Now I want to say one last thing about this case. Nearly 30 years has passed since Brown died and the whistleblowers came forward. It’s really too bad that Newsmax has none of the many articles they published in its archive. For example …
I can still find posts I made on political forums 15 years ago of me linking and quoting large sections from them to others, with no-one remarking that they didn't exist. It may true that the internet never forgets anything but I don’t seem to have the means to locate everything that was once available. Maybe someone else does and were this officially investigated (say by Trump's FBI), I'm sure they'd have no trouble locating everything that's was once available.
But even so, one can still find enough sources to confirm most everything I’ve reported here. Here are to begin that process (they’re not in chronological order):
There are others sources, some behind paywalls. Often the ones behind them (like The Washington Post's) read like efforts to cover up a murder rather than get to the truth.
I need to go back over this more carefully but I did want to tell you that there has been a big and effective purge of content on the internet. I don't know this for sure I just know that stuff I could find easily a few years ago is gone without a trace.
We used to think that stuff online would be there forever, but that wasn't true. Many things are just no longer there. Perhaps a person with ninja IT skills could retrieve them, but for average users, things we used to find are long gone.
Brave works better than the other browsers and I turned up some Croatian language stuff on Zdenka Gast but I still can't find the photo you mentioned.
A fast dig: Zdenka Gast may be still alive and living in Grand Island, NY. There is another Zdenka Gast who is a cancer survivor and cancer advocate who lives in Florida, but I think that is a different person. They seem to be about the same age, though (mid-70s) and it is a very unusual name.
I asked Grok if it could find the photo from Gloria and it said it wasn’t able to, adding that Gloria has very poor archival of articles. But it said that since multiple conservative news sources mentioned the photo, it might exist
Now here's a 2016 article by Jack Cashill that refers to the photo: https://www.wnd.com/2016/03/20-years-on-time-to-ask-hillary-about-tuzla/ . It says “Inquiring into Gast's background, I came across a Croatian language magazine named Gloria. The photo that graces this article leapt off the page at me.
In the center of three smiling women, all linked arm in arm, is Zdenka Gast, an attractive, full-figured redhead. On her left is the then-secretary of labor, Alexis Herman, the woman who helped arrange Brown's fatal flight. On her right is none other than Hillary Clinton. The story details a wedding reception for Alexis Herman at the White House, hosted by the Clintons. The reception took place a few weeks after Herman's wedding in mid-February 2000.”
But Grok said it wasn’t able to find evidence that Herman had a wedding reception at the White House. I did find a Getty image with a caption saying Herman was married at the Washington National Cathedral, that the reception was in Chevy, Chase, Maryland, and that both the nuptial and reception were attended by Bill Clinton. Also, the Getty says both wedding and reception occurred on the same day. I suppose it’s possible that Hillary held a second reception, more private and political, at the White House later. In his 2016 article that Cashill challenged the news media to contact him about this story. That’s pretty confident from someone who they would have loved to embarrass by proving he didn’t have a copy of the photo or proof of where it came from. Just saying.
In any case, the Newsday article speaks of Herman joining “Hillary’s Cabinet”. It does seem Herman was in Hillary’s inner circle. It is worth noting that the article says Herman was the first black woman to hold the position of CEO of the Democratic National Convention in 1992 which increases the likelihood she was a Clinton insider back in 1992 was when Clinton was first nominated for President. Then in 1996 Clinton nominated Herman for Secretary of Labor. Since that happened in December, and Brown died in April 1996, that could have been a reward for helping out, if you know what I mean. On the other hand, Wikipedia says she was close to Brown and that is corroborated by Grokwhich makes it hard to believe she would have been a knowing participant in Brown’s murder. Still, being Director of Public Liaison, she might have been in the position to the know the truth about multiple Clinton scandals and obviously kept quiet.
As to whether Gast is still alive, Grok said the most recent reliable indication that she was alive was in 2019 when she completed a 500 mile pilgrimage suggesting she’s alive and active. Also, Grok found no obituary.
“While newsrooms pretend that any evidence of a real-life Brown cover-up is too bizarre to be taken seriously, CBS's "fictional" presentation of the same information made for some devastatingly plausible drama. And lest anyone missed the Clinton connection, "Hayes" writers had this line delivered by David Caruso himself: "It's one thing to dodge the accusations of a kiss and tell intern. It's quite another to have corruption in your Cabinet and commit murder to cover it up."
How did the producers of "Michael Hayes" get away with airing so much embargoed information about the Brown case? "Hayes" production assistant Dave Rapp told the Washington Weekly that everyone on the set, including Caruso, well understood that the story they were telling was Ron Brown's. Says Rapp: "I knew because our original version, our original drafts did refer specifically to Ron Brown. I'm sure, though I don't know specifically, that the first version was negated by CBS people who fictionalized it."
Even though "Michael Hayes" producers had to pretend they were dealing in fiction to do it, they managed to get more of the Ron Brown story broadcast on television than any network newsroom had dared to try. Then again, network newsrooms have never been much interested in investigating strange and mysterious Clinton administration deaths.
The "Michael Hayes" show ends as the central character comes to the conclusion that a high ranking government official--a Cabinet member--was murdered for political reasons. Hayes turns to a bust of Lincoln that he keeps in his office and laments: "It's not our country anymore, Mr. President." This is a sentiment not unfamiliar to those who have witnessed six years worth of White House criminality with no justice in sight. Hayes finally resigns from his job under pressure. In the final scene, Michael Hayes is viewed through the crosshairs of a rifle scope.
—————
The article ended by stating “CBS has canceled ‘Michael Hayes.’”
And it did … just one episode later. Just a coincidence?
One source of information turns out to be a woman military officer who is debriefed by investigators in Hayes' office. Here’s the dialogue …
INVESTIGATOR: Thank you very much for coming.
OFFICER: Hey, I'm probably better off away from the hospital anyway. I heard they shipped that forensic photographer off to Timbuktu.
INVESTIGATOR: Why would they do that?
OFFICER: Because she found what she called an unusual wound in Margaret Wells' head.
INVESTIGATOR: What kind of wound?
OFFICER: A half inch circular hole beveling inwards.
INVESTIGATOR: A bullet?
OFFICER: Sounds like it.
INVESTIGATOR: Well, what did the autopsy say?
OFFICER: What autopsy? They didn't do one. They did, however, take x-rays of her skull.
INVESTIGATOR: Well - was she shot?
OFFICER: Turns out those little suckers were misplaced. And no one seems to know - or care what happened to them.
The Ron Brown parallel grows even more stark as another investigator with Hayes' office interviews a government source familiar with the "Wells" crash investigation.
SOURCE: Air Force Boeing 737's just don't go down.... The pilot of the Wells plane had over 3,000 flight hours. His co-pilot had more - in the same plane. Do they sound like the kind of people who commit gross pilot error?
INVESTIGATOR: Is that how the NTSB classified it?
SOURCE: No - the Air Force (did). Curious, eh? And in all the reports after the crash they said that the aircraft attempted to land in extremely poor weather: heavy rains, wind, lightning, yada, yada, yada. Hell, the Six O'Clock News reported it was the worst storm in a decade. The problem is, we checked the satellite data. Winds were at 14 mph with only a light to moderate rain....Another potential C.O.C., Cause of Crash, was malfunctioning navigation beacons. Problem is, in the minutes before Wells plane crashed, five other planes landed without difficulty.
INVESTIGATOR: Did they check the beacon?
SOURCE: Of course. The airport maintenance chief (did). Turns out, he died by gunshot wound three days after the crash - before investigators had a chance to question him.
INVESTIGATOR: He was murdered?
SOURCE: Officially it was a suicide. The guy was broken up because his hundred year old mother died.
INVESTIGATOR: What do you think happened?
SOURCE: I think somebody intentionally screwed with the beacons and the airport maintenance chief knew it.
The closest the MSM ever got to telling the truth is in 1998 in the 21st episode of the Michael Hayes prime time series starting David Caruso. The episode was titled “Faith”. You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSBWcLqlmf0 . A Newsmax article (no longer available on the internet) described the episode, which centered around the plane crash death of fictional Under Secretary of State Margaret Wells. The interesting part starts about 20 minutes into the episode.
In the episode, U.S. Attorney Michael Hayes becomes suspicious about Under Secretary Wells' death after her brother dies in a cult suicide along with two other people peripherally connected to Wells' plane crash. He summons his staff to discuss the case. One aide observes, "It's no secret that Wells was being investigated for raising campaign funds illegally, for bribery." Another notes, "There was an election around the corner. Her death could help a lot of people - save a lot of embarrassment." At this point Hayes orders his staff to begin digging into Wells' death.
The documentaries also ignored the fact that Ira Sockowitz informed the Secretary of State from the crash site that TWO people survived the crash. The documentaries mention Shelly Kelly, who (they say) happened to die on the way to the hospital. But they don’t mention that Shelly Kelly's body was cremated soon after arriving at Dover, without the consent of her parents or family … a clear violation of regulations for which no one was ever punished.
