Record­ed July 17, 2004
Lis­ten:
MP3 Side 1 | Side 2
RealAu­dio

The dif­fer­ence between the image of the GOP’s “fam­i­ly val­ues” pro­pa­gan­da and the real­i­ty as lived by GOP oper­a­tives is illus­trat­ed in this dis­cus­sion of the life, times, and off­spring of for­mer Rep­re­sen­ta­tive John G. Schmitz. An ultra-right winger from South­ern Cal­i­for­nia, Schmitz was too far to the right for the John Birch Soci­ety. His own “fam­i­ly val­ues” came to light when it turned out he had a sec­ond fam­i­ly by his Ger­man mis­tress and that a son by that union had been sex­u­al­ly muti­lat­ed. Schmitz’s daughter–Mary Kay Le Tourneau—bore two chil­dren by one of her thir­teen-year-old male stu­dents. Much of the pro­gram focus­es on the pres­ence of “things Ger­man” in the life and times of Schmitz and his son John P. Schmitz, rais­ing the ques­tion of the pos­si­ble rela­tion­ship of the Schmitzes to the Bor­mann group. Of more inter­est than the elder Schmitz is his son John P. Schmitz, a for­mer coun­sel to the elder George Bush and part­ner in a Ger­man inter­na­tion­al law firm that rep­re­sents many of the Ger­man core cor­po­ra­tions that com­prise the main ele­ment of the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: The elder Schmitz’s habit of giv­ing a Nazi salute; the elder Schmitz’s curi­ous asso­ci­a­tion with Yass­er Arafat (unusu­al for a Bircher); the younger Schmitz’s pres­ence in inves­ti­ga­tions involv­ing var­i­ous aspects of 9/11; the younger Schmitz’s involve­ment with both the Iran-Con­tra machi­na­tions and the Iraq­gate scan­dal; the younger Schmitz’s work for for­mer CDU trea­sur­er Matthias Wiss­man; the younger Schmitz’s pres­ence on the board of direc­tors of the Amer­i­can Coun­cil on Ger­many; the younger Schmitz’s work for Wilmer, Cut­ler & Pickering—one of D.C.‘s most pow­er­ful law firms; the younger Schmitz’s work on behalf of Bay­er AG, Ber­tels­mann, Deutsche Bank, Rober Bosch GmbH. Deutsche Welle (Ger­man TV).

1. Begin­ning with a sum­ma­ry of the life of the head of the Schmitz fam­i­ly, the pro­gram notes his reac­tionary mind­set and unusu­al per­son­al life. As the title of this arti­cle notes, Schmitz was so far to the right that he alien­at­ed the John Birch Soci­ety. ” . . . John G. Schmitz served in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives and ran for Pres­i­dent and the Sen­ate. He was the kind of pure reac­tionary who sur­faces occa­sion­al­ly on the nation­al stage and leaves the main­stream gasp­ing for breath. But at the height of the wel­fare state—the 1972 pres­i­den­tial election—he gar­nered a mil­lion votes. ‘I lost the pres­i­den­cy by a mere 44 mil­lion votes,’ he said in what was per­haps the least offen­sive joke he made in his entire life. . . .”
(“John Schmitz: Too Right Wing for John Birch, Beset by Scan­dal”; p. 1.)

2. As lis­ten­ers peruse this descrip­tion, note the trap­pings of Nazism and “Ger­ma­nia” in Schmitz’s life. One of the ques­tions to be answered in con­nec­tion with Schmitz is whether (as seems pos­si­ble) the Under­ground Reich made con­tact (and com­mon cause) with him. ” . . . Schmitz was elect­ed to the Cal­i­for­nia state sen­ate in 1964, in part on his rep­u­ta­tion as a hero. The remain­der was pure Orange Coun­ty John Birch Soci­ety reac­tionary con­ser­vatism. Schmitz found he had a great tal­ent for gar­ner­ing con­tro­ver­sy mere­ly by open­ing his mouth. He called the Watts riots a year lat­er ‘a com­mu­nist oper­a­tion.’ In 1968, he said Cal­i­for­nia Gov­er­nor Ronald Rea­gan was unsuit­able for Pres­i­dent because Rea­gan had aban­doned con­ser­v­a­tive prin­ci­ples. He said, ‘Jews are like every­body else, only more so.’ Schmitz was anti-immi­grant, anti-wom­en’s lib, anti-com­mu­nist, anti-black, anti-homo. He named his dog Kaiser and thought that giv­ing a Hitler salute was a good joke.” (Idem.)

