Breaking: US Congress Subpoena Orders Ashcroft To Release Clinton Evidence on Sept. 11, 2001
See some of the evidence that is being subpoenaed by Congress about Clinton and some other Gambino Crime Family associates who are known murderers, assasins and mobsters which is being kept secret and hidden from Congress and and Federal and State criminal courts:
--------------------------------------------------
(This is from the actual Congressional government website)
ITEMS UNDER SUBPOENA AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE
The dispute between the Committee on Government Reform and the Department of Justice goes to the heart of Congress’ ability to conduct meaningful oversight of the Executive Branch. The following has been prepared to explain what types of documents are currently being sought by the Committee, and why they are being sought. It is the Committee’s understanding that the Justice Department’s new position will prevent Congress from reviewing any of the subpoenaed documents.
The Committee’s Investigation of the FBI’s Use of Informants in New England Organized Crime Investigations
The conduct being investigated by the Committee has led to over one thousand million dollars of civil law suits against the government and has contributed to the murders of a number of individuals. The events under review took place over almost four decades and can be described as one of the greatest failures of federal law enforcement in the history of the United States.
1. Records Regarding Stephen Flemmi -- Stephen Flemmi is currently under indictment for murder and is likely to be prosecuted for murder in at least three states. While serving as an FBI informant for over two decades, Flemmi allegedly killed a number of individuals – perhaps well over twenty. He also allegedly killed, or participated in the killing, of witnesses who provided information to federal law enforcement authorities about his crimes. Notwithstanding extensive evidence readily available to federal law enforcement authorities, why was Flemmi not prosecuted for his many crimes prior to 1995? Why did the Justice Department choose not to prosecute Flemmi?
2. Records Regarding James “Whitey” Bulger – Bulger is currently number two on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” list. Along with his partner Stephen Flemmi, Bulger allegedly killed a number of people in the Boston area while serving as an FBI informant. Notwithstanding extensive evidence readily available to federal law enforcement authorities, why was Bulger not prosecuted for his many crimes prior to 1995?
3. Records Regarding Joseph Barboza – Joseph Barboza was described to the FBI Director on June 20, 1967, as “a professional assassin responsible for numerous homicides and acknowledged by all professional law enforcement representatives in this area to be the most dangerous individual known.” The Justice Department had credible information that Barboza killed many people and was not prepared to be truthful in testimony before federal and state courts. The Committee would like to review deliberative memoranda discussing whether Barboza should be prosecuted for murders, why the government used a witness who would provide perjurious testimony, why the federal government was prepared to entertain using him as a top echelon informant after he had been placed in the witness protection program, and why the federal government helped defend Barboza after he was indicted for a murder committed while he was in the witness protection program. The documents sought would shed light on all of these questions.
4. Records Regarding Jimmy “The Bear” Flemmi – Jimmy Flemmi and his brother Stephen were being cultivated by the FBI to become informants. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was informed that “all he [Jimmy Flemmi] wants to do now is kill people” and that Flemmi “feels he can now be the top hit man in this area.” The FBI was aware of a number of murders committed by Flemmi, was told that Flemmi was going to kill Edward “Teddy” Deegan, and that he had in fact participated in the killing of Deegan. The Justice Department also had knowledge that Joseph Barboza would not provide any information that would allow Flemmi to “fry.” Why was Flemmi not prosecuted, and why did the FBI allow Joseph Salvati to spend thirty years in prison for a crime that was committed by two – and possibly three – of their informants? If prosecutors or subordinates of the Attorney General discussed the pros and cons of prosecuting a man they knew to be a multiple murderer, or if they discussed providing information to state prosecutors, or withholding information from state prosecutors, the Committee would like to obtain this information.
5. Records Regarding Raymond Patriarca – Raymond Patriarca was the highest ranking member of organized crime in New England. In the early 1960’s, the FBI placed an illegal surveillance bug in Patriarca’s principal place of business. The bug provided evidence of numerous crimes. The Committee would like to obtain information about deliberations regarding possible criminal prosecutions of Patriarca for a number of reasons. For example, if the Attorney General or his subordinates received advice regarding a criminal prosecution, it would be apparent that individuals other than the Director of the FBI and his subordinates were aware of the existence of the illegal bug.
6. Records Relating to Gennaro Angiulo – The Committee is interested in deliberations regarding decisions to prosecute Angiulo because there is a high likelihood that such deliberations will shed light on additional improper conduct by federal law enforcement officials.
7. Records Relating to Theodore Sharliss – The Committee has recently been informed that Sharliss was an FBI informant. While serving as an informant, Sharliss allegedly participated in a successful plot to kill Joseph Barboza. Sixteen years after the Barboza murder, Sharliss provided information implicating J. R. Russo in Barboza’s murder. Deliberations regarding potential prosecutions of Sharliss may shed light on why it took the federal government sixteen years to prosecute Russo for Barboza’s murder, and the justification for placing him in the federal witness protection program. They may also shed light on whether the federal government was aware that Barboza was to be killed prior to the murder taking place, and whether they were aware that their own informant was plotting to set Barboza up to be murdered.