The documentaries claimed that soon after rescuers arrived at the crash site, they discovered there were no flight data recorders on the plane and that this was standard for military aircraft. What they fail to mention is that the Croatian Ministry of Transportation announced shortly after the crash that the black boxes had been found. And that the US Air Force in Germany confirmed they were found. They also don't mention that regulations at the time reportedly required that planes carrying cabinet level officials (like Brown) be equipped with black boxes. Or that this exact plane had carried the Secretary of Defense and the First Lady on previous occasions, when they too also subject to that regulation.
The documentaries re-create the scene of Ambassador Galbraith waiting at the airport ... waiting for the plane to arrive in what appears to be awful weather. This terrible weather is alluded to numerous times throughout the videos. Clearly, the directors wished to leave the viewer with the feeling that weather played an important role in the crash, just like the administration initially tried to do with the public immediately after the crash, when they declared it was the worst weather in a "century". But the final AIB report ruled that weather played "no significant role" in the crash and planes landed both immediately before and after Brown's plane crashed with no problem. Why don't the documentaries mention that?
The loss of communication when the plane was still almost 8 miles from the airport was also ignored in these so-called documentaries. And I could go on and on listing important facts they left out. Isn't it amazing that the media could put that much effort into a re-creation (with actors, sets and all that), yet not even mention the facts I just noted? Isn't it amazing that the government can put so much effort into a 7000 page report, yet not even mention the facts I've noted? They can't be unaware of those facts ... yet they don't mention ANY of them.
Now, to show how thorough the cover-up was, I wish to point out two more sources that Whitewashed this event: The National Geographics and Discover Channel. In 2007 National Geographics did a high profile documentary on TV about the crash where Ron Brown died. It showed a supposed re-creation of the event. Curiously, a VERY similar documentary was shown about the same time on the Discovery Channel. It had almost the same basic content as the other but used a different voice as the voiceover. Both contained a lot of imagery that showed actors re-creating events ... not actual video from that day.
The National Geographics version mentions "bizarre rumors" that a decoy beacon could have been used to guide the plane into the mountain. The documentary makes the dismissive claim that a very large ground system on the mountain would have been needed to make that scenario possible. Such a "scheme" would be "nearly impossible to pull off" is their claim. It doesn't mention to the audience that a portable beacon went missing from the Dubrovnik airport and that the authoritative magazine "Aviation Week" concluded the missing beacon could indeed have been used to spoof the plane into flying into the mountain. And there is no reference to the fact that the man who was responsible for that equipment at the airport just happened to commit suicide days after the crash. One would think these are facts an honest documentary would have reported.
Even more damning is neither "documentary" provides any specifics regarding evidence that pointed to foul play in the crash. For example, neither documentary said one word about concerns that were voiced by military forensic pathologists and a military photographer at the examination of Ron Brown's body and afterwords. These were matters of public record at the time the documentaries were made so why no mention? There also wasn't any mention of what happened to the military pathologists and photographer after they blew the whistle. About how they were punished and their careers ruined. This too is a matter of public record. The documentaries went into great detail regarding the punishment various military officers received for their role in the crash. So why not mention the punishment handed out to these experts?
There was no mention in the documentaries of the photos of the head and x-rays that in the opinion of the military pathologists, as well as several experts in gunshot outside the Air Force, suggested a possible bullet wound. These authenticated photos were a matter of public record and cause for great controversy ... especially since all the originals managed to disappear from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few had access. Yet, not a word about them in the documentaries and they weren’t shown to the audience.
There was no mention that Ron Brown was under investigation by literally everyone at the end, including a special prosecutor. Or that there was sworn testimony he told President Clinton that he was going to turn state's evidence in the Campaign Finance and Chinagate matters. Or that Bill Clinton cried crocodile tears at Brown’s funeral. And while the documentaries make a big deal about the size and completeness of the AIB final report, they don't mention that the Air Force skipped the SIB. Or that the AIB report failed to mention that military pathologists said the word "bullet" at the examination and even called for an autopsy. Or that the report didn't contain photos of the first (or even second?) x-rays of his head. That certainly would be a strange omission from a report that was over 7000 pages long and supposedly aimed at providing information to the public and the families of the victims in case they wanted to sue for damages.
The bottom line is this. Clinton and the Democrats stole two Presidential elections using tens of millions of dollars in money obtained illegally from the military in Communist China, a country whose defense minister had said he sees war with the United States as inevitable. Chinese spies were given continued access to classified nuclear, radar and submarine secrets. There was sworn testimony by individuals in our counter intelligence community that they were ordered by their superiors during the Clinton years not to pursue these espionage cases. The connection with Ron Brown is that the technology Brown approved (for example, 10 billion dollars worth of super computers), during a time when the Administration knew of the spying, made it possible for the Chinese to use the secrets they stole. Surely this was a treason worth killing someone, in order to keep it from coming out in court and you’d think that even now Trump’s DOJ would be interested in following up on this.
You write: “Ron Brown’s body lies moldering in the grave.”
That’s hopefully true (it’s supposed to be) because that might make it possible to prove this was a murder, even this many years after the fact. It galling that Bill Clinton went to the funeral of Brown looking all somber and as he walked out was caught on unscripted video smiling and laughing, perhaps having told a joke. And then he caught sight of the people with the camera aimed and him, and in a flash, he expression switched to somber again. Clinton needs to pay for the damage he did to national security and our election integrity ... but also for shedding these crocodile tears.
And in addition to prosecuting all those in government who took part in this murder and the coverup, all the MSM outlets that carried Clinton’s water in this matter, hiding the above information from the public at large or outright lying about the facts, need to be discredited with it, so that no one ever believes a thing they publish again. I hope Ron Brown comes back to haunt them all.
Johnny Chung, who participated in trade missions to China in 1994, was one of the few to actually turn state's evidence (after Waxman, the top Democrat on the Committee before which he testified, blatantly tried to get him to plead the 5th). Among other things, Chung testified that the head of China's military intelligence, General Gee Shengdi, gave him $300,000 for President Clinton's campaign. He said he was told by the General that other people were also receiving money "to do good things for China". Investigators saif that many aspects of his testimony checked out. Chung participated in a FBI wiretape that clearly suggests there was an agreement between Clinton and the Premier of China on how to coverup Chinagate. The FBI assigned dozens of agents to protect him (and, in fact, they arrested an armed man who tried to kill Chung at his office).
Mark Middleton, an Arkansas lawyer, longtime confidant of President Clinton and a former high-level White House aide, was, according to Chung, one of those identified by General Gee Shengdi as receiving money ... $500,000 dollars. Macao businessman Ng Lap Seng, who was closely linked to major Chinese-owned enterprises, was regularly bringing in large sums of money to the US, according to customs records. On June 20, 1994 Ng arrived with $175,000. Two days later, he met with Charlie Trie and Mark Middleton at the White House, and that evening Ng sat at Clinton's table at a DNC fundraiser. Middleton, had a pass that allowed him to visit Charlie Trie's apartment at the Watergate at any time … an apartment paid for by Ng. When asked in the House committee hearings on campaign finance abuses that occurred in 1996 whether he conspired with government officials in China or elsewhere to illegally funnel contributions to the Democratic National Committee or the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign, Middleton took the 5th Amendment 28 times … the highest ranking Clinton administration official to do so in Chinagate. And Janet Reno did nothing.
Charlie Trie participated in trade missions to China and, unlike Middleton, admitted to illegally funneling foreign money to the Democrats. Charlie appeared to have had lots of "friends". One of them, Wang Jun, met with Brown shortly after attending a "coffee" with Clinton. The same day, Clinton signed a waiver allowing Loral to transfer formerly restricted information to the Chinese. Note that Loral's CEO, Bernard Schwartz, was the single largest contributor to the DNC (over half a million dollars).
Ira Sockowitz (already mentioned above) not only worked for Commerce but knew John Huang. In May 1996, he and his boss moved to the Small Business Administration (SBA). Three days later, Commerce approved a SCI clearance (above Top Secret) for him. Sockowitz visited Commerce and removed 136 secret files (many of them dealing with China) from his old safe. He told his old secretary that he was gathering personal items. Commerce said he violated his clearance by not returning the files. He claimed he needed them for his SBA job but the SBA disputed that. Sockowitz left the SBA in Nov 1996 and the Justice Department stopped investigating in Dec 1996 ... without ever interviewing Sockowitz, his boss or his replacement. Reno strikes again.
Brown worked closely with John Huang, James Riady (an indonesian billionaire who illegally gave millions to Clinton and the DNC), Johnny Chung (not the poker player), Mark Middleton (the highest Clinton Administration official to plead the 5th in Chinagate), and dozens of other people connected with criminal activities by the Clinton's and DNC. Keep in mind that well over a hundred people took the 5th or fled the country in connection with the Chinagate and campaign finance scandals ... and that was with DOJ head Janet Reno and the Justice Department seemingly trying to coverup, rather than seriously investigate the matters. Clearly, if Brown had talked (and, again, sworn testimony indicates he was threatening to do so), he'd have caused a really serious problem for a lot of these people. For instance ...
James and Mochtar Riady, Indonesian billionaires were longtime friends and financial supporters of Clinton. Authorities said they had a long relationship with Chinese intelligence. Clinton, while out of the country, met privately with them ... at a time when they were avoiding US authorities who sought to question them. In spite of Janet Reno, James Riady was eventually indicted for illegally funneling millions of dollars in foreign money into Clinton and DNC campaign coffers. Near the end of his term, Clinton tried to arrange a "Justice" Department deal for Riady to protect him from prosecution but it didn't go through before Bush took over. And much to Bush's disgrace, he let a deal go through anyway.