3. “In June of 1970, still in the state Sen­ate, Schmitz won a spe­cial elec­tion to fill the seat left vacant by the reac­tionary Rep. James B. Utt [insert joke here] who had died in office. He won the reg­u­lar 1970 elec­tion as well, and moved his fam­i­ly to Wash­ing­ton. His tiny reac­tionary stone cre­at­ed bare­ly a rip­ple in the great pond of Con­gress. His pol­i­tics alien­at­ed even his most promi­nent con­stituent, Pres­i­dent Richard Nixon, of San Clemente, CA. When Nixon went to Chi­na, Schmitz quipped, ‘I have no objec­tion to Pres­i­dent Nixon going to Chi­na. I just object to his com­ing back.’ This did­n’t just sink him in the eyes of Nixon and the Repub­li­can par­ty; his own con­stituents aban­doned him, and Schmitz was not nom­i­nat­ed to run for the house seat in 1972.” (Idem.)

4. In 1972, Schmitz ran for Pres­i­dent on the Amer­i­can Inde­pen­dent Par­ty ticket—born of George Wal­lace’s runs at the White House. Note that the AIP was one of the cru­cibles that nur­tured the Free Con­gress Foun­da­tion, a major fount of ide­o­log­i­cal inspi­ra­tion for the Amer­i­can far right. (For more about the Free Con­gress Foun­da­tion, see—among oth­er pro­grams—FTR#465.) “His loss in the pri­ma­ry led Schmitz to seek the high­est office in the land on the Amer­i­can Inde­pen­dent Par­ty the same year. The par­ty was orig­i­nal­ly a vehi­cle for George Wal­lace’s sec­ond know-noth­ing assault on the two-par­ty sys­tem. But Wal­lace dropped out after an assas­s­in’s bul­let left him crip­pled. When Schmitz’s lack­lus­ter pres­i­den­tial bid gar­nered him only a mil­lion votes nation­wide, he not­ed that this was more votes than George Wash­ing­ton every received. Then he slunk back to lick his wounds and teach embit­tered civics lessons to cred­u­lous con­ser­v­a­tives-in-train­ing at San­ta Ana.” (Idem.)

5. “By 1978, he was back in the Cal­i­for­nia state sen­ate, mak­ing trou­ble and say­ing things so out­ra­geous that even the John Birch Soci­ety kicked him out. When Rea­gan was elect­ed pres­i­dent, Schmitz was will­ing to give him the ben­e­fit of the doubt: ‘A good mil­i­tary coup might be the best we could hope for if Pres­i­dent Rea­gan’s poli­cies are not suc­cess­ful. A lot of peo­ple can’t imag­ine any­thing like that hap­pen­ing in our coun­try. These same peo­ple could nev­er imag­ine them­selves stal­ing to stay alive.’ ” (Ibid.; p. 2.)

6. Note Schmitz’s dal­liance with Yass­er Arafat. Most right-wingers in this coun­try would have noth­ing to do with the PLO king­pin. Is it pos­si­ble that Schmitz’s anti-Semi­tism (pro-Nazi?) sen­ti­ments may have inclined him in this direc­tion? “In 1982, a com­mit­tee he chaired held hear­ings on abor­tion, after which his office issued a press release titled ‘Sen­a­tor Schmitz and his Com­mit­tee Sur­vive Attack of the Bulldykes.’ It described pro-choice sup­port­ers as ‘a sea of hard, Jew­ish and (arguably) female faces.’ Fem­i­nist Attor­ney Glo­ria Allred, a wife and moth­er who had tes­ti­fied at the hear­ings, sued for $10,000,000 for defama­tion. In set­tle­ment Schmitz was forced to pay $20,000 and issue a state­ment that read in part, ‘I apol­o­gize to Glo­ria Allred and to all oth­ers who may have been wrong­ly char­ac­ter­ized . . . I have nev­er con­sid­ered her to be . . . a slick, butch lawyer­ess.’ The same year he announced his can­di­da­cy for the US Sen­ate, he stood at a podi­um with Yass­er Arafat by his side. Sur­vey­ing the room of reporters, he snarled, ‘Hel­lo all you com­mies.’ ” (Idem.)

