OPEN LETTER TO THE HON. DAN BURTON
December 19, 1996
- Reed Irvine and Joseph Goulden

We were pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the Foster case with you on December 11. We were delighted to learn that you intend to conduct a serious investigation of Vince Foster's death and the coverup that followed. Since there was nothing said about the discussion being off the record, we assumed you wanted this to be known to all those who have followed our efforts to get answers to the many unanswered questions that hang like a dark cloud over this case. You will earn their respect and gratitude of millions by conducting a genuine investigation of the Foster coverup.

But the decision to pursue this investigation should not rest on whether or not it is popular with the people or with the media. It must be investigated because it involves the corruption of important law enforcement agencies as well as people in the White House and the willingness of the media to shrug it off. We were pleased to learn that your statement to Robert Novak about not revisiting the Foster case was qualified by the phrase, "unless new evidence turns up." New evidence turned up on the front page of The Washington Times the same day the Novak column quoting you ran in other papers. The new evidence was the report by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard that David Watkins, the former Assistant to the President for Management and Administration, had said that he had been informed of Foster's death at around 7:10 or 7:15 p.m. on July 20, 1993.

This is a loose thread that when tugged will unravel the tissue of lies told by the U. S. Park Police and other senior White House officials about when the White House was told of Foster's death. Other senior White House officials claim they were not notified until after President Clinton went on "Larry King Live" at 9 o'clock and the President was not told until after he finished the show at 10 o'clock.

This is no minor matter. There is evidence, not probed by any previous investigation, that a Secret Service technical team called the "MIG group" met with Watkins' assistant, Patsy Thomasson, in the White House that evening, unbeknownst to Watkins. The purpose of this meeting has never been ascertained, but it may be related to evidence that a secret search of Foster's office was made before the President went on the Larry King show. The FBI interviewed an eyewitness, whose statement has never been released, who said President Clinton was told that something had been found in Foster's office before he went on "Larry King Live."

That might be related to the two manila envelopes Foster's secretary said she had seen in the office safe--one addressed to Foster's good friend Bill Kennedy, marked "For Eyes Only," and the other to Atty. General Janet Reno. Neither envelope was ever delivered to the addressee.

This evidence fully justifies your giving this investigation high priority. It should not require a lot of staff, especially if you employ a consultant who is already familiar with the evidence. It can be done quietly, taking sworn depositions from those who have given contradictory testimony about the time they learned of Foster's death.

Since many of the lies can be proven simply by comparing the contradictions in sworn testimony that is already in the record, this inquiry can be done relatively quickly, and it cannot fail to expose a pattern of deception and perjured testimony that may constitute obstruction of justice.

It would be a mistake to delay it. Those responsible for the coverup have used delay successfully to cool the interest of the media. Instead of releasing the Park Police and autopsy reports in August 1993, when interest was high, reporters were told to file FOIA requests. That was outrageous, but they got away with it. If the reports had been released then, reporters would probably have spotted and exposed the serious weaknesses in the investigation. They were not made available until the Fiske Report was released in July 1994. By then interest had cooled, and few reporters bothered to analyze any of the reports critically.

By keeping nearly all reporters off the story for a year, the authorities were able to enlist the mainstream media as their strongest allies against those who studied the evidence and saw that something was rotten. If you delay launching your investigation you will lose the momentum that comes with a fresh beginning and will have a harder time combatting the spin that you are just digging up "old news."