John Huang, who by all accounts was one of Clinton's close friends, worked side by side with Ron Brown after working in the Whitehouse. He was an employee of the Riadys. After leaving Commerce, Huang went to work for the DNC. His involvement in campaign finance violations was uncovered by Judicial Watch. He falsely represented under oath that he was "a budget clerk," "participated in no fundraising," and "kept no records at the Commerce Department." He invoked the 5th Amendment over 2000 times in many depositions. He was labeled a "Chinese agent" by people in the CIA, FBI and Congress. Yet, he was given a Top Secret clearance by the Clinton Whitehouse without a background check and attended over 100 Top Secret briefings. The Clinton Justice Department failed to pursue the allegations of spying and never even deposed him. He received only a "wrist slap" for admitted campaign finance violations. He was given a grant of immunity in the Judicial Watch case to force him to testify ... yet he still continued invoking the 5th!
People need to realize that Ron Brown was in huge trouble. At the time of his death, he was under investigation by the FDIC, the Congressional Reform and Oversight Committee, the FBI, the Energy Department, the Senate Judiciary Committee and even his own Commerce Department Inspector General. He was scheduled to be deposed under oath by Judicial Watch regarding the illegal sale of trade mission seats for campaign contributions. The Justice Department asked that the deposition be postponed until he returned from what became the ill-fated trade mission.
He was also about to be indicted by Daniel Pearson. Pearson had plenty of documentary evidence and testimony on over a dozen serious crimes committed by Ron (like ending the trade embargo against North Vietnam for $700,000 dollars in bribes). The situation was so serious that Brown had just retained a $750 an hour attorney. So serious that he spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal. And matters were only getting worse.
Just days before his death, another 20 witnesses were subpoenaed by Pearson regarding Brown's dealings. It seems that an Oklahoma gas company called Dynamic Energy Resources gave Brown's son Michael $500,000 in stock, a $160,000 cash payment, and exclusive country club memberships. Former Dynamic president Stewart Price had told a Tulsa grand jury (under oath) that the money was to be routed to Ron Brown, who was expected to "fix" a big lawsuit for Dynamic.
And consider this ... Ron Brown was at the focus of much of the campaign finance illegalities that occurred during Clinton's tenure and was the conduit for much of the technology passed to the Chinese during the early Clinton years. Is it only coincidence that Clinton personally changed long established rules so that the export of such technology could be approved by Ron Brown without oversight ... with just his signature? The agencies who previously did that oversight were all on record as being against the exports that eventually occurred.
According to sworn testimony from Hill, many millions of dollars in illegal DNC and Clinton campaign contributions were received through the sale of trade mission seats and in exchange for authorization by Ron Brown's Commerce Department to sell what in previous administrations was considered highly restricted missile, computer, radar, satellite, manufacturing and encryption technology. Others testified to brown bags full of illegal campaign cash coming from the Chinese.
Now even though the Pearson probe was folded, Judicial Watch continued its efforts, questioning Nolanda Hill. She was a democrat fund raiser and one of Brown's key business partners. She testified that she paid Brown $500,000 for his interest in First International, Inc., a company that never made any profits. First International defaulted on government loans totaling $40 million. The payments to Brown (three checks for $45,000 each) were the core of the evidence gathered by Representative Clinger that forced Reno to hire Daniel Pearson in the first place. They were cashier checks, all cut on the same day in 1993, with sequential numbers even though the money supposedly came from three contributors acting independently.
Just one week before Nolanda's testimony, the Clinton Whitehouse had her charged with a crime. Judge Lamberth revealed that Hill testified that Brown told her he was ordered by Leon Panetta and John Podesta, two of Clinton's top staff to "slow down" the effort to comply with Judicial Watch's subpoena for documents. Judge Lamberth said there was ample evidence that department officials did so, thereby committing obstruction. Nolanda Hill also testified that, shortly before the crash, Brown met with Panetta and turned over a stack of documents that would have proven he sold seats on trade missions for very large, illegal, contributions to the DNC. These documents were withheld in violation of the Judicial Watch subpoena. Nolanda swore under oath that Brown told her that he told Panetta: "if I go down, so will everyone else”. Nolanda Hill also testified that shortly before Brown died, he went to see Bill Clinton and told him that he intended to enter a plea agreement and testify against the Administration. She testified that prior to making this threat, Brown wasn't scheduled to be on the trade mission flight that crashed. She said the White House told Brown to go at the last minute. It is worth noting that much of Nolanda Hill's testimony has been proven true or corroborated by other witnesses over the years. There was nothing ever presented by the Clinton Whitehouse or DOJ to suggest she made up the allegations. They tried to smear her but they never proved that what she claimed was untrue ... for example, by proving that Brown had no meeting with Clinton shortly before the flight.
You wrote: “Ron Brown had a son named Michael Brown who was being threatened with prison.”
As a matter of fact, both Ron Brown’s wife and his had been indicted by an independent council named Daniel Pearson before the crash. But almost immediately, the Pearson probe was shut down. The DOJ then let his wife off and eventually gave Michael nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
When they learned about whistleblowers, there were apparently two camps in the family. One camp was the wife and son. Naturally, they walked a very tight rope. If they made a big stink, the Clinton administration might retaliate and still see them prosecuted to the full extent ... which probably would have meant prison. So they kept quiet and said nothing. And perhaps as a further inducement, the DNC hired Michael shortly thereafter. He eventually (in 2008) became an at large member of the Council of the District of Columbia.
Of course, it wasn’t long before he got in trouble. In 2013 he was charged with bribery, for accepting $55,000 in cash to help businesses get contracts. He also admitted to accepting an illegal $125,000 in donation during his campaign for office. He was given a plea deal so he did not face charges bribery and accepting illegal contribution (which had a minimum 15 year sentence) and instead was sentences to 39 month. He served just 20 months. Brown’s attorney also said during sentencing that Michael would not run for public office again. In 2024, however, he did.
Now the other camp was represented by Brown's daughter, Tracy Brown. She claimed that after she and her family learned of the allegations (on the internet), she and her family met with an independent forensic pathologist (note, this person remains unnamed to this day). She says they looked at the x-rays and photographs and that this unnamed pathologist told them, in her words, that the wound "is not a bullet wound. It's short, it doesn't go anywhere, there's no exit wound, there's no bullet in his body, there are no metal fragments. So in my opinion, it's not a bullet wound."
You see the problem with her statement? That description doesn't fit the facts I related above at all. No one looked for an exit wound and they didn't do an autopsy so how could they know there was no bullet "in the body"? I'd like to know the name of this pathologist that is such an expert that he's qualified to contradict two of the top pathologists in the country when it comes to gunshot (Cogswell and Wecht).
Tracy didn't even have the story about how the photographs got put on the internet correct. She said "So without getting into who stole the photographs in the first place and distributed them …”. Sorry, but no one stole these photos of Brown's head. Who gave her that idea? She should have asked how the originals of the photos and x-rays disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP and why no one in power seemed to care.
And by the way. Do you know what Ron Brown's family got as compensation for his death? The records show that the families of the victims of the crash received as much as 14 million dollars each. Bet they were the 14 million. Even a few million might buy a lot of silence, especially if you knew the murderers were still out there and willing to go to any length (the dad's case serves as an example) to keep the truth from coming out about certain things.
Snopes also states in their *debunking* that “There were no survivors” and that “A closer examination of Brown's skull by military officials revealed no bullet, no bone fragments, no metal fragments and, even more telling, no exit wound."
The statement that "there were no survivors" is false. There apparently were survivors. The government even admitted that. A confidential Commerce Department document was uncovered by Judicial Watch as a result of a Freedom Of Information Act request. That document, an official chronology of events prepared for Secretary of State Warren Christopher only days after the crash, included the following item 40 minutes after the wreckage was discovered: "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash." One of the two survivors was identified as Stewardess Sergeant Kelly, who died under somewhat suspicious circumstances as she was taken off the mountain from the crash site. Curiously, the government has never mentioned or identified in any public medium the second survivor and has refused to comment about the timeline statement.
The statement about there being "a closer examination of Brown's skull" is totally misleading too. It would lead someone, who knows nothing about the Brown case, to think that pathologists opened up his skull in an autopsy and took a look. But there was no autopsy. All Gormley had to support his *official* claim of "no bullet, no bone fragments, no metal fragments" is what he could observe from the outside of the head and via the x-rays. But as I’ve already noted, Gormley's description is completely at odds with what everyone else saw in the photos and x-rays, and in person. And as to the "telling" lack of an "exit wound", the truth is that Gormley didn't look for an exit wound. CPO Janoski has testified under oath that Brown's body was never examined or photographed with the intent of looking for an exit wound and Gormley has admitted that is true. So Snopes is lying.
A crash in Croatia (as opposed to the US or some more developed country) also made it possible to control access to the site (i.e., keep nosy journalists away), something that murderers would want. And that's what the State Department did … ordered camera crews and journalists away from the crash site. That's one of the things that Ira Sockowitz (who was implicated in Chinagate, by the way) handled. And what a coincidence that Ira was supposed to be on the ill-fated flight (he admitted this years later) … but just happened to *miss* it. Yet, he was able to get to the crash site in time to be their point man and keep the MSM away from the site … and report back to the Secretary Of State about "two" survivors.