7. One of the strangest episodes in Schmitz’s saga con­cerns a sec­ond fam­i­ly he raised by his Ger­man (!) mis­tress. A young boy con­ceived in that rela­tion­ship appears to have been sex­u­al­ly muti­lat­ed. Mr. Emory mus­es about the pos­si­bil­i­ty that the strange cir­cum­stances of the boy’s tor­ment may have been part of some kind of mind con­trol pro­ce­dure. “But the man who saw con­spir­a­cies every­where, who was an equal oppor­tu­ni­ty big­ot, and who decried Amer­i­ca’s moral decrepi­tude, had, him­self, a skele­ton in the clos­et. It came to light in a curi­ous way. An Orange Coun­ty child abuse case in 1982 con­cerned a thir­teen-month-old infant who was dis­cov­ered with hair so tight­ly wound around his penis that the organ had near­ly been sev­ered. The baby was placed in pro­tec­tive cus­tody, and the court demand­ed that the father step for­ward. It turned out to be none oth­er than John G. Schmitz, now again a state sen­a­tor, pater­fa­mil­ias of five chil­dren and, er, two oth­ers with his Ger­man mis­tress, once his stu­dent at San­ta Ana. It marked the end of Schmitz’s polit­i­cal career (although he did attempt to run for Con­gress once more). The charges against the moth­er were even­tu­al­ly dropped and the infant restored to her care. But it was nev­er explained what was going on with the hair-wound penis. One his­to­ri­an has sug­gest­ed that it was a ‘mys­te­ri­ous sex—or prob­a­bly anti-sex rit­u­al . . . as if a chasti­ty device.’ Schmitz, feisty as ever, remarked, ‘I ought to get the Right to Life man-of-the-year award for this.’ ” (Idem.)

8. Yet anoth­er strange episode in the Schmitz fam­i­ly’s val­ues con­cerns Schmitz’s daugh­ter Mary Kay LeTourneau. Ms. LeTourneau con­ceived two chil­dren by a thir­teen-year-old stu­dent of hers. (She is a school teacher.) “In a scan­dal that broke years lat­er, Mary Kay le Tourneau, the noto­ri­ous Seat­tle school­teacher who bore two babies with a young teenage stu­dent, turned out to be Schmitz’s daugh­ter. Her boy lover, a Samoan, was said to be mature for his years; per­haps he had been read­ing that arch-lib­er­al Mar­garet Mead on his own cus­toms. ‘Can’t you under­stand that this is not a sto­ry about me,’ an unre­pen­tant LeTourneau told George mag­a­zine. ‘It’s a sto­ry of two remark­able men.’ Those would be her thir­teen-year-old stu­dent and her dom­i­neer­ing father, both of whom LeTourneau loved beyond rea­son. Schmitz researched the Samoan treaty to see if there was some­thing in it that could save her from prison. There was­n’t.” (Idem.)

9. “As the LeTourneau case played out in the nation­al media, the Schmitz house­hold was revealed to have been a chilly place, often under siege due to John’s lat­est atro­cious remark. Mary Kay and her broth­er would some­times play Ger­man march­ing music out the win­dow to drown out angry demon­stra­tors. Schmitz’s wife Mary was said by Mary Kay to be an unaf­fec­tion­ate moth­er who stressed per­son­al appear­ance, coun­sel­ing her daugh­ter to always wear lip­stick and even toe­nail pol­ish. Mary was a vocal ally of Phyl­lis Schlafly, and appeared on TV to denounce the ERA. She stuck with her man to the end.” (Idem.)

10. “After drop­ping out of pol­i­tics, Schmitz went back to indoc­tri­nat­ing the youth of Cal­i­for­nia and pret­ty much stayed out of sight except for a brief bid for Con­gress in 1984, in which he was defeat­ed by ‘B1’ Bob Dor­nan. When the LeTourneau scan­dal erupt­ed in 1994, he had retired from acad­e­mia and was dis­cov­ered work­ing at a sou­venir stand at Wash­ing­ton DC’s Union Sta­tion. He had pur­chased the home of his hero, McCarthy. ‘I don’t talk to reporters any more,’ were his unwit­ty and last record­ed words for a pub­lic hun­gry for the thoughts of a fall­en paragon.” (Idem.)

