Posted on 04/03/2006 8:13:43 AM PDT by doug from upland
ROHRBACHER DEMANDING NEW PROBE OF OKC
Jayna Davis and I had an interesting phone conversation this morning. She is still waiting for a plane ticket to D.C. and an invitation to testify about the OKC bombing. Neither has been forthcoming.
Is it good news that Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) is demanding a new probe of the OKC bombing? Maybe. But is it going to really get to the truth about the Middle Eastern connection to OKC? Maybe not.
Last year, David Schippers, famous for prosecuting both the Chicago mob and William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, flew to OKC to meet Jayna and her witnesses. Dave spent 12 hours grilling 14 of them on camera.
When he was finished, he told Jayna that, with just three of them, he would get a federal indictment of Hussain al-Hussaini in one day. FBI agent Dan Vogel told her he could do the same -- with one of her witnesses. That is how credible they were.
So why, Congressman Rohrbacher, did you tell Jayna that the committee has no budget to fly her to Washington, D.C.? What is the problem? Are we finally going to get the truth or is this grandstanding?
Andreas Carl Strassmeier has six witnesses saying that he was building a fence at the time of the bombing. He couldn't have been with McVeigh. Of 1100 fingerprints tied to the crime scene, none are Strassmeier's. Not one of 30,000 witnesses ties Strassmeier to the crime.
Here is a question for you, Congressman. Well, actually seven questions. Ten months ago, Jayna gave these to you in writing and still is waiting for the answers.
1. Why has the Justice Department/FBI not issued an official on-the-record statement exonerating Hussain Al-Hussaini of complicity in the Oklahoma City bombing? Has the DOJ provided Congress with Hussain Al-Hussaini’s whereabouts for the critical hours of the morning of April 19, 1995?
2. Why did the FBI never question Hussain Al-Hussaini about the bombing?
3. Why did the FBI previously suspect Al-Hussaini’s employer of ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization?
4. Why were the original motel registration logs where witnesses testified McVeigh checked in with Al-Hussaini’s Iraqi cohort the evening of April 18, 1995, never returned to the establishment’s owner?
5. Whatever happened to the brown Chevrolet pickup that was seen carrying Middle Eastern suspects from the bomb site? The Oklahoma City police found fingerprints inside the recovered truck. Why were these prints not compared to the immigration files of the three Middle Eastern nationals whom witnesses observed in that getaway vehicle before, during, and after the bombing?
6. Why did the Bureau rebuff my efforts to surrender the witness statements and supporting evidence in September 1997? Why did the FBI withhold from the defense teams the twenty-two witness affidavits that I delivered to FBI Special Agent Dan Vogel in January 1999?
7. Why were the prior warnings issued by the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare that predicted an Islamic attack in the “heart of the U.S.” disregarded as an indicator of foreign participation?
Congressman Rohrbacher needs to bring Jayna and Schippers to meet with the committee in closed session. The committee needs to see the on camera interviews of 14 eye witnesses. It needs to be done in closed session to protect the witnesses. They stepped forward as patriots facing great risk.
The real story of OKC should have been told long ago. Let's finally get it told now. Bill Clinton did not want to deal with Middle East terror on our soil. He wanted this to be domestic terror. That is what he got. Who are those deep inside the FBI who are responsible for continuing the coverup?
The truth about OKC will forever end any remaining legacy of the impeached William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Had he dealt with OKC, 9-11 could have been prevented. He ignored Middle East terror, created the vast right wing conspiracy, and his Kool-Aid drinkers dug in their heels. He would be held accountable for nothing. They stood with him no matter what because they had to fight the dreaded right wing. That is how Clinton divided America as never before.
If anyone would like to join me in calling the congressman, he is at (202) 225-2415.
Bump that.
I was going to ping you and here you are. :-)
I know---and again, I'm not ruling it out. But having extensively studied the JFK assassination, almost every "conspiracy" explanation soon devolves into requiring that hundreds upon hundreds of people "knew" but "wouldn't tell the truth," and I don't find that to be credible.
This seems to repudiate that TMcV was trained or supported by outsiders.
What was most compelling to me was the woman who survived the blast and lost her leg. I've forgotten her name.
While physicians were working to free her from the rubble, she described what she'd seen seconds before the blast. So her testimony wasn't corrupted by television or other people describing what they saw.
She identified Hussain Al-Hussaini stepping out of the Ryder truck at ground zero moments before the fertilizer/oil bomb exploded.
Agreed, and this speaks more to the seeming fact that, when exposed to cross exam, their assertions would fall apart and be of no value. A good atty. CERTAINLY would have called them . . . if any had anything at all to say that would stand up.
I just went back and re-read it; how does it repudiate that McVeigh was trained or supported by terrorists?
Also, the FBI was warned in the months preceding the OKC blast that a terrorist attack was being planned for the heartland area and that "Lilly Whites" would be used and make it difficult to trace to Iraq.
I know, and I know many people have described John Doe #3 who looks almost exactly like Jose Padilla. But eyewitness testimony, crime people will tell you, is the MOST unreliable, esp. if a woman was in a traumatic situation at the time she "saw" this.
She was one of many who saw the same thing.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
I don't. Someone must have that ping list.
No where does he say that he was in contact or in any way wanted to be compared to these people. Quite the contrary, he says he wants to be known as a "terrorist" on his own merits. That pretty well eliminates the connection as far as I'm concerned---in McVeigh's mind.
It was somewhat difficult for the defense to do its job because their client wanted to die as quickly as possible.
I don't see how? How was it in, say, Nichols' defense atty. (who would have a multi-million book deal) "best interest" to keep such a thing a secret? Or how is it in someone in the prosecutors' office---where certainly, if this is 'real," would have had dissenters? They would stand to make a fortune. Quite the contrary, it is in EVERYONE'S best interest---McV, N, the attorneys, the prosecutors---to have the whole "expose" come out.
Another great link with loads of information:
http://www.greatdreams.com/john-doe-2.htm
Irrelevant. The job of the defense is to stall that, and they have their methods. If a defense atty. REALLY had some evidence, McVeigh would have gotten a mistrial at best, plead to a lesser offense at worst. CERTAINLY this is true for Nichols.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.