And here’s one more suspicious fact that lends credence to this alternate scenario. Obviously, if the plane had voice and data recorders on it, as the regulations at the time required for any plane carrying cabinet officials (or the First Lady), they would have been problematic if this was a murder. And what do you know, the Croatian Ministry of Transportation announced shortly after reaching the crash site that the black boxes had been found. The US Air Force in Germany confirmed this. The Department of Commerce log states "Chief of Protocol Misetic called … The flight data recorder has been recovered." Then, a week later, the Air Force claimed the plane had no black boxes and that some boxes that looked exactly like recorders had been found instead. But what boxes on this plane (or any plane) look exactly like recorders? No one has ever produced a photo of these boxes that just looked like data recorders.
Since in this scenario one could not be certain the crash would kill Brown, the instigators of the crash would want to have someone reach the crash site before any rescue party and make sure he was dead. Remember, the murderers would know where the plane was coming down because they controlled the portable beacon. Well, what a coincidence. The search effort was misdirected initially out over the ocean instead of near the airport, so that it took hours and hours for rescuers to reach the crash site even though it was only a few miles from the airport.
Croatian authorities told the media that the plane's crash position indicater (CPI) did not work … but the Air Force report states it did. So who is lying? Could it be Jure Kapetanovic, assistant minister of Civil Aviation for Croatia, who told the airport manager that the CPI was emitting a signal from somewhere between Kolocep Island and the old part of Dubrovnik ... the area over the ocean to which the helicopters were directed instead of to the actual crash site?
The chief of the NATO air traffic control center cell in Zagreb, Rocky Swearengin, testified that the Croatians provided him the wrong coordinates for the crash site. He said when he tried to call Dubrovnik tower, Croatian officials would not talk to him. He said "The night of the accident, when we really needed [Croatian] assistance, they were very uncooperative; nothing could get done." It sure looks like they didn’t want the plane found quickly
Given the delay, there would have been plenty of time for a "clean up" crew, if you will, to get there first. And what a coincidence … the Associated Press initially reported that the first Croatian rescuers arrived and found several Americans already at the site (even though later official reports said the first US personnel didn't arrive until after the Croatians). Of course the leftist AP didn’t follow up on this inconsistency. No one did. How odd.
You say “The Dubrovnik Airport had a safety guy who was in charge of the airport’s navigation and air traffic control. … snip … Two days before his scheduled interview with the Air Force, he was found shot dead. This was just three days after Brown was killed.”
That’s all true as well. There was someone who was responsible for the navigation devices at the Dubrovnik Airport and that person died days after the crash before investigators could interview him. They said he committed suicide… shooting himself in the chest with a shotgun … due to a failed romance. But there might more to the story than just that.
To make a coverup successful, the authorities needed the cooperation of the mainstream media and *fact checkers*. For example, the leftist owned and run fact checking website Snopes debunks the allegation that Ron Brown was murdered here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-body-bags/.
Snopes uses this logic to dismiss the allegation … "Simply imagining a scenario under which Ron Brown could have been shot takes one into the realm of the absurd. Was he shot in the head during the flight, in full view of thirty-four other witnesses? (If so, how did they get off the plane?) Did the killers shoot him before the flight, then bundle his body into a seat (just like "Weekend at Bernie's") and hope nobody noticed the gaping hole in his head?"
But doesn’t Snopes have the cart before the horse? Most criminal investigations focus on determining if a murder has occurred before ruling it an "absurd" possibility? If expert pathologists were saying the wound might be a bullet wound in the victim's head, wouldn't the normal procedure be to perform an autopsy, regardless of how difficult one might think it would have been to shoot that victim and get away with it? If pathologists then confirmed it was a bullet wound, then it would be appropriate to ask how it was done. And investigators would not dismiss a scenario if the evidence supported it, no matter how "absurd" it might seem at the time. They’d go where the evidence takes them.
Snopes acts as if the only possible scenario is one where Brown is shot in front of 34 witnesses. But that isn't the only possible scenario. It's not absurd to believe that if the plane was made to crash (in an effort to kill Brown), then whoever was responsible would do the logical thing and make sure someone would be there at the crash site to verify his death … or deal with him (or other survivors) should they survive. In other words, Brown might have been shot in the head after the crash.
A credible scenario, given the evidence, is that the plane was spoofed into the mountain to provide a reasonable cover for Brown's death and perhaps cause that death. Aviation Week (a source of some authority back in the 90s) stated that the flight path of the plane was consistent with a portable beacon spoofing the plane into the mountain. Is it just coincidence that the government later admitted that a portable airport beacon went missing from the airport sometime before the crash? And what a coincidence that the person in charge of the airport's beacons died after the crash before investigators could interview him.
Don't know the portable beacon story, very important! Thanks!
I did learn recently that in forensic investigations of a death scene (say the police find a dead body...) the investigation is to PRESUME foul play, i.e. murder, and use that as a starting point. As evidence is gathered and assessed, the evidence may rule out foul play. Only then would the investigators be allowed to consider accident, natural death, or suicide. In other words, it deviates from standard procedure to presume suicide and look (half-heartedly) for evidence of murder.
You presume foul play and act accordingly. Any investigation that presumes accident or suicide is wrong right out of the chute.
Then there's the matter of the flight path. Snopes ignores a number of significant facts. Instead it simply regurgitates the official report which concluded the cause of the crash was "failure of command, aircrew error and an improperly designed instrument approach procedure." Well, the last communication between the plane and the airport was when the plane was still 12 kilometers from the airport … almost 8 miles. Why did they lose communication? Aviation Week stated they lost both radio and transponder contact at the same time. Why? This loss of communication was never explained by the Air Force. It was just ignored. Wouldn’t a loss of communication would be a major factor worthy of investigation? But they didn't.
The official Air Force report on the crash contained detailed data showing the plane's course based on AWACS airborne radar. The data showed that shortly after the loss of communication, when the plane was still miles from touching down at Dubrovnik, it suddenly changed course radically. It turned to the left almost 90 degrees then a few seconds later, made a turn back to the right. It then fixed on a course which it followed for over a minute, ending in a mountain, nearly two miles off course. When Major General Coolidge, the military officer in charge of the crash investigation, was asked about these sudden flight maneuvers at a press conference, all he had to say is that they were anomalies of no significance. Crashing into a mountain as a result is of no significance, The loss of communication is of no significance. Nonsense. A credible scenario is that something knocked out communication with the plane, then the plane was spoofed into the mountain to provide a reasonable cover for Brown's death. Aviation Week (a source of some authority in the aviation world back in the 90s) stated that the flight path of the plane was consistent with a portable beacon spoofing the plane into the mountain. Cutting the plane off from communication with the airport would have been critical to ensure it was spoofed into hitting the mountain. So what really happened on that plane to cause that? One thing for sure, it wasn’t extreme weather.
Part 24
Now I want to say one last thing about this case. Nearly 30 years has passed since Brown died and the whistleblowers came forward. It’s really too bad that Newsmax has none of the many articles they published in its archive. For example …
"Experts Differ on Ron Brown's Head Wound" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 3, 1997 http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/03/35938
"Second Expert: Brown's Wound Appeared to be From Gunshot" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 9, 1997 http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/09/34206
"Wecht: Autopsy Needed in Brown Case" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 17, 1997 http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/17/32921
"Pathologists Dispute Claims in Brown Probe" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGE TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 11, 1998 http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/11/32000
"Fourth Expert Claims Probe of Brown's Death Botched" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 13, 1998 http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/13/173306
"Kathleen Janoski Describes Cover-Up in Ron Brown Investigation" By Carl of Oyster Bay, FOR THE WASHINGTON WEEKLY, April 26, 1998 http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/4/26/01704
I can still find posts I made on political forums 15 years ago of me linking and quoting large sections from them to others, with no-one remarking that they didn't exist. It may true that the internet never forgets anything but I don’t seem to have the means to locate everything that was once available. Maybe someone else does and were this officially investigated (say by Trump's FBI), I'm sure they'd have no trouble locating everything that's was once available.