11. Anoth­er arti­cle about Schmitz and the Repub­li­cans’ hypocrisy over “fam­i­ly val­ues” dis­cuss­es for­mer House Speak­er Newt Gin­grich’s cyn­i­cal use of a dou­ble mur­der to defame Democ­rats. Gin­grich attrib­uted Susan Smith’s mur­der of two of her chil­dren to the decay of social val­ues engen­dered by the Democ­rats. “Over the past sev­er­al decades we Democ­rats have had to get used to repeat­ed accu­sa­tions that we are immoral and evil and respon­si­ble for every­thing bad in the world — - the Clin­ton impeach­ment was the cul­mi­na­tion of this. I think that it’s time to turn the guns around. Back in 1994, on the eve of a midterm elec­tion, House Speak­er Newt Gin­grich used the hor­ri­fy­ing case of Susan Smith, who had killed her two young chil­dren in hopes of being unit­ed with her lover, as evi­dence that the Democ­rats were ruin­ing the coun­try, say­ing: ‘How a moth­er can kill her two chil­dren, 14 months and 3 years, in hopes that her boyfriend would like her is just a sign of how sick the sys­tem is, and I think peo­ple want to change. The only way you get change is to vote Repub­li­can.’ ”
(“Repub­li­can Fam­i­ly Val­ues Sex Crim­i­nals” by “Ziz­ka”; p. 1.)

12. “Gin­grich’s charge that Smith’s mur­der of her chil­dren had some­thing to do with the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty was delud­ed and slan­der­ous from the start, and most thought that cap­i­tal­iz­ing polit­i­cal­ly on such a hor­ri­ble event was dis­gust­ing. This did not keep the media from pub­li­ciz­ing his claim, how­ev­er, and for all any­one knows Gin­grich’s smear tipped some votes the Repub­li­cans’ way. In any case, the elec­tion was a big vic­to­ry for Newt.” (Idem.)

13. As it turned out, the unfor­tu­nate Ms. Smith’s her­itage was Repub­li­can and Chris­t­ian fun­da­men­tal­ist. “Only after the elec­tion did the real facts come out. Susan Smith’s step­fa­ther, Bev­er­ly Rus­sell, was far from a Demo­c­rat: he was a fig­ure of some impor­tance in the South Car­oli­na Repub­li­can par­ty and in Pat Robert­son’s Chris­t­ian Coali­tion. This rev­e­la­tion alone inval­i­dat­ed Gin­grich’s ludi­crous argu­ment; but on top of this it turned out that Rus­sell had been molest­ing Smith for years, start­ing when Smith was in her mid­dle teens. Odd­ly enough, once the real­i­ty became known, the media most­ly dropped the sto­ry. Imag­i­nary and wild­ly false charges against Democ­rats are OK, but when actu­al facts show up impli­cat­ing Repub­li­cans, then it is time to show restraint and good taste and con­sid­er­a­tion for the fam­i­ly’s feel­ings. You can go fig­ure this one out for your­self. . . .” (Idem.)

14. Of more con­tem­po­rary sig­nif­i­cance is the career of Schmitz’s son, John P. Schmitz. The younger Schmitz has—as Mr. Emory says—more con­nec­tions than a switch­board. Among the younger Schmitz’s cred­its is his rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the elder George Bush dur­ing the Iran-Con­tra and Iraq­gate affairs. Note that he joined with Janet Rehn­quist (the daugh­ter of the Chief Jus­tice of the Supreme Court) in pro­tect­ing Bush. ” . . . There’s still anoth­er chap­ter to the sto­ry. John G. Schmitz’s son John P. Schmitz did not share his father’s dis­dain for George Bush, whom he served as Deputy Coun­sel from 1984 to 1993. He was involved in Iran-Con­tra as a deputy to C. Boy­den Gray (and as an asso­ciate of Janet Rehn­quist.) Schmitz was one of the few Iran-Con­tra play­ers to refuse to be inter­viewed by the inde­pen­dent coun­sel, and was high­ly instru­men­tal, as was Rehn­quist, in pro­tect­ing Bush. Bush was nev­er ques­tioned, and a diary he kept was nev­er exam­ined; Wal­sh’s final report read ‘The crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion of Bush was regret­tably incom­plete.’
(Chap­ter 28, sec­ond para­graph.).” (Ibid.; pp. 1–2.)

15. Schmitz’s oth­er clients place him in the “mix” of the var­i­ous 9/11 inves­ti­ga­tions and law­suits. In addi­tion, the younger Schmitz (a part­ner in a Ger­man inter­na­tion­al law firm) rep­re­sents many Ger­man corporations—more about that below. Among his cred­its is his pres­ence on the Amer­i­can Coun­cil on Ger­many, an orga­ni­za­tion whose her­itage is at one with the Amer­i­cans who reha­bil­i­tat­ed Third Reich alum­ni to serve in the Fed­er­al Repub­lic of Ger­many (as well as for U.S. intel­li­gence.) “Since then, John P. Schmitz has popped up every once in awhile. He seems to have had deal­ings with Iraq before the Gulf War, and with his present law firm has worked for Enron, Bay­er (pro­duc­er of Cipro), and Unit­ed Air­lines (9/11 law­suit); his firm also has a Cen­tral Asian office in Tashkent. Schmitz, along with many men of high repute, is a mem­ber of the boards of direc­tors of the Amer­i­can Coun­cil on Ger­many and the Atlantic Coun­cil of the US. . . .” (Ibid.; p. 2.)

