Part 38:  Allegations Regarding Vince 
	   Foster, the NSA, and Banking 
		Transactions Spying

		by J. Orlin Grabbe

	     (continued from Part 37)

	What answers Jim Leach's House Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services received from the 
National Security Agency's (NSA's) Inspector General is 
not known, but apparently the NSA stonewalled the 
investigation.  On July 23, 1995, Gregory Wierzynski 
emailed me, asking "Do you have suggestions on how we 
could verify some of the elements in the Norman story? 
I've talked to Chuck in Kentucky and am still in touch 
with him. But his stories have not panned out, even 
partially. I would be most interested in your ideas."  I 
found this statement remarkable, and knew that 
Wierzynski was being deliberately obtuse.  Moreover, 
neither I--nor anyone else of my acquaintance--had told 
Wierzynski that I was talking to Chuck Hayes in Nancy, 
Kentucky.

	Jim Norman had first suggested that I call Hayes--
had even implied that Hayes wanted me to call--but 
initially I had been reluctant to do so.  There were enough 
people trying to get me off the Internet, and I was dubious 
of the motives of an ex-intelligence operative.  But when I 
finally did so, we spent a hour and twenty minutes on the 
phone in a wide-ranging conversation about money-
laundering.  I jumped around from topic to topic, bringing 
up numerous obscure connections between the 
intelligence community and banking.  In each case Hayes 
was right there with me, adding details to what we were 
discussing.  From time to time I would make deliberate 
mis-statements to see if Hayes would catch the 
discrepancies.  He did.  By the end of the conversation it 
did not matter to me whether Chuck Hayes was just a 
hillbilly Kentucky junk dealer or an ex-member of  CIA's 
division D.  His knowledge spoke for itself.  He had an 
intimate acquaintance with banking wire transfers, bank 
computer operations, and banking-intelligence 
connections, as well as detailed insights into current 
hidden money-laundering channels.

	Hayes was already familiar with my article *The 
End of Ordinary Money*.  He said he had gotten his copy 
from the CIA library. The CIA had apparently either 
downloaded it from the Internet, or perhaps had obtained 
it through Robert Steele.  Eric Bloodaxe, a.k.a. Chris 
Goggans, an ex-Legion of Doom member who edited a 
hacker publication called *Phrack*, had suggested I sent 
copies to Winn Schwartau of *Information Warfare* fame, 
and to Robert Steele, whose company Open Source 
Solutions, Inc., published a newsletter entitled *OSS 
Notices*, which advocated some radical changes to the 
process of intelligence collection.  Steele had reviewed 
them as follows:  "J. Orlin Grabbe has produced the first 
two in a series of three papers on digital cash, and I found 
them both educational and provocative. . . . He 
approaches the matter from a civil libertarian/civil 
disobedience perspective, and I find his perspective on the 
history of U.S. policy and technology, as well as the 
alternatives, well-worth review.  This is a thoughtful 
popular perspective on issues of electronic privacy which 
bears on both the protection of intellectual property and 
electronic civil defense" (*OSS Notices*, vol. 3, issue 5,  
May 31, 1995).                  

	Chuck and I had some differences, to be sure.  
Hayes was spending much of his time tracking drug-
money laundering through the U.S. financial system.  I 
looked at the War on Drugs from an economic 
perspective: supply restriction leading to vast profit 
margins, with concomitant political payoffs and political 
corruption, while in the meantime prisons were being 
over-crowded with casual drug users.  It was an exercise 
in insanity.  Nor was I a fan of the DEA, with its record of 
civil rights violations.  Hayes, by contrast, liked the DEA 
for their street smarts, which contrasted with the desk-
level bureaucrats he was somewhat contemptuous of at 
the CIA.  But Hayes was gunning for the people at the top 
of the drug-dealing and money-laundering pyramid, and 
this was fine with me.  There was a close association 
between those administering the War on Drugs, and those 
profiting from it.  In the case of money-laundering, it was 
even more blatant:  it was hard to differentiate the money 
launderers from those that administered the money-
laundering laws.  I did not approve of the money-
laundering laws themselves with their invasions of 
personal financial privacy. But on the other hand, hoisting 
government junkies on their own petard did not perturb 
me.  Over a period of time, Hayes and I developed an 
information-sharing arrangement.

	Hayes was at the moment following the financial 
flows through Arkansas financial institutions, as well as 
through Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh.  Also involved were 
New York banks, some members of the Chicago 
Mercantile Exchange, and at least one important official 
at the Federal Reserve. On the Arkansas front, Hayes was 
quite open in telling me he was going to nail Jim Guy 
Tucker to the wall, and over the following year I watched 
him do just that.  One might assume from such a 
statement that Hayes was a Republican, out to get 
Democrats.  But in fact Hayes' father had been a local 
Democrat party official, and Hayes had been a friend and 
admirer of John Kennedy.  Hayes was not political in that 
sense, any more than I was.  

	Some people have a strange habit of trying to 
interpret everything in political terms.  When I first spoke 
to Sarah McClendon, she asked me, "Why are people 
saying all these things about Clinton, and they aren't 
saying anything about George Bush?"  I refused to bite.  I 
told her I didn't give a shit about the difference between 
Republicans and Democrats--that this was about 
criminality, not about partisan politics.  Some people--
Republican or Democrat--are honest, and some are not.  
Sarah herself kept referring to the Clintons (Bill and Hill) 
as "virgins," which amused me to no end.  But my interest 
was not partisan, and never has been.