But even so, one can still find enough sources to confirm most everything I’ve reported here. Here are to begin that process (they’re not in chronological order):
https://www.cashill.com/archive/ronbrown/ronbrown2006_2.htm “Ron Brown: 10 Years and No Questions”
https://www.wnd.com/1998/01/3178/ “Were Brown X-rays purposely destroyed”
https://www.wnd.com/2004/05/24592/ (Was Ron Brown murdered, and, if so, how and by whom?”
https://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/bullet.html “The Bullet Hole” (Images of the brown skull x-rays and entrance wound photo Janoski took)
https://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/brown.php “NEW! Was there a bullet hole in Ron Brown's head?”
https://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/cases/other/ronbrown/rbrown.htm “PETITION TO ORDER CONTINUATION OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION INTO MATTERS RELATED TO FORMER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE RONALD H. BROWN”
https://rense.com/politics6/bullet.htm “The Unexplained Bullet Wound In Ron Brown's Head”
https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/brownupdate.html “Report from Washington”
https://rumble.com/v2cmll4-clinton-associate-ron-browns-1996-plane-crash-with-a-bullet-hole-in-head.html “Clinton associate Ron Brown's 1996 plane crash with a bullet hole in head” (a video)
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1997/dec/05/army-examiner-disputes-results-from-autopsy-on/ “Army Examiner Disputes Results From Autopsy On Ron Brown”
https://www.wnd.com/2004/05/24554/ “The bullet hole that should have shaken Washington”
http://buchal.com/library/coverups/ronbrown.htm “The Botched Ron Brown Investigation: An Interview with AFIP Forensic Photographer Kathleen Janoski”
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.dear.whitehouse/c/VIS-2F2FK5M “Limbacher: Kathleen Janoski Describes Cover-Up in Ron Brown Investigation” (another Janoski interview)
https://www.wnd.com/2004/05/24570/ “How Monica buried Ron Brown and saved the Clinton presidency”
https://www.wnd.com/2001/01/7749/ “Revealed: Gun lost on fatal Brown flight”
https://www.cashill.com/archive/ronbrown/what_barack_obama.htm “What Barack Obama Ought To Know About Ron Brown”
https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1997/12/25/murder-theory-concerning-brown-death-refuses-to-die/ “Murder theory concerning Brown death refuses to die” (many instances of the government demonstrably lying)
https://www.wnd.com/1998/02/3197/ “Ron Brown whistleblowers pay price”
https://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/archive/index.php?thread-1222.html “Was Ron Brown Assassinated? Experts Differ on Ron Brown's Head Wound by Christopher Ruddy”
http://pages.suddenlink.net/anomalousimages/images/news/news141.html “Military Imposes Gag Order In Ron Brown Controversy”
https://www.wnd.com/1997/12/1013/ “Ron Brown's body must be exhumed”
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/08/justice.brown/index.html “Justice Concludes No Evidence Of Crime In Ron Brown Death” (Janet Reno and CNN whitewashing the controversy)
There are others sources, some behind paywalls. Often the ones behind them (like The Washington Post's) read like efforts to cover up a murder rather than get to the truth.
The End
I need to go back over this more carefully but I did want to tell you that there has been a big and effective purge of content on the internet. I don't know this for sure I just know that stuff I could find easily a few years ago is gone without a trace.
We used to think that stuff online would be there forever, but that wasn't true. Many things are just no longer there. Perhaps a person with ninja IT skills could retrieve them, but for average users, things we used to find are long gone.
Brave works better than the other browsers and I turned up some Croatian language stuff on Zdenka Gast but I still can't find the photo you mentioned.
A fast dig: Zdenka Gast may be still alive and living in Grand Island, NY. There is another Zdenka Gast who is a cancer survivor and cancer advocate who lives in Florida, but I think that is a different person. They seem to be about the same age, though (mid-70s) and it is a very unusual name.
Here’s a Newsday article that has Hillary and Zdenka together in 2013 (https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/alexis-herman-first-black-secretary-of-labor-a92290). Now I vaguely recall seeing an article with the photo from Gloria years ago, but if I downloaded it at the time, too many years have elapsed to be able to find it.
I asked Grok if it could find the photo from Gloria and it said it wasn’t able to, adding that Gloria has very poor archival of articles. But it said that since multiple conservative news sources mentioned the photo, it might exist
Now here's a 2016 article by Jack Cashill that refers to the photo: https://www.wnd.com/2016/03/20-years-on-time-to-ask-hillary-about-tuzla/ . It says “Inquiring into Gast's background, I came across a Croatian language magazine named Gloria. The photo that graces this article leapt off the page at me.
In the center of three smiling women, all linked arm in arm, is Zdenka Gast, an attractive, full-figured redhead. On her left is the then-secretary of labor, Alexis Herman, the woman who helped arrange Brown's fatal flight. On her right is none other than Hillary Clinton. The story details a wedding reception for Alexis Herman at the White House, hosted by the Clintons. The reception took place a few weeks after Herman's wedding in mid-February 2000.”
But Grok said it wasn’t able to find evidence that Herman had a wedding reception at the White House. I did find a Getty image with a caption saying Herman was married at the Washington National Cathedral, that the reception was in Chevy, Chase, Maryland, and that both the nuptial and reception were attended by Bill Clinton. Also, the Getty says both wedding and reception occurred on the same day. I suppose it’s possible that Hillary held a second reception, more private and political, at the White House later. In his 2016 article that Cashill challenged the news media to contact him about this story. That’s pretty confident from someone who they would have loved to embarrass by proving he didn’t have a copy of the photo or proof of where it came from. Just saying.
In any case, the Newsday article speaks of Herman joining “Hillary’s Cabinet”. It does seem Herman was in Hillary’s inner circle. It is worth noting that the article says Herman was the first black woman to hold the position of CEO of the Democratic National Convention in 1992 which increases the likelihood she was a Clinton insider back in 1992 was when Clinton was first nominated for President. Then in 1996 Clinton nominated Herman for Secretary of Labor. Since that happened in December, and Brown died in April 1996, that could have been a reward for helping out, if you know what I mean. On the other hand, Wikipedia says she was close to Brown and that is corroborated by Grokwhich makes it hard to believe she would have been a knowing participant in Brown’s murder. Still, being Director of Public Liaison, she might have been in the position to the know the truth about multiple Clinton scandals and obviously kept quiet.
As to whether Gast is still alive, Grok said the most recent reliable indication that she was alive was in 2019 when she completed a 500 mile pilgrimage suggesting she’s alive and active. Also, Grok found no obituary.
Part 23
The Newsmax article then said
——————
“While newsrooms pretend that any evidence of a real-life Brown cover-up is too bizarre to be taken seriously, CBS's "fictional" presentation of the same information made for some devastatingly plausible drama. And lest anyone missed the Clinton connection, "Hayes" writers had this line delivered by David Caruso himself: "It's one thing to dodge the accusations of a kiss and tell intern. It's quite another to have corruption in your Cabinet and commit murder to cover it up."
How did the producers of "Michael Hayes" get away with airing so much embargoed information about the Brown case? "Hayes" production assistant Dave Rapp told the Washington Weekly that everyone on the set, including Caruso, well understood that the story they were telling was Ron Brown's. Says Rapp: "I knew because our original version, our original drafts did refer specifically to Ron Brown. I'm sure, though I don't know specifically, that the first version was negated by CBS people who fictionalized it."
Even though "Michael Hayes" producers had to pretend they were dealing in fiction to do it, they managed to get more of the Ron Brown story broadcast on television than any network newsroom had dared to try. Then again, network newsrooms have never been much interested in investigating strange and mysterious Clinton administration deaths.
The "Michael Hayes" show ends as the central character comes to the conclusion that a high ranking government official--a Cabinet member--was murdered for political reasons. Hayes turns to a bust of Lincoln that he keeps in his office and laments: "It's not our country anymore, Mr. President." This is a sentiment not unfamiliar to those who have witnessed six years worth of White House criminality with no justice in sight. Hayes finally resigns from his job under pressure. In the final scene, Michael Hayes is viewed through the crosshairs of a rifle scope.
—————
The article ended by stating “CBS has canceled ‘Michael Hayes.’”
And it did … just one episode later. Just a coincidence?
Continued in Part 24
Part 22
One source of information turns out to be a woman military officer who is debriefed by investigators in Hayes' office. Here’s the dialogue …
INVESTIGATOR: Thank you very much for coming.
OFFICER: Hey, I'm probably better off away from the hospital anyway. I heard they shipped that forensic photographer off to Timbuktu.
INVESTIGATOR: Why would they do that?
OFFICER: Because she found what she called an unusual wound in Margaret Wells' head.
INVESTIGATOR: What kind of wound?
OFFICER: A half inch circular hole beveling inwards.
INVESTIGATOR: A bullet?
OFFICER: Sounds like it.
INVESTIGATOR: Well, what did the autopsy say?
OFFICER: What autopsy? They didn't do one. They did, however, take x-rays of her skull.
INVESTIGATOR: Well - was she shot?
OFFICER: Turns out those little suckers were misplaced. And no one seems to know - or care what happened to them.
The Ron Brown parallel grows even more stark as another investigator with Hayes' office interviews a government source familiar with the "Wells" crash investigation.
SOURCE: Air Force Boeing 737's just don't go down.... The pilot of the Wells plane had over 3,000 flight hours. His co-pilot had more - in the same plane. Do they sound like the kind of people who commit gross pilot error?
INVESTIGATOR: Is that how the NTSB classified it?
SOURCE: No - the Air Force (did). Curious, eh? And in all the reports after the crash they said that the aircraft attempted to land in extremely poor weather: heavy rains, wind, lightning, yada, yada, yada. Hell, the Six O'Clock News reported it was the worst storm in a decade. The problem is, we checked the satellite data. Winds were at 14 mph with only a light to moderate rain....Another potential C.O.C., Cause of Crash, was malfunctioning navigation beacons. Problem is, in the minutes before Wells plane crashed, five other planes landed without difficulty.
INVESTIGATOR: Did they check the beacon?
SOURCE: Of course. The airport maintenance chief (did). Turns out, he died by gunshot wound three days after the crash - before investigators had a chance to question him.
