turn over the note to the authorities because the First Lady was very upset and believed the matter required further thought and that the President should not yet be told. She said they should have a coherent position and should have decided what to do before they told the President. (Fifteenth Report by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 9/26/96, p.205)
McLarty?s assistant, Bill Burton, took notes on this discussion. The committee asked him about two notes that he had made. He claimed he could not remember whose comments they were. One read: "far happier if disc., if someone other than Bernie." The word "other" was underlined twice. This indicates that a story had been cooked up to explain how the note was "discovered." The plan was for Nussbaum to claim he found it. That plan was changed. Steve Neuwirth became the designated finder. Hillary was the only person present whose wish could have effected that change. She also had good reason to do so. In the event that the forgery was discovered, it would be better to have more distance between her and the finder than Nussbaum would provide.
The other note read: "if worried about usher?s office, discuss with me." That referred to a sentence in the note that read, "The Ushers Office plotted to have excessive costs incurred, taking advantage of Kaki and HRC." That is a matter about which Hillary would know more than anyone else in the room. Her suggestion that worries about it be discussed with her indicates that she had a hand in composing the text of the forged note and could explain why it was included. She probably wanted it included because a reference to a dispute that few people except Foster knew about would shore up its authenticity.
Her desire to delay informing the president and announcing the discovery of the note reflects doubts that the forgery was good enough to fool handwriting experts. Those doubts explain an otherwise inexplicable incident that Nussbaum?s secretary, Linda Tripp, revealed in her deposition for the Senate Whitewater Committee. She said that the lawyers were closeted in Nussbaum?s office during the evening hours after the note was found. One of them came out and asked if he could take one of the two electric typewriters in the outer office into Nussbaum?s office. Tripp said it would be difficult because the cords were taped down, but she offered to get one from another office. That offer was declined. Tripp wondered why they needed a typewriter when there were five computers in the office.
There is only one explanation that makes sense. That is that Hillary, and perhaps others who were involved, feared that the handwritten forgery was not good enough to escape detection. The alternative was to type the note on a typewriter that Vince Foster might have used. A typewriter from another office would not do. Neither would a computer, since it leaves a record of the date.
Hillary?s concern that the forgery might be detected was well founded. Great care was taken to have it submitted for authentication to someone who would not declare it to be a forgery even if they thought it was. The White House was not yet confident that it could rely on the FBI to do it no harm. The U.S. Park Police were under orders to not to make any use of the FBI crime lab. Instead of sending the note to the FBI for authentication, Sgt. Larry Lockhart of the Capitol Police was asked to verify that it was Foster?s handwriting. He did so, even though he was given only one sample of Foster?s handwriting for comparison, a letter Foster had written.
Two years later when Lockhart, who was then retired, was shown enlargements of individual words common to the note and to the letter, without being told the source of either, he was able to put them in two different groups. He declared that the words from the note appeared to have been written by someone trying to imitate the words from the letter. An independent handwriting expert who took the same test came to the same conclusion. When she was told what documents were involved, she decided she could not make her decision public because her husband was an employee of the federal government.
The FBI was asked to verify the authenticity of the note by special prosecutor Robert B. Fiske, Jr. in June 1994. Fiske apparently had doubts that Foster had written the note because the only samples of Foster?s handwriting that he submitted for comparison were 18 canceled checks Foster had written. The message this sent to the FBI was that Fiske did not want an honest analysis. He was trying to get the FBI to authenticate the note using samples for comparison that he, as a former U.S. attorney, knew did not meet FBI standards. The FBI responded with a memo that read: "Significant handwriting characteristics in common were observed which indicates the questioned writing...was prepared by VINCENT FOSTER....A qualified opinion is rendered in this case as the known writings of FOSTER are limited in quantity and not sufficiently comparable in word and letter combinations to the questioned writing....It is suggested additional normal course of business writings prepared by FOSTER be obtained for comparison to the questioned writings."
Fiske sent the FBI one more canceled check and a copy of the same letter that had been used by Sgt. Lockhart. These submissions still did not meet the FBI?s normal requirements, but the FBI promptly sent him a report saying the note was written by Foster. Fiske included this FBI memo in his report. He did not include the one that suggested that he submit more appropriate samples of Foster?s handwriting. Doing so would have called attention to an action he had taken that can only be explained as a result of fears that the FBI might declare the note to be a forgery if supplied with comparable samples of Foster?s known handwriting.
The FBI laboratory did examine the note for fingerprints. All they could find was a palm print that came from Bernard Nussbaum. If Foster had written the note and had then torn it into small pieces, his prints should have been all over it. Their absence is strong evidence that pains were taken in writing the note and in tearing it up to avoid leaving any fingerprints. It is very likely that the note was torn up after it had been shown to Hillary. The three handwriting experts, who in 1995 were supplied with copies of the note and nine copies of notes written by Foster on lined paper and three other samples of his handwriting, pointed out that forgers sometimes try to make detection more difficult by tearing up what they have written.
On Oct. 20, 1995, these three experts, Reginald Alton, an Oxford don with long experience in document authentication, Vincent Scalice, a retired New York City detective, and Ronald Rice, a Massachusetts certified handwriting examiner, declared the Foster note to be a forgery at a Washington, D.C. news conference sponsored by Strategic Investments Newsletter. They had all independently arrived at the same conclusion. They described significant differences in the formation on the letters in the questioned note and the known samples of Foster?s handwriting. Scalice criticized those who had declared the note authentic using only one appropriate example of Foster?s handwriting, the letter. He also said the strange circumstances of the note?s discovery should have aroused suspicion, and the absence of fingerprints was inexplicable.
The government?s lack of confidence in the authenticity of the note was also seen in its refusal to release photocopies of it and known samples of Foster?s handwriting until two years after Foster?s death. Only then could independent experts expose the note as a forgery. The Senate Whitewater Committee, chaired by Sen. Alfonse D?Amato, said in its final report that it had not had experts determine the note?s authenticity because the White House and the Foster family lawyer would not make the original note and originals of other notes written by Foster available for examination. The committee could have subpoenaed the necessary documents or it could have relied on good photocopies. Sen. D?Amato had throughout his investigation shown little desire to get out the facts that could have exposed the Foster death cover-up. This is one of several examples of his committee?s fear of finding the truth.
aim.org |