16. The Amer­i­can Coun­cil on Ger­many was found­ed by John J. McCloy and Eric M. War­burg. McCloy was one of the prime movers of the Amer­i­can pow­er elite in the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry and War­burg a part of the promi­nent War­burg inter­na­tion­al bank­ing fam­i­ly. Note that among the offi­cers are Hen­ry Kissinger and a pro­tégé of Kissinger’s—Richard Burt. Kissinger also was deeply involved in the machi­na­tions involved in bring­ing Third Reich alum­ni into the U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment. “The Amer­i­can Coun­cil on Ger­many (ACG) is a pri­vate, non­prof­it, nation­al orga­ni­za­tion that was incor­po­rat­ed in New York City in 1952. Its found­ing lead­ers were: John J. McCloy; Eric M. War­burg . . . [Offi­cers include] Richard Burt . . . Among the board of direc­tors are: Hen­ry A. Kissinger; Brent Scow­croft.”
(“Amer­i­can Coun­cil on Ger­many”; SourceWatch.org.)

17. Next, the broad­cast details some of the con­flicts of inter­est in which Schmitz’s employ­er is involved—conflicts of inter­est involv­ing the 9/11 inves­ti­ga­tions, in par­tic­u­lar. “We were shocked to observe how tough and some­what per­sis­tent Richard Ben Veniste was dur­ing his oppor­tu­ni­ties for ques­tion­ing. This is the same Richard Ben Veniste, a for­mer Water­gate pros­e­cu­tor, who is a part­ner in the Ger­man inter­na­tion­al law firm, May­er, Brown, Rowe and Maw which hap­pens to be the lead firm rep­re­sent­ing Unit­ed Air­lines against 9/11 vic­tim fam­i­lies in the New York City lit­i­ga­tion in Judge Alvin K. Heller­stein’s Dis­trict Court in Man­hat­tan. [Empha­sis added.] This famous lawyer even rep­re­sent­ed the most rec­og­nized Amer­i­can drug deal­er in the his­to­ry of the Unit­ed States: Bar­ry Seal of Mena, Arkansas fame. But inter­est­ing­ly, Ben Veniste won our award as the most tena­cious inter­roga­tor on both days, even though the lines of ques­tion­ing were not con­sis­tent­ly intense or press­ing on a con­tin­u­al basis.”
(“Con­flict of Inter­est?” by Tom Floc­co; p. 1; ParaPolitics.info.)

18. “Curi­ous­ly, no one has ques­tioned whether May­er-Brown’s part­ners would have ‘water-cool­er and whis­per-access’ to all the sub­poe­naed dis­cov­ery requests and infor­ma­tion flow regard­ing both the Kean Com­mis­sion hear­ings and depositions—public and pri­vate, but also Judge Heller­stein’s New York City lit­i­ga­tion. But that’s not the half of it. For the May­er-Brown law firm has anoth­er part­ner named John P. Schmitz, who was the twelve-year deputy coun­sel to George H.W. Bush dur­ing his vice-pres­i­den­cy and presidency—thus afford­ing the White House a behind-the-scenes source for infor­ma­tion flow, dis­cov­ery, sub­poe­nas, and evi­dence-access regard­ing both the Com­mis­sion and the New York lit­i­ga­tion. [Empha­sis added.]” (Idem.)