	In a contrary vein, Jack Blum, who recently joined 
Jim Leach's House Committee on Banking as an 
investigator (and who quickly recommended they drop 
their Mena investigation), told Marianne Gasior that I was 
a right-wing nut because of what I had written about Bill 
and Hillary Clinton.  Marianne said, "I don't think so," 
and read off my resume.  Blum's response:  "You're 
kidding."  Gasior was politically a liberal Democrat, and 
when she was pursuing a case against Kennametal, which 
had done business with Iraq during the Gulf War, she 
received some support from Democrat politicians, 
because the issue was embarrassing to Republican 
interests. *Time Magazine* did a write-up of her efforts ("A 
Matter of Honor," June 21, 1993). But when she began to 
ask questions about what Hillary Clinton was doing on 
the board of Lafarge Corporation, which was part of the 
same smuggling network, Democrat support for her 
research quickly evaporated (see "Whatever Happened to 
Iraqgate?", *The American Spectator*, November 1996.)  
To the average political hack, partisanship always takes 
precedence over the search for truth.

	In Wierzynski's case, while supposedly 
investigating money-laundering for the House Committee, 
he seemed to be actually serving other interests--perhaps 
the Pentagon's, perhaps someone else's.  Hayes had come 
up with financial records showing that fifty to seventy 
million dollars a day of drug-related money was being 
laundered through the institutions he was looking at.  
Wierzynski couldn't understand how such a thing was 
possible.  He wanted "proof" in a neat little package, say a 
memo entitled "Today's Money-Laundering Report".  He 
seemed to expect to ask a few questions, and then *voila!*--
the darkest secrets of American political life would be 
exposed. So it is not surprising that Wierzynski's 
investigation had gone nowhere before Jack Blum arrived 
to call the whole thing off.  Meanwhile, Wierzynski's son, 
in school in England, had been indicted for supplying 
information to a group of Russian hackers in St. 
Petersburg, who had pulled off a heist of Citibank funds.

	Both Wierzynski and Stephen Gannis, the Counsel 
for the House Committee on Banking and Finance, were in 
touch with a San Francisco attorney named Charles O. 
Morgan.  Systematics (now a subsidiary of Alltel) had 
hired Morgan to lie about its relationship to the NSA, and 
Morgan proceeded to do just that.  In an April 5, 1995, 
letter to Michael Geltner, an attorney for Agora, Inc., 
Morgan wrote:  "None of ALLTEL's operations or 
subsidiaries has ever had any connection in any capacity 
with the Central Intelligence Agency, the National 
Security Agency, or any other similar agency in the 
United States Government; . . ."  But recent documents 
obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by *The 
Washington Weekly* from NSA show that, for example, 
that "The Arkansas-based security contractor Systematics 
Inc. on September 14, 1990 was awarded a $166,000 NSA 
contract to build a 'Sensitive Compartmented Information 
Facility' (SCIF) in Ft. Gillem, Georgia" (*The Washington 
Weekly*, Nov. 11, 1996).  

	Morgan similarly denied any connection between 
Web Hubbell and Systematics, writing, "Webster Hubbell 
never served as an attorney or in any other capacity for 
ALLTEL Corporation, or for any of its operations or 
subsidiaries, other than a single instance in 1983, when 
Systematics, Inc., engaged Mr. Hubbell to pursue a 
competitor that was using Systematics, Inc.'s propriety 
software without authorization; . . ."  But it is a matter of 
public record that when in 1978 Jackson Stephens tried to 
take over First American bank (later acquired by BCCI), 
that the bank sued Systematics along with BCCI, Bert 
Lance, and Jackson Stephens.  Filing briefs for 
Systematics were Webster Hubbell, along with C.J. Giroir 
and Hillary Rodham Clinton.  (Hubbell subsequently went 
to the Justice Department, and then to jail, after receiving 
a $500,000 payment for unspecified legal services from 
Indonesia's Lippo Group.  C.J. Giroir left the Rose Law 
Firm and set up a consulting firm to arrange deals 
between the Lippo Group and Arkansas-based firms.  
Hillary Clinton recently declared her friendship for ex-
Lippo employee and Democrat fund-raiser John Huang, 
and was also indicted by grand juries in Little Rock and in 
New York in October 1996.  These indictments have not 
yet been made public.)

	But the non-pursuit of the drug-money laundering 
trail by the Leach Committee was not surprising.  It 
stepped on too many toes.  Hayes and I agreed that the 
U.S. was being rapidly transformed into a narco-republic.  
The drug cartels had penetrated the highest levels of the 
Justice Department and the FBI, elements of the 
intelligence community, and were additionally bribing a 
broad assortment of state and federal government 
employees and politicians.  Even more alarming, the 
cartels were now making inroads into the White House.  
And the Clinton administration, with lax security 
stemming largely from a variety of drug-related issues, 
along with a pre-existing legacy of political corruption in 
Arkansas, had created a free-for-all playground for 
foreign agents.  Everything was for sale, from trade policy 
to nuclear codes. Moreover, Bill Clinton (or perhaps those 
he surrounded himself with, while he partied on the side) 
was making rapid progress in turning the FBI and the 
Secret Service into a private political police force--a 
Gestapo whose duty was to investigate and harass (and 
even kill) his political opponents, and to cover up 
evidence of his own bad deeds.    

	Extraordinary times required extraordinary 
measures.  Enter the Fifth Column.

		(to be continued)

November 12, 1996
Web Page:  http://www.aci.net/kalliste/