INVESTIGATOR: He was murdered?
SOURCE: Officially it was a suicide. The guy was broken up because his hundred year old mother died.
INVESTIGATOR: What do you think happened?
SOURCE: I think somebody intentionally screwed with the beacons and the airport maintenance chief knew it.
Sound familiar?
Continued in Part 23
Part 21
The closest the MSM ever got to telling the truth is in 1998 in the 21st episode of the Michael Hayes prime time series starting David Caruso. The episode was titled “Faith”. You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSBWcLqlmf0 . A Newsmax article (no longer available on the internet) described the episode, which centered around the plane crash death of fictional Under Secretary of State Margaret Wells. The interesting part starts about 20 minutes into the episode.
In the episode, U.S. Attorney Michael Hayes becomes suspicious about Under Secretary Wells' death after her brother dies in a cult suicide along with two other people peripherally connected to Wells' plane crash. He summons his staff to discuss the case. One aide observes, "It's no secret that Wells was being investigated for raising campaign funds illegally, for bribery." Another notes, "There was an election around the corner. Her death could help a lot of people - save a lot of embarrassment." At this point Hayes orders his staff to begin digging into Wells' death.
Continued in part 22
Part 20
The documentaries also ignored the fact that Ira Sockowitz informed the Secretary of State from the crash site that TWO people survived the crash. The documentaries mention Shelly Kelly, who (they say) happened to die on the way to the hospital. But they don’t mention that Shelly Kelly's body was cremated soon after arriving at Dover, without the consent of her parents or family … a clear violation of regulations for which no one was ever punished.
The documentaries claimed that soon after rescuers arrived at the crash site, they discovered there were no flight data recorders on the plane and that this was standard for military aircraft. What they fail to mention is that the Croatian Ministry of Transportation announced shortly after the crash that the black boxes had been found. And that the US Air Force in Germany confirmed they were found. They also don't mention that regulations at the time reportedly required that planes carrying cabinet level officials (like Brown) be equipped with black boxes. Or that this exact plane had carried the Secretary of Defense and the First Lady on previous occasions, when they too also subject to that regulation.
The documentaries re-create the scene of Ambassador Galbraith waiting at the airport ... waiting for the plane to arrive in what appears to be awful weather. This terrible weather is alluded to numerous times throughout the videos. Clearly, the directors wished to leave the viewer with the feeling that weather played an important role in the crash, just like the administration initially tried to do with the public immediately after the crash, when they declared it was the worst weather in a "century". But the final AIB report ruled that weather played "no significant role" in the crash and planes landed both immediately before and after Brown's plane crashed with no problem. Why don't the documentaries mention that?
The loss of communication when the plane was still almost 8 miles from the airport was also ignored in these so-called documentaries. And I could go on and on listing important facts they left out. Isn't it amazing that the media could put that much effort into a re-creation (with actors, sets and all that), yet not even mention the facts I just noted? Isn't it amazing that the government can put so much effort into a 7000 page report, yet not even mention the facts I've noted? They can't be unaware of those facts ... yet they don't mention ANY of them.
Continued in Part 21
Part 19
Now, to show how thorough the cover-up was, I wish to point out two more sources that Whitewashed this event: The National Geographics and Discover Channel. In 2007 National Geographics did a high profile documentary on TV about the crash where Ron Brown died. It showed a supposed re-creation of the event. Curiously, a VERY similar documentary was shown about the same time on the Discovery Channel. It had almost the same basic content as the other but used a different voice as the voiceover. Both contained a lot of imagery that showed actors re-creating events ... not actual video from that day.
The National Geographics version mentions "bizarre rumors" that a decoy beacon could have been used to guide the plane into the mountain. The documentary makes the dismissive claim that a very large ground system on the mountain would have been needed to make that scenario possible. Such a "scheme" would be "nearly impossible to pull off" is their claim. It doesn't mention to the audience that a portable beacon went missing from the Dubrovnik airport and that the authoritative magazine "Aviation Week" concluded the missing beacon could indeed have been used to spoof the plane into flying into the mountain. And there is no reference to the fact that the man who was responsible for that equipment at the airport just happened to commit suicide days after the crash. One would think these are facts an honest documentary would have reported.
Even more damning is neither "documentary" provides any specifics regarding evidence that pointed to foul play in the crash. For example, neither documentary said one word about concerns that were voiced by military forensic pathologists and a military photographer at the examination of Ron Brown's body and afterwords. These were matters of public record at the time the documentaries were made so why no mention? There also wasn't any mention of what happened to the military pathologists and photographer after they blew the whistle. About how they were punished and their careers ruined. This too is a matter of public record. The documentaries went into great detail regarding the punishment various military officers received for their role in the crash. So why not mention the punishment handed out to these experts?
There was no mention in the documentaries of the photos of the head and x-rays that in the opinion of the military pathologists, as well as several experts in gunshot outside the Air Force, suggested a possible bullet wound. These authenticated photos were a matter of public record and cause for great controversy ... especially since all the originals managed to disappear from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few had access. Yet, not a word about them in the documentaries and they weren’t shown to the audience.
There was no mention that Ron Brown was under investigation by literally everyone at the end, including a special prosecutor. Or that there was sworn testimony he told President Clinton that he was going to turn state's evidence in the Campaign Finance and Chinagate matters. Or that Bill Clinton cried crocodile tears at Brown’s funeral. And while the documentaries make a big deal about the size and completeness of the AIB final report, they don't mention that the Air Force skipped the SIB. Or that the AIB report failed to mention that military pathologists said the word "bullet" at the examination and even called for an autopsy. Or that the report didn't contain photos of the first (or even second?) x-rays of his head. That certainly would be a strange omission from a report that was over 7000 pages long and supposedly aimed at providing information to the public and the families of the victims in case they wanted to sue for damages.
Continued in Part 20
Part 18
The bottom line is this. Clinton and the Democrats stole two Presidential elections using tens of millions of dollars in money obtained illegally from the military in Communist China, a country whose defense minister had said he sees war with the United States as inevitable. Chinese spies were given continued access to classified nuclear, radar and submarine secrets. There was sworn testimony by individuals in our counter intelligence community that they were ordered by their superiors during the Clinton years not to pursue these espionage cases. The connection with Ron Brown is that the technology Brown approved (for example, 10 billion dollars worth of super computers), during a time when the Administration knew of the spying, made it possible for the Chinese to use the secrets they stole. Surely this was a treason worth killing someone, in order to keep it from coming out in court and you’d think that even now Trump’s DOJ would be interested in following up on this.
You write: “Ron Brown’s body lies moldering in the grave.”
That’s hopefully true (it’s supposed to be) because that might make it possible to prove this was a murder, even this many years after the fact. It galling that Bill Clinton went to the funeral of Brown looking all somber and as he walked out was caught on unscripted video smiling and laughing, perhaps having told a joke. And then he caught sight of the people with the camera aimed and him, and in a flash, he expression switched to somber again. Clinton needs to pay for the damage he did to national security and our election integrity ... but also for shedding these crocodile tears.
And in addition to prosecuting all those in government who took part in this murder and the coverup, all the MSM outlets that carried Clinton’s water in this matter, hiding the above information from the public at large or outright lying about the facts, need to be discredited with it, so that no one ever believes a thing they publish again. I hope Ron Brown comes back to haunt them all.
Continued in Part 19
Part 17
Johnny Chung, who participated in trade missions to China in 1994, was one of the few to actually turn state's evidence (after Waxman, the top Democrat on the Committee before which he testified, blatantly tried to get him to plead the 5th). Among other things, Chung testified that the head of China's military intelligence, General Gee Shengdi, gave him $300,000 for President Clinton's campaign. He said he was told by the General that other people were also receiving money "to do good things for China". Investigators saif that many aspects of his testimony checked out. Chung participated in a FBI wiretape that clearly suggests there was an agreement between Clinton and the Premier of China on how to coverup Chinagate. The FBI assigned dozens of agents to protect him (and, in fact, they arrested an armed man who tried to kill Chung at his office).
Mark Middleton, an Arkansas lawyer, longtime confidant of President Clinton and a former high-level White House aide, was, according to Chung, one of those identified by General Gee Shengdi as receiving money ... $500,000 dollars. Macao businessman Ng Lap Seng, who was closely linked to major Chinese-owned enterprises, was regularly bringing in large sums of money to the US, according to customs records. On June 20, 1994 Ng arrived with $175,000. Two days later, he met with Charlie Trie and Mark Middleton at the White House, and that evening Ng sat at Clinton's table at a DNC fundraiser. Middleton, had a pass that allowed him to visit Charlie Trie's apartment at the Watergate at any time … an apartment paid for by Ng. When asked in the House committee hearings on campaign finance abuses that occurred in 1996 whether he conspired with government officials in China or elsewhere to illegally funnel contributions to the Democratic National Committee or the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign, Middleton took the 5th Amendment 28 times … the highest ranking Clinton administration official to do so in Chinagate. And Janet Reno did nothing.
Charlie Trie participated in trade missions to China and, unlike Middleton, admitted to illegally funneling foreign money to the Democrats. Charlie appeared to have had lots of "friends". One of them, Wang Jun, met with Brown shortly after attending a "coffee" with Clinton. The same day, Clinton signed a waiver allowing Loral to transfer formerly restricted information to the Chinese. Note that Loral's CEO, Bernard Schwartz, was the single largest contributor to the DNC (over half a million dollars).