19. As not­ed in FTR#305, the major Ger­man cor­po­ra­tions are under the stew­ard­ship of the Bor­mann group. It is interesting—and pos­si­bly significant—that Schmitz has come to rep­re­sent so many of them—Bayer, Deutsche Bank, Robert Bosch GmbH, Ber­tels­mann and oth­ers. (For more about Ber­tels­mann, see the For The Record series about Ger­man cor­po­rate con­trol over Amer­i­can pub­lish­ing. For more about Bay­er and the Anthrax attacks, see FTRs 411, 419.) Again, one won­ders if the ultra-reac­tionary views of his father and his fam­i­ly’s dis­play of “Ger­ma­nia” may have placed the younger Schmitz in the orbit of the Bor­mann group and the Under­ground Reich. As not­ed above, Schmitz rep­re­sent­ed the elder George Bush and the Bush fam­i­ly is deeply involved with the Under­ground Reich. “Addi­tion­al­ly, May­er-Brown also has clients that include Bay­er AG (Ger­man mak­er of the antibi­ot­ic Cipro which fights Anthrax, about which Lar­ry Klay­man and Judi­cial Watch (JW) will have keen inter­est. [Empha­sis added.] JW has filed suit seek­ing the Admin­is­tra­tion’s anthrax doc­u­ments to ascer­tain why the White House start­ing tak­ing heavy dos­es of Cipro on the day of the attacks—nearly a month before anthrax was even dis­cov­ered on Capi­tol Hill, and while postal work­ers con­tin­ued to sort mail in con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed offices—some dying in the process.” (Idem.)

20. “John Schmitz’s May­er-Brown pro­file also reveals Enron, adding that ‘we were active in Ger­many [with Enron] until the end. . . .It [bank­rupt­cy] sur­prised me as well as any­one else,’ accord­ing to Reuters (1–4‑2002). [Empha­sis added.] More­over, May­er-Brown also rep­re­sents Deutsche Bank on a reg­u­lar basis regard­ing its elec­tron­ic com­merce activ­i­ties; and curi­ous­ly, Schmitz’s law firm main­tains an office Tashkent, Uzbek­istan, along with Enron—if only to make sure oil is well in the Caspi­an Sea basin. And Deutsche Bank is knee-deep in pre‑9/11 insid­er trad­ing stock prof­its. Enough said. . . .” (Idem.)

21. Schmitz’s cur­ricu­lum vitae reveals more details about his pro­fes­sion­al his­to­ry: “EXPERIENCE: . . . lead­ing U.S. and Ger­man polit­i­cal reg­u­la­to­ry spe­cial­ist; rep­re­sents U.S. and Euro­pean com­pa­nies on com­plex inter­na­tion­al trans­ac­tions and reg­u­la­to­ry mat­ters; clients include . . . Deutsche Welle (Ger­man TV) . . . Bay­er AG, Ber­tels­mann, Bosch GmbH . . . glob­al trade and reg­u­la­to­ry con­sult­ing on behalf of U.S. ener­gy clients in Ger­many; played a lead­ing role in inter­na­tion­al agree­ments such as the 1996 U.S.-German Open Skies Avi­a­tion Agree­ment, and the 1997 U.S.-EU Heavy elec­tri­cal Equip­ment Pro­cure­ment dis­pute and agree­ment (result­ing in the reform of the Ger­man Pro­cure­ment Code).”
(Cur­ricu­lum Vitae of John P. Schmitz, partner—Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP.)

22. Among the inter­est­ing points of infor­ma­tion in Schmitz’s cur­ricu­lum vitae is the fact that he worked both for Wilmer, Cut­ler & Pick­er­ing and for Matthias Wiss­man. The lat­ter was the trea­sur­er for the Ger­man CDU dur­ing the time when the machi­na­tions that were to result in the CDU fund­ing scan­dal were being put into effect. Wiss­man lat­er went to work for Wilmer, Cut­ler & Pick­er­ing, which was lob­by­ing (suc­cess­ful­ly) to per­mit Deutsche Tele­com to buy an Amer­i­can media out­let. “EMPLOYMENT: . . . Deputy Coun­sel to Pres­i­dent George Bush, the White House, Wash­ing­ton D.C., 1989–1993; Deputy Coun­sel to Vice Pres­i­dent, The White House, Wash­ing­ton, D.C., 1985–1989; Wilmer Cut­ler & Pick­er­ing, Wash­ing­ton, D.C. 1984–85; Robert Bosch Foun­da­tion Fel­low­ship, Office of Bun­destag Mem­ber Matthias Wiss­mann, Bonn, and Office of Gen­er­al Coun­sel, Robert Bosch, GmbH, Stuttgart, Ger­many; Law Clerk to the Hon­or­able Antonin Scalia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Dis­trict of Colum­bia, Wash­ing­ton, D.C. 1983–1984 . . .” (Idem.)

23. As an under­grad­u­ate, he received a fel­low­ship named for Lev Dobri­an­sky, a Ukrain­ian immi­grant deeply involved with the Nazi émi­gré milieu that fig­ures in so much of the research on this web­site. “EDUCATION: . . . George­town Uni­ver­si­ty, B.A. magna cum laude, 1976 . . . Dobri­an­sky Fel­low­ship.” (Ibid.; p. 2.)