In CN 7.58, an article by Sherman H. Skolnick ("Sabotage? The
Crash of Ron Brown's Plane") mentions "jury tampering".
Specifically, we have as follows:
ITEM: A couple of years prior to the crash, a Vietnamese
official accused Ron Brown of soliciting a huge bribe -- like
$700,000 -- to get Clinton to open up Viet Nam to American big
business. A federal grand jury began hearing evidence for a
possible criminal indictment. There was jury tampering by
President Clinton and his Justice Department. The grand jury
proceedings were supposed to be secret, yet Brown and his
confederates were day by day, illegally kept informed, so they
could obstruct justice by bribing or terrorizing grand jury
witnesses. Brown was not indicted.
I received a long response from a CN reader, punctuated
throughout with that sophisticated rejoinder "Sources?
I pointed out to that reader and I point out to any others that
my name is not Sherman H. Skolnick. Since I also disclaim any
necessary agreement with Skolnick's material, I am not the best
person to go to with your questions, arguments, etc. True, I do,
at loss of time and money to myself, type in and post Skolnick's
always intriguing articles. But it does not therefore follow
that I am supposed to be Skolnick's personal secretary and handle
But still, I have in the past made efforts in that direction. I
did several interviews with Mr. Skolnick in which he answered
several questions from readers. These interviews were posted and
are available as back issues. (Write to me on how to get back
issues.) So the answer(s) to your question(s) *may* have already
The "highly original" reader response in which "Sources?
References?" are demanded *has* been answered *ad nauseum* in
previous interviews, available as back issues. And as noted, my
name is not Skolnick; I don't write his articles; I neither
necessarily agree nor disagree with all/some of what he says.
So if you want to argue, if you want "Sources? References?", why
not call information, ask for the phone number of Sherman
Skolnick in Chicago, and then politely call him with your
question(s). I suggest you check that he's not busy and offer to
call back if he is busy. But I personally have found that Mr.
Skolnick is friendly and talkative and if you catch him at a good
time he'll be happy to answer your question(s).
With that said, I will however venture out on a limb and give my
own corroboration for the allegation of jury tampering connected
with the grand jury investigation, mentioned above. Note again
that I am just speaking on my own here, not representing anyone.
Taking considerable time from my busy day, I look through my
archives. Under the old "Conspiracy for the Day" series, I find
Conspiracy for the Day -- November 17, 1993
("Quid coniuratio est?")
[From "The 700 Club", November 12, 1993]
DEMONSTRATORS: We want the truth! We want the truth! We want the
BOYD [Janet Boyd, CBN News]: Vietnam veterans and POW/MIA family
members gathered across the street from the White House Thursday
to demand the resignation of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. They
said Brown and the White House have not responded truthfully to
allegations that Brown accepted a $700,000 bribe from a
representative of the Vietnamese government. Brown allegedly took
the money in exchange for lifting the economic trade embargo
against Hanoi. He is under investigation by a federal grand jury
Brown has denied the charges against him, calling them
"preposterous." But sources say arguments from Brown and Treasury
Secretary Lloyd Bentsen convinced the President to ease
restrictions against Vietnam this summer.
Brown denied discussing the Vietnamese embargo with anyone in the
administration. But secretary Bentsen told Congress Brown *did*
attend administration meetings where Vietnam was discussed.
Secretary of State Christopher said Brown *may* have been at
meetings concerning Vietnam.
Though he passed an FBI polygraph test, Brown's chief accuser,
Ben Ly, has not been called by the federal grand jury.
But evidence suggests someone, perhaps at the Justice Department,
is leaking details of the Grand Jury investigation. *That* is a
violation of federal law. In its October 11th issue, a source
close to Brown detailed for *Time* magazine some of the testimony
taken by the Federal Grand Jury. And officials at the White House
reportedly told *Time* in a later issue that the Grand Jury
investigation "is virtually complete and they are confident Brown
will be pleased with the results."
BURTON [Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana]: I don't know how the
White House, or Mr. Brown or anybody else would know what is
going on in any Grand Jury room. And I don't understand why Mr.
Ly is not being called. He should be called. The Grand Jury
should get all of the information possible so they can make an
informed decision on whether or not to indict Mr. Brown.
BOYD: Burton and other critics of the Commerce Secretary say many
questions need to be answered by Brown and the administration.
Like what role did the woman living in this Washington townhouse
play? The house is owned by Brown but occupied by Haitian ethnic
Lillian Madsen [sp?], long-time friend of Brown. Brown allegedly
was going to use Madsen to acquire secret business equity in
Some Vietnam veterans and POW/MIA families say they will not rest
until Ron Brown and Bill Clinton come clean.
DEMONSTRATOR: We will demonstrate, and keep demonstrating. We've
got to have the truth! You understand? We've got to have the
BOYD: Janet Boyd, CBN News, Washington.
KINCHLOW [Ben Kinchlow]: Not to worry... We know that the
Democrats are absolutely bound and determined to get justice as
they are trying to do with [unclear]. You *know* that they're
MEEUWSEN [Terry Meeuwsen]: This gives new meaning to the word
"vigilance," doesn't it? I mean the hearings are almost concluded
and they have not yet called before the group the man who is the,
the number one accuser.
KINCHLOW: It's not only that but we've also, we've already got
the verdict. We already know that Mr. Brown is going to be
"pleased with the results!"
So the above *does* indeed suggest jury tampering.
What I find is that, over the years, much of the stuff I've
looked into is filed away "somewhere". So when, for example,
Skolnick makes allegations of jury tampering in the Ron Brown
mess, I at least have some frame of reference wherein I *know*
I've seen that "somewhere". In this instance I was able to track
down some corroboration. In other instances I just don't have
the time. Like I say, it's not up to me to defend what Skolnick
says. If we had an honest press in this country, Skolnick would
have been given a public venue (like for example CBS' "60
Minutes") in which he could be interrogated. We ought to be
seeing by now Mike Wallace, that fearless knight errant battling
for the truth, quizzing Skolnick on national television. Why
not? Or if not "60 Minutes", then maybe a PBS station could do
an in-depth investigation. That way, both sides could be heard
and the thinking public could make up their own minds. As it is,
Skolnick is like the "invisible man" or something: he's there,
but most of us aren't able to see him. What's the matter,
"journalists"? Is Skolnick just too, too working class for your
oh-so-refined lifestyles? If you want, maybe he'd wear a
smiley-boy mask so he'd fit in better with you all.