Ira Sockowitz (already mentioned above) not only worked for Commerce but knew John Huang. In May 1996, he and his boss moved to the Small Business Administration (SBA). Three days later, Commerce approved a SCI clearance (above Top Secret) for him. Sockowitz visited Commerce and removed 136 secret files (many of them dealing with China) from his old safe. He told his old secretary that he was gathering personal items. Commerce said he violated his clearance by not returning the files. He claimed he needed them for his SBA job but the SBA disputed that. Sockowitz left the SBA in Nov 1996 and the Justice Department stopped investigating in Dec 1996 ... without ever interviewing Sockowitz, his boss or his replacement. Reno strikes again.
Continued in Part 18
Part 16
Brown worked closely with John Huang, James Riady (an indonesian billionaire who illegally gave millions to Clinton and the DNC), Johnny Chung (not the poker player), Mark Middleton (the highest Clinton Administration official to plead the 5th in Chinagate), and dozens of other people connected with criminal activities by the Clinton's and DNC. Keep in mind that well over a hundred people took the 5th or fled the country in connection with the Chinagate and campaign finance scandals ... and that was with DOJ head Janet Reno and the Justice Department seemingly trying to coverup, rather than seriously investigate the matters. Clearly, if Brown had talked (and, again, sworn testimony indicates he was threatening to do so), he'd have caused a really serious problem for a lot of these people. For instance ...
James and Mochtar Riady, Indonesian billionaires were longtime friends and financial supporters of Clinton. Authorities said they had a long relationship with Chinese intelligence. Clinton, while out of the country, met privately with them ... at a time when they were avoiding US authorities who sought to question them. In spite of Janet Reno, James Riady was eventually indicted for illegally funneling millions of dollars in foreign money into Clinton and DNC campaign coffers. Near the end of his term, Clinton tried to arrange a "Justice" Department deal for Riady to protect him from prosecution but it didn't go through before Bush took over. And much to Bush's disgrace, he let a deal go through anyway.
John Huang, who by all accounts was one of Clinton's close friends, worked side by side with Ron Brown after working in the Whitehouse. He was an employee of the Riadys. After leaving Commerce, Huang went to work for the DNC. His involvement in campaign finance violations was uncovered by Judicial Watch. He falsely represented under oath that he was "a budget clerk," "participated in no fundraising," and "kept no records at the Commerce Department." He invoked the 5th Amendment over 2000 times in many depositions. He was labeled a "Chinese agent" by people in the CIA, FBI and Congress. Yet, he was given a Top Secret clearance by the Clinton Whitehouse without a background check and attended over 100 Top Secret briefings. The Clinton Justice Department failed to pursue the allegations of spying and never even deposed him. He received only a "wrist slap" for admitted campaign finance violations. He was given a grant of immunity in the Judicial Watch case to force him to testify ... yet he still continued invoking the 5th!
Continued in Part 17
Part 15
People need to realize that Ron Brown was in huge trouble. At the time of his death, he was under investigation by the FDIC, the Congressional Reform and Oversight Committee, the FBI, the Energy Department, the Senate Judiciary Committee and even his own Commerce Department Inspector General. He was scheduled to be deposed under oath by Judicial Watch regarding the illegal sale of trade mission seats for campaign contributions. The Justice Department asked that the deposition be postponed until he returned from what became the ill-fated trade mission.
He was also about to be indicted by Daniel Pearson. Pearson had plenty of documentary evidence and testimony on over a dozen serious crimes committed by Ron (like ending the trade embargo against North Vietnam for $700,000 dollars in bribes). The situation was so serious that Brown had just retained a $750 an hour attorney. So serious that he spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal. And matters were only getting worse.
Just days before his death, another 20 witnesses were subpoenaed by Pearson regarding Brown's dealings. It seems that an Oklahoma gas company called Dynamic Energy Resources gave Brown's son Michael $500,000 in stock, a $160,000 cash payment, and exclusive country club memberships. Former Dynamic president Stewart Price had told a Tulsa grand jury (under oath) that the money was to be routed to Ron Brown, who was expected to "fix" a big lawsuit for Dynamic.
And consider this ... Ron Brown was at the focus of much of the campaign finance illegalities that occurred during Clinton's tenure and was the conduit for much of the technology passed to the Chinese during the early Clinton years. Is it only coincidence that Clinton personally changed long established rules so that the export of such technology could be approved by Ron Brown without oversight ... with just his signature? The agencies who previously did that oversight were all on record as being against the exports that eventually occurred.
According to sworn testimony from Hill, many millions of dollars in illegal DNC and Clinton campaign contributions were received through the sale of trade mission seats and in exchange for authorization by Ron Brown's Commerce Department to sell what in previous administrations was considered highly restricted missile, computer, radar, satellite, manufacturing and encryption technology. Others testified to brown bags full of illegal campaign cash coming from the Chinese.
Continued in Part 16
Part 14
Now even though the Pearson probe was folded, Judicial Watch continued its efforts, questioning Nolanda Hill. She was a democrat fund raiser and one of Brown's key business partners. She testified that she paid Brown $500,000 for his interest in First International, Inc., a company that never made any profits. First International defaulted on government loans totaling $40 million. The payments to Brown (three checks for $45,000 each) were the core of the evidence gathered by Representative Clinger that forced Reno to hire Daniel Pearson in the first place. They were cashier checks, all cut on the same day in 1993, with sequential numbers even though the money supposedly came from three contributors acting independently.
Just one week before Nolanda's testimony, the Clinton Whitehouse had her charged with a crime. Judge Lamberth revealed that Hill testified that Brown told her he was ordered by Leon Panetta and John Podesta, two of Clinton's top staff to "slow down" the effort to comply with Judicial Watch's subpoena for documents. Judge Lamberth said there was ample evidence that department officials did so, thereby committing obstruction. Nolanda Hill also testified that, shortly before the crash, Brown met with Panetta and turned over a stack of documents that would have proven he sold seats on trade missions for very large, illegal, contributions to the DNC. These documents were withheld in violation of the Judicial Watch subpoena. Nolanda swore under oath that Brown told her that he told Panetta: "if I go down, so will everyone else”. Nolanda Hill also testified that shortly before Brown died, he went to see Bill Clinton and told him that he intended to enter a plea agreement and testify against the Administration. She testified that prior to making this threat, Brown wasn't scheduled to be on the trade mission flight that crashed. She said the White House told Brown to go at the last minute. It is worth noting that much of Nolanda Hill's testimony has been proven true or corroborated by other witnesses over the years. There was nothing ever presented by the Clinton Whitehouse or DOJ to suggest she made up the allegations. They tried to smear her but they never proved that what she claimed was untrue ... for example, by proving that Brown had no meeting with Clinton shortly before the flight.
Continued in Part 15
Part 13
You wrote: “Ron Brown had a son named Michael Brown who was being threatened with prison.”
As a matter of fact, both Ron Brown’s wife and his had been indicted by an independent council named Daniel Pearson before the crash. But almost immediately, the Pearson probe was shut down. The DOJ then let his wife off and eventually gave Michael nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
When they learned about whistleblowers, there were apparently two camps in the family. One camp was the wife and son. Naturally, they walked a very tight rope. If they made a big stink, the Clinton administration might retaliate and still see them prosecuted to the full extent ... which probably would have meant prison. So they kept quiet and said nothing. And perhaps as a further inducement, the DNC hired Michael shortly thereafter. He eventually (in 2008) became an at large member of the Council of the District of Columbia.
Of course, it wasn’t long before he got in trouble. In 2013 he was charged with bribery, for accepting $55,000 in cash to help businesses get contracts. He also admitted to accepting an illegal $125,000 in donation during his campaign for office. He was given a plea deal so he did not face charges bribery and accepting illegal contribution (which had a minimum 15 year sentence) and instead was sentences to 39 month. He served just 20 months. Brown’s attorney also said during sentencing that Michael would not run for public office again. In 2024, however, he did.
Now the other camp was represented by Brown's daughter, Tracy Brown. She claimed that after she and her family learned of the allegations (on the internet), she and her family met with an independent forensic pathologist (note, this person remains unnamed to this day). She says they looked at the x-rays and photographs and that this unnamed pathologist told them, in her words, that the wound "is not a bullet wound. It's short, it doesn't go anywhere, there's no exit wound, there's no bullet in his body, there are no metal fragments. So in my opinion, it's not a bullet wound."
You see the problem with her statement? That description doesn't fit the facts I related above at all. No one looked for an exit wound and they didn't do an autopsy so how could they know there was no bullet "in the body"? I'd like to know the name of this pathologist that is such an expert that he's qualified to contradict two of the top pathologists in the country when it comes to gunshot (Cogswell and Wecht).
Tracy didn't even have the story about how the photographs got put on the internet correct. She said "So without getting into who stole the photographs in the first place and distributed them …”. Sorry, but no one stole these photos of Brown's head. Who gave her that idea? She should have asked how the originals of the photos and x-rays disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP and why no one in power seemed to care.