8. Records Relating to J. R. Russo – J. R. Russo was ultimately convicted of the murder of Joseph Barboza. It is unclear why he was permitted to remain unindicted for 16 years.
9. Records Regarding Former FBI Agent H. Paul Rico – In addition to Rico’s involvement in helping to orchestrate the testimony of Joseph Barboza in the Deegan murder trial, he was later found by a judge to have suborned perjury and to have himself committed perjury in a trial in Rhode Island. Did anyone provide advice that Rico should be prosecuted for perjury, or referred to state prosecutors to be prosecuted for perjury? When Rico was brought out of retirement to assist in the government’s investigation of then-judge Alcee Hastings, was his perjurious testimony discussed or brought to the attention of Justice Department personnel?
10. Records Regarding Former FBI Agent John Connolly – The Committee would like to learn whether the Justice Department considered indicting Connolly prior to his 1999 indictment.
11. Records Regarding John Morris – John Morris, a former FBI agent, has admitted taking money from one-time FBI informants Whitey Bulger and Stephen Flemmi. Did the Justice Department consider indicting him and, if so, why did it refrain from indicting him?
12. Records Regarding Frank Salemme – Frank Salemme and Stephen Flemmi were indicted for bombing and severely injuring a Boston attorney. Deliberations pertaining to the Salemme indictment and prosecution should shed light on why FBI informant Stephen Flemmi was not prosecuted. After Flemmi and Salemme were indicted, Flemmi was allegedly tipped off by an FBI agent and fled the country. Years later, he was allegedly contacted by the same FBI agent and informed that he could return to the United States, and that he would have nothing to fear regarding the indictment. Soon after Flemmi’s return, the indictment was dropped. What were prosecutors advising their superiors about the extraordinary treatment of informant Stephen Flemmi, and what were they thinking about the credibility of their cooperating witness Robert Daddeico, who kept changing his testimony to enhance the case against Salemme and weaken the case against Flemmi? The witness against Salemme and Flemmi, who is now apparently under government protection, even indicated at one point when he was being pressured by the government to provide additional testimony, that “he might have some things to say which the authorities would not want to hear.” What were those things, and what advice did prosecutors give to their superiors about this witness?
13. Records Regarding Robert Daddeico – Daddeico allegedly changed his testimony a number of times against Salemme and Flemmi regarding the bombing of attorney John Fitzgerald. Deliberative documents pertaining to the decisions regarding proposed prosecutions of Daddeico should shed light on why Flemmi was permitted to escape prosecution for the bombing of Fitzgerald. They should also shed light on what prosecutors thought about how his stories changed to benefit FBI informant Stephen Flemmi.
Campaign Finance Investigation Subpoenas 14. Records Regarding the Recommendations of Robert Conrad Regarding a Special Counsel to Investigate Campaign Finance Improprieties – These documents were subpoenaed in 2000 and not produced to the Committee. The campaign finance investigation was the largest investigation in the history of the United States Justice Department and, at one time, Robert Conrad was the head of the Justice Department task force. It was also one of the largest investigations in Congressional history. There is no dispute that disclosure to Congress of information from the Freeh and La Bella memoranda was a positive step. The Conrad memorandum, and related memoranda, should be reviewed by the Committee as one of the final actions in closing out its investigation of campaign finance improprieties related to the 1996 election cycle.
15. Records Relating to the Decision Not to Prosecute Mark Middleton – A number of prosecutors associated with the campaign finance investigation at the Justice Department believed that there was a strong case against Middleton pertaining to the allegations made by Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie that he had given Middleton significant sums of cash while Middleton was employed in the White House. The money was allegedly provided for favors and access to the White House. The Committee has a legitimate reason to review this document as part of its extensive investigation of how the campaign finance investigation was conducted by the Justice Department.
Subpoena Pertaining to an Investigation of the Drug Enforcement Agency’s Handling of a Major Drug Investigation
16. Records Regarding the Decision Not to Prosecute Ernest Howard – Mr. Howard provided the Committee with inaccurate information and testimony. Significantly, Committee staff were informed by senior Justice Department personnel that the Department would not prosecute Congressional perjury cases unless there was unanimity between the political parties that Congress had been misled. The Committee has a legitimate reason for reviewing the declination memorandum to determine whether legislation should be introduced to clarify the Justice Department’s erroneous understanding that one political party has veto authority over perjury prosecutions where Congressional testimony is at issue. [Note: This subpoena was issued previously in May of 2001.]
The above documents go directly to the heart of Congressional oversight of the Justice Department. It would not be appropriate to prevent Congress from performing a thorough investigation of these matters.
Committee on Government Reform
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-5074