And by the way. Do you know what Ron Brown's family got as compensation for his death? The records show that the families of the victims of the crash received as much as 14 million dollars each. Bet they were the 14 million. Even a few million might buy a lot of silence, especially if you knew the murderers were still out there and willing to go to any length (the dad's case serves as an example) to keep the truth from coming out about certain things.
Continued in Part 14
Part 12
Snopes also states in their *debunking* that “There were no survivors” and that “A closer examination of Brown's skull by military officials revealed no bullet, no bone fragments, no metal fragments and, even more telling, no exit wound."
The statement that "there were no survivors" is false. There apparently were survivors. The government even admitted that. A confidential Commerce Department document was uncovered by Judicial Watch as a result of a Freedom Of Information Act request. That document, an official chronology of events prepared for Secretary of State Warren Christopher only days after the crash, included the following item 40 minutes after the wreckage was discovered: "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash." One of the two survivors was identified as Stewardess Sergeant Kelly, who died under somewhat suspicious circumstances as she was taken off the mountain from the crash site. Curiously, the government has never mentioned or identified in any public medium the second survivor and has refused to comment about the timeline statement.
The statement about there being "a closer examination of Brown's skull" is totally misleading too. It would lead someone, who knows nothing about the Brown case, to think that pathologists opened up his skull in an autopsy and took a look. But there was no autopsy. All Gormley had to support his *official* claim of "no bullet, no bone fragments, no metal fragments" is what he could observe from the outside of the head and via the x-rays. But as I’ve already noted, Gormley's description is completely at odds with what everyone else saw in the photos and x-rays, and in person. And as to the "telling" lack of an "exit wound", the truth is that Gormley didn't look for an exit wound. CPO Janoski has testified under oath that Brown's body was never examined or photographed with the intent of looking for an exit wound and Gormley has admitted that is true. So Snopes is lying.
A crash in Croatia (as opposed to the US or some more developed country) also made it possible to control access to the site (i.e., keep nosy journalists away), something that murderers would want. And that's what the State Department did … ordered camera crews and journalists away from the crash site. That's one of the things that Ira Sockowitz (who was implicated in Chinagate, by the way) handled. And what a coincidence that Ira was supposed to be on the ill-fated flight (he admitted this years later) … but just happened to *miss* it. Yet, he was able to get to the crash site in time to be their point man and keep the MSM away from the site … and report back to the Secretary Of State about "two" survivors.
And here’s one more suspicious fact that lends credence to this alternate scenario. Obviously, if the plane had voice and data recorders on it, as the regulations at the time required for any plane carrying cabinet officials (or the First Lady), they would have been problematic if this was a murder. And what do you know, the Croatian Ministry of Transportation announced shortly after reaching the crash site that the black boxes had been found. The US Air Force in Germany confirmed this. The Department of Commerce log states "Chief of Protocol Misetic called … The flight data recorder has been recovered." Then, a week later, the Air Force claimed the plane had no black boxes and that some boxes that looked exactly like recorders had been found instead. But what boxes on this plane (or any plane) look exactly like recorders? No one has ever produced a photo of these boxes that just looked like data recorders.
Continued in Part 13
Part 11
Since in this scenario one could not be certain the crash would kill Brown, the instigators of the crash would want to have someone reach the crash site before any rescue party and make sure he was dead. Remember, the murderers would know where the plane was coming down because they controlled the portable beacon. Well, what a coincidence. The search effort was misdirected initially out over the ocean instead of near the airport, so that it took hours and hours for rescuers to reach the crash site even though it was only a few miles from the airport.
Croatian authorities told the media that the plane's crash position indicater (CPI) did not work … but the Air Force report states it did. So who is lying? Could it be Jure Kapetanovic, assistant minister of Civil Aviation for Croatia, who told the airport manager that the CPI was emitting a signal from somewhere between Kolocep Island and the old part of Dubrovnik ... the area over the ocean to which the helicopters were directed instead of to the actual crash site?
The chief of the NATO air traffic control center cell in Zagreb, Rocky Swearengin, testified that the Croatians provided him the wrong coordinates for the crash site. He said when he tried to call Dubrovnik tower, Croatian officials would not talk to him. He said "The night of the accident, when we really needed [Croatian] assistance, they were very uncooperative; nothing could get done." It sure looks like they didn’t want the plane found quickly
Given the delay, there would have been plenty of time for a "clean up" crew, if you will, to get there first. And what a coincidence … the Associated Press initially reported that the first Croatian rescuers arrived and found several Americans already at the site (even though later official reports said the first US personnel didn't arrive until after the Croatians). Of course the leftist AP didn’t follow up on this inconsistency. No one did. How odd.
Continued in Part 12
Part 10
You say “The Dubrovnik Airport had a safety guy who was in charge of the airport’s navigation and air traffic control. … snip … Two days before his scheduled interview with the Air Force, he was found shot dead. This was just three days after Brown was killed.”
That’s all true as well. There was someone who was responsible for the navigation devices at the Dubrovnik Airport and that person died days after the crash before investigators could interview him. They said he committed suicide… shooting himself in the chest with a shotgun … due to a failed romance. But there might more to the story than just that.
To make a coverup successful, the authorities needed the cooperation of the mainstream media and *fact checkers*. For example, the leftist owned and run fact checking website Snopes debunks the allegation that Ron Brown was murdered here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-body-bags/.
Snopes uses this logic to dismiss the allegation … "Simply imagining a scenario under which Ron Brown could have been shot takes one into the realm of the absurd. Was he shot in the head during the flight, in full view of thirty-four other witnesses? (If so, how did they get off the plane?) Did the killers shoot him before the flight, then bundle his body into a seat (just like "Weekend at Bernie's") and hope nobody noticed the gaping hole in his head?"
But doesn’t Snopes have the cart before the horse? Most criminal investigations focus on determining if a murder has occurred before ruling it an "absurd" possibility? If expert pathologists were saying the wound might be a bullet wound in the victim's head, wouldn't the normal procedure be to perform an autopsy, regardless of how difficult one might think it would have been to shoot that victim and get away with it? If pathologists then confirmed it was a bullet wound, then it would be appropriate to ask how it was done. And investigators would not dismiss a scenario if the evidence supported it, no matter how "absurd" it might seem at the time. They’d go where the evidence takes them.
Snopes acts as if the only possible scenario is one where Brown is shot in front of 34 witnesses. But that isn't the only possible scenario. It's not absurd to believe that if the plane was made to crash (in an effort to kill Brown), then whoever was responsible would do the logical thing and make sure someone would be there at the crash site to verify his death … or deal with him (or other survivors) should they survive. In other words, Brown might have been shot in the head after the crash.
A credible scenario, given the evidence, is that the plane was spoofed into the mountain to provide a reasonable cover for Brown's death and perhaps cause that death. Aviation Week (a source of some authority back in the 90s) stated that the flight path of the plane was consistent with a portable beacon spoofing the plane into the mountain. Is it just coincidence that the government later admitted that a portable airport beacon went missing from the airport sometime before the crash? And what a coincidence that the person in charge of the airport's beacons died after the crash before investigators could interview him.
Continued in Part 11
Don't know the portable beacon story, very important! Thanks!
I did learn recently that in forensic investigations of a death scene (say the police find a dead body...) the investigation is to PRESUME foul play, i.e. murder, and use that as a starting point. As evidence is gathered and assessed, the evidence may rule out foul play. Only then would the investigators be allowed to consider accident, natural death, or suicide. In other words, it deviates from standard procedure to presume suicide and look (half-heartedly) for evidence of murder.
You presume foul play and act accordingly. Any investigation that presumes accident or suicide is wrong right out of the chute.
Part 9
Then there's the matter of the flight path. Snopes ignores a number of significant facts. Instead it simply regurgitates the official report which concluded the cause of the crash was "failure of command, aircrew error and an improperly designed instrument approach procedure." Well, the last communication between the plane and the airport was when the plane was still 12 kilometers from the airport … almost 8 miles. Why did they lose communication? Aviation Week stated they lost both radio and transponder contact at the same time. Why? This loss of communication was never explained by the Air Force. It was just ignored. Wouldn’t a loss of communication would be a major factor worthy of investigation? But they didn't.
The official Air Force report on the crash contained detailed data showing the plane's course based on AWACS airborne radar. The data showed that shortly after the loss of communication, when the plane was still miles from touching down at Dubrovnik, it suddenly changed course radically. It turned to the left almost 90 degrees then a few seconds later, made a turn back to the right. It then fixed on a course which it followed for over a minute, ending in a mountain, nearly two miles off course. When Major General Coolidge, the military officer in charge of the crash investigation, was asked about these sudden flight maneuvers at a press conference, all he had to say is that they were anomalies of no significance. Crashing into a mountain as a result is of no significance, The loss of communication is of no significance. Nonsense. A credible scenario is that something knocked out communication with the plane, then the plane was spoofed into the mountain to provide a reasonable cover for Brown's death. Aviation Week (a source of some authority in the aviation world back in the 90s) stated that the flight path of the plane was consistent with a portable beacon spoofing the plane into the mountain. Cutting the plane off from communication with the airport would have been critical to ensure it was spoofed into hitting the mountain. So what really happened on that plane to cause that? One thing for sure, it wasn’t extreme weather.
Continued